Opinion

The Oracle: History and Its Unforgettable Events and Personalities That Shaped Them (Pt 10)

Published

4 years ago

May 28, 2021

Eric

By Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

Last week, our discourse into the Kanem-Bornu Empire, was extensively into the origin of Kanem; the rise of Kanems and the disintegration of Kanem. In all of these, the Kanem-Bornu Empire was known to the Arabian geographers as the Kanem Empire, from the 8th Century AD onward and lasted as the independent kingdom of Bornu (the Bornu Empire) until 1900. The Kanem Empire was located in the present countries of Chad, Nigeria and Libya. Today, we shall continue our x-ray on same. Thereafter, take on another Empire, Fante, in the central coastal region of Ghana.

THE KANEM–BORNU EMPIRE (Continues)

THE JIHAD AND THE DECLINE

Around that time, Fulani people, invading from the west, were able to make major inroads into Bornu during the Fulani War. By the early 19th century, Kanem-Bornu was clearly an Empire in decline, and in 1808, Fulani warriors conquered Ngazargamu. Usman dan Fodio led the Fulani thrust and proclaimed a jihad (holy war) on the irreligious Muslims of the area. His campaign eventually affected Kanem-Bornu and inspired a trend toward Islamic orthodoxy.

AL-KANEMI

Muhammad al-Amin al-Kanemi contested the Fulani advance. Kanem was a Muslim scholar and non-Sayfawa warlord who had put together an alliance of Shuwa Arabs, Kanembu, and other semi-nomadic peoples. He eventually built in 1814 a capital at Kukawa (in present-day Nigeria). Sayfawamais remained titular monarchs until 1846. In that year, the last mai, in league with the Ouaddai Empire, precipitated a civil war, resulting in the death of Mai Ibrahim, the last mai. It was at that point that Kanemi’s son, Umar, became Shehu, thus ending one of the longest dynastic reigns in international history. By then, Hausaland in the west, was lost to the Sokoto Caliphate, while the East and North were lost to the Wadai Empire.

Although the dynasty ended, the kingdom of Kanem-Bornu survived. Umar eschewed the title mai for the simpler designation Shehu (from the Arabic shaykh), could not match his father’s vitality, and gradually allowed the kingdom to be ruled by Advisers (Wazirs). Bornu began a further decline as a result of administrative disorganization, regional particularism, and attacks by the militant Ouaddai Empire to the east. The decline continued under Umar’s sons. In 1893, Rabih az-Zubayr led an invading army from Eastern Sudan and conquered Bornu. Following his expulsion shortly thereafter, the state was absorbed by the new Northern Nigeria Protectorate, in the sphere of the British Empire, and eventually became part of the independent state of Nigeria. From the arrival of the British, a remnant of the old kingdom was (and still is) allowed to continue to exist in subjection to the various Governments of the country as the Borno Emirate.

THE FRENCH AND GERMAN’S SCRAMBLE

Rabih’s invasion meant the death of Shehu Ashimi, Shehu Kyari and Shehu Sanda Wuduroma between 1893 and 1894. The British recognized Rahib as the ‘Sultan of Borno’, until the French killed Rabih on 22^nd April 1900 during the Battle of Kousséri. The French then occupied Dikwa, Rabih’s capital, in April 1902, after the British had occupied Borno in March. Yet, based on their 1893 treaty, most of Borno remained under British control, while the Germans occupied Eastern Borno, including Dikwa, as ‘Deutsch Bornu’. The French did name Abubakar, the Shehu of Dikwa Emirate, until the British convinced him to be the Shehu of the Borno Emirate. The French then named his brother, Sanda, Shehu of Dikwa. Shehu Garbai formed a new capital, Yerwa, on 9^th Jan. 1907. After WWI, Deutsch Bornu became the British Northern Cameroons. Upon Sheha Abubakar’s death in 1922, Sanda Kura became Shehu of Borno. Then upon his death in 1937, his cousin, Shehu of Dikwa, Sanda Kyarimi, became Shehu of Borno. As Vincent Hiribarren points out, “By becoming Shehu of the whole of Borno, Sanda Kyarimi reunited under his personal rule a territory which had been divided since 1902. For 35 years, two Shehus had co-existed.” In 1961, the Northern Cameroons voted to join Nigeria, effectively joining the frontiers of the kingdom of Bornu.

HISTORY OF THE FANTE EMPIRE

The Fante lived around Cape Coast and Elmina in the Central Coastal Region of Ghana. They are one of the Akan peoples “Fante” referred to “The half that left”. They initially settled in the Mankessim (Wikipedia). They are believed to have migrated from Techiman (or Tekyiman) in the present day Northwestern Asante region in the 17^th century, before they joined the Fante confederacy. In Italian, “Fanti” means infantryman or foot soldier. The Fanei speak a Twi language, which is part of the Kwa group, and number about 1,170,000. Inheritance and succession to public office are determined mostly by matrilineal descent.

ORIGIN

According to their oral traditions, the Fante arrived in their present habitat from the north by the 17th Century. They served as middlemen in the commerce between the interior and British and Dutch traders on the coast. In the early 18th century, the Fante formed a confederation, primarily as a means of protection against Ashanti incursions from the interior. Several Fante-Ashanti wars followed. The Fante were aided by the British, who, however, destroyed the strong Fante confederation established between 1868 and 1872, believing it a threat to their hegemony on the coast. In 1874, a joint Fante-British army defeated the Ashanti, and in the same year the Fante became part of the British Gold Coast colony.

The word ‘Asafo’ is derived from ‘sa’ (meaning war) and ‘fo’ (meaning people). Warrior groups are active throughout the Akan area, but it is the Fante tribe which inhabits the coastal region of Ghana, that has developed a sophisticated and expressive community with a social and political organization based on martial principles, and elaborate traditions of visual art.

THE POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION

The situation throughout the Fante region was always fraught with political complexities, for there were twenty-four traditional states along an eighty mile stretch of the Atlantic coast, and each state was independently ruled by a paramount chief or ‘omanhen’, supported by elders and a hierarchy of divisional, town and village chiefs. In any one state there may be from two to fourteen Asafo companies, with as many as seven active companies in a single town. There is a lack of political unity within the Fante culture as a whole, so that inter-company rivalries – as well as disagreements between the states – are, not surprisingly, endemic. When the Fante were not fighting together against a common enemy, these antagonisms often extended to open conflict among them. Observers report that battles between Asafo companies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries left many dead and wounded.

By exploiting these divisions, the Europeans could `divide and rule’ and ensure that their control of the coast went unchallenged. At the same time, by organizing the Asafo warriors into efficient military units, they could bring together an army for a quick reaction to any threat from the interior. The enemy was, more often than not, the powerful Ashanti kingdom, a traditional opponent of the Fante, and a dangerous and unpredictable supplier of gold and slaves to the European traders on the coast. The primary function of the Asafo, as we have seen, was defence of the state, nevertheless, the companies were key players in a balance-of- power struggle – typical of the many that exist in communities the world over – between the military and civilian groups within government. Although the Asafo were subordinate to their chiefs and paramount chief, they were intimately involved in the selection of the chief and were responsible for his crowning or ‘enstoolment’. As long as the chief had the support of the people – as represented by the Asafo – he had the authority accorded to him by tradition; the prerogative to appoint and remove Chiefs remained with the people. Asafo elders also served as advisers to the chief.

While Fante chieftaincy was aristocratic and matrilineal – the chief tracing his descent through females back to the founders of the community – the Asafo are patrilineal and democratic, every child, male or female, automatically entered his father’s company, and membership was open to all classes, from stool holders to fishermen.

The installation of a new Asafo captain was the principal motivation for the creation of a flag. It was the responsibility of the incumbent to commission and pay for the ensign, which then became the collective property of his company. The choice of design was his, albeit partly limited to mimicking the examples established by precedent to be the artistic property of the company. The personalizing of flags in memory of the commissioning officer is now a common occurrence.

The display of Asafo flags was associated with the social activities of the company and the town as a whole. For the town the major event of the year is the Akwambo (path-clearing) festival. This was a time of unity, of renewing allegiances and friendships and of the homecoming of family members especially for the celebrations. Paths were cleared to shrines of the gods, often by the river, and as this is a large-scale event, it was the time of the presentation of new Asafo leaders, such as supi or asafohen. Bearing their flags, the Asafo companies’ paraded through the streets, to the river, to the town shrines and past the houses of the chiefs to demonstrate their allegiances.

At these festivals the companies of a town proudly and aggressively defended the right to parade specific and exclusive colours, cloth patterns, emblems and motifs on their art forms. The violation by mimickry of a company’s artistic property established by precedent and since 1859 by local law, was seen as an act of open aggression. The flags were also shown at other Asafo events, including the funeral of a company member and the commissioning of a new or remodeled shrine, or on an important anniversary of its original construction. Town, regional and national events, such as the enstoolment of chiefs, the annual Yam Festival and state holidays, were all celebrated with a show of Asafo flags.

At these social events the flags were displayed in a variety of ways. The flagpoles of the posubans, the shrines of each company, proudly carried the flags aloft and the houses of Asafo members adjacent to the shrine, as well as the shrine itself, were decked with strings of colourful colonial and Ghanaian ensigns, Flags were carried in processions and, most dynamically, there was a spectacular display of elaborate dancing with the flag by specially trained Asafo officers, the ‘frankakitsanyi’.”

In 1853, Cruickshank noted that each company had a distinctive flag; for a company member, ‘the honour of his flag is the first consideration’. He also commented that some flags were specifically designed as challenges or insults to rival companies.

These visual insults and provocations often resulted in fatal inter- company clashes. An image of one company catching their enemies in a dragnet brandished by one company at a festival in July, 1991, nearly caused a riot! Earlier incidents such as these led to the strict control of flag imagery. At Cape Coast, beginning in the 1860s, all companies were ordered to submit their flags to the Colonial Governor for his approval and to register the approved designs and colours with his secretary. The display of unregistered flags was punishable by law. Even today a new flag must be approved by the paramount chief, the general of the combined companies. The Asafo elders then paraded before all the other companies in the area to make sure that no one is offended.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“There are no extraordinary men… just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.” (William Halsey).

Opinion

AKPoti-AKPabio Saga: Standing Justice on Its Head

Published

4 days ago

March 11, 2025

Eric

By Ayo Oyoze Baje

“There are several court rulings, including that of the Court of Appeal, each of which deems it illegal to suspend an elected member of the legislature. The recent suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti – Uduaghan is therefore, the height of legislative recklessness” – Femi Falana SAN

When and where might – is – right, as amply demonstrated by the recent outrageous and illegal suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the Red Chamber – without salary or allowances – it does not only question the authority on which the lawmakers stand to carry out their statutory functions but ridicules the manner of democracy we practise here in Nigeria. And if the wrong done is not righted within the shortest possible time, it goes further to de-brand our so called democratic structure that places overt power of the jungle mantra of might – is – right on the elected representatives of the people above the wishes of the led majority. That indeed, is both an aberration and a legislative anomaly, triggered by the senator’s suspension, hence the outrage it has so far evolved. But let us first take an objective analysis of the drama that led to the development.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan ‘s suspension took place after she submitted a petition alleging being sexually harassed by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio. After dismissing her petition on procedural ground the Ethics Committee, as led by Neda Imasuen ( Labour Party, Edo South) recommended her suspension for six months claiming that she brought ”

public opprobrium” to the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly. Though some members wanted the suspension reduced to three months, 14 members of the Committee stood by their decision, insisting that Natasha did not attend the investigative hearing to defend herself. In fact, they went further to ask her to tender an apology to the same Senate President Akpabio she has accused of sexual harassment, for her outburst during the plenary session!

Expectedly, the steamy situation has sparked off some flaming questions with regards to the rule of law under such circumstances. For instance, is it not her inalienable right to reject the sitting arrangement, which was surreptitiously meant to relegate her to the legislative shadows? Good enough, the answer is not far -fetched. According to Natasha’s legal counsel, Victor Giwa the Nigerian constitution of 1999, (as amended) supersedes the Senate’s Standing Orders. Specifically, Section 6, Sub-Section (6) of that constitution grants every citizen the right to seek redress in court when their civil rights are violated. Incidentally, she has done so, with her knowledge of the law.

The next question has to do with the best of ways to handle a delicate matter such as this. Should the matter not have been made open by placing it before an independent panel, to investigate and make recommendations in the interest of justice? That is, instead of slamming Natasha for having the gut, the temerity and audacity to express her complaints at the Senate chamber? According to Giwa the suspension of his client is definitely a brazen attempt to silence her. But unfortunately, for those behind it all it has only emboldened her to seek for justice going through the right process. In Giwa’s words: “The Committee disobeyed a valid court order that was served on them, making a mockery of the chamber that is supposed to uphold the law”. That should serve as food-for-thought for the masterminds behind the illegal suspension of the senator.

That perhaps, aptly explains why the Nigeria Bar Association ( NBA) has slammed the Senate by not giving her, the complainant to present her sexual harassment claim against Akpabio. That reminds us of the odious ” off the mic ” scenario that has played out each time an issue of public interest is being denied an objective investigation. The lawmakers, especially those who are bent on attempting to paper over cracks, or give a person a bad name to hang him or her must be reminded that there is a court order restraining the Senate from taking an action on the matter, pending the determination of of s motion on notice. The mishandling of the matter at hand by the senators is what has emboldened Natasha’s lawyer, Giwa to declare her suspension as ” null and void”. Yet, he is not the only person to outrightly condemn the illegality that has evolved so far.

The world acclaimed Women Rights activist, Hadiza Ado described Natasha’s suspension as amounting to a “,sad day for Nigerian women”. On its part the Socio–Economic Rights and Accountability Project ( SERAP ) has described it as “patently unlawful”and a clear violation of her right to freedom of speech. The organization has therefore, called on the Senate President Akpabio to reinstate her without further delay or face their legal action against such oddity. Similarly, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP to which Natasha belongs has described as her suspension as am attempt by the Senate ” to cover up an issue”. That is according to the National Publicity Secretary, Debbo Ologunagba.So, what really could it be?

It would be recalled that on February 28, 2025 right on ARISE television, Natasha made a bold allegation of sexual harassment against the Senate President Akpabio.While some concerned Nigerians wondered why she went as far as that point of publicity, others knowing fully well about her background as an Ihima- born lady brought up with high moral standards would not kowtow to, be cowed by anyone, or acquiesce to the weird and wild emotional inclinations of a man for whatever reasons.

So, as the AKPoti -AKPabio saga rolls out, the lesson to learn is for people to always strike the delicate balance between the Motive and the Method of our utterances and actions. And of course, the brand we want to be recognized and stand for in our chequered journeys on Planet Earth. Of great significance also is the piece of admonition by Natasha’s legal counsel, Giwa, that: ” The Senate must abide by international best practices” all because the world is watching us.

Opinion

The Trump-Vance Approach to Zelensky and the Emergence of a New World Order

Published

7 days ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

By Magnus Onyibe

During his visit to the White House on Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a tough reception from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Their handling of him demonstrated their firm approach to diplomacy, signaling a shift in global power dynamics.

As the saying goes, a beggar has no choice—their hand is always beneath that of the giver, not above it. This principle was clearly reinforced when President Trump made it explicit that Ukraine had little say in negotiations regarding the resolution of the ongoing three-year war with Russia. Initial discussions had already taken place in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine or European nations at the table. Instead, the negotiations involved Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Russia.

In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:

“It feels like the U.S. is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war. Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment.”

Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer voiced concerns over Trump and Vance’s strategy of excluding Europe from the discussions:

“Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue, least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that they have suffered, after everything they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine must have a long-term, secure future.”

However, the reality is that Zelensky is in no position to dictate terms. This was emphasized when Vice President Vance rebuked him during the Oval Office meeting:

“Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

Trump had long accused Zelensky of being a shrewd negotiator who, during Biden’s presidency, would visit Washington and leave with massive financial aid. Determined to change this dynamic, Trump made it clear that such a practice would not continue under his administration. Summarizing the meeting, he stated:

“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”

Trump went further, saying:

“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

By securing a deal that would grant the U.S. control over some of Ukraine’s rare earth resources as repayment for previous military aid, Trump demonstrated his negotiation skills. This approach mirrors historical precedents, such as Kuwait compensating the U.S. with oil after being liberated from Iraq in 1990 and Europe repaying America for the post-World War II Marshall Plan by allowing the formation of NATO under U.S. leadership.

The war itself stems from Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which Russia perceived as a threat, prompting the invasion. Biden’s administration rallied U.S. allies to support Ukraine, possibly influenced by Biden’s personal connections—especially considering that Zelensky previously shielded Biden’s son, Hunter, from scrutiny over alleged financial misconduct in Ukraine. This decision may have played a role in Biden’s election victory in 2020, sparing him political damage from Trump’s opposition research.

However, Zelensky’s alignment with one side of U.S. politics carried risks. Hunter Biden’s business dealings eventually came under investigation, leading to his conviction, though his father pardoned him before leaving office. Some speculate that Biden’s support for Ukraine was a way of repaying Zelensky, providing him with financial and military backing against Russia.

This led Ukraine into a protracted war, with devastating consequences. Europe, drawn into the conflict through NATO, has suffered economic strain due to sanctions on Russian energy, with Germany experiencing economic downturns and the UK entering a recession. Africa has also been affected, as food shortages have worsened due to disruptions in wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia.

Had former President Barack Obama acted in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, this war might have been avoided. However, Obama, who prioritized ending wars rather than starting them, resisted calls for military action, despite pressure from figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time, later led Ukraine into a war that his former boss had deliberately avoided.

With around 400,000 Ukrainians killed or wounded and much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, the war has proven catastrophic. As Trump attempts to broker peace, it remains uncertain whether Zelensky will adapt to the new realities of U.S. foreign policy. Unlike the previous administration, Trump and Vance do not view Ukraine as a victim but as a country that must make concessions to secure peace.

Trump has already played a key role in de-escalating the Gaza conflict, and a similar approach could be applied to Ukraine. However, for this to happen, Zelensky must recognize that the geopolitical landscape has shifted and that the U.S. will no longer provide unconditional support. If Ukraine truly seeks peace, its leadership must engage with the new administration on its own terms.

The cold reception President Trump gave to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was evident when he labeled him a dictator and accused him of starting the war—though he later jokingly retracted the statement, expressing disbelief that he had said it. This exchange took place in response to reporters’ questions on the matter.

Trump’s firm stance signaled a shift from past U.S. support, and Zelensky might have adjusted his approach accordingly, handling the new White House administration with more caution. However, he chose a more assertive approach and was met with strong pushback from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The two leaders discarded diplomatic formalities and sternly reprimanded Zelensky for what they perceived as arrogance regarding global security and an attempt to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities—something they were unwilling to tolerate.

Through their bold policies, which are reshaping international relations, Trump and Vance are clearly dismantling the old world order and crafting a new one. This is evident in Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on U.S. trading partners, a move that is redefining alliances worldwide. Simultaneously, he is pushing for a swift resolution to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine—wars he insists would never have started under his leadership. Despite domestic political challenges, Trump has vowed to bring these conflicts to an end.

For the sake of a more comprehensive global peace effort, it would be worthwhile for Trump to extend his focus to ending conflicts in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These regions hold vast reserves of critical resources—Congo with its cobalt and Sudan with its oil—both vital for sustaining global energy production and technological advancement.

Even before formally taking office, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric influenced global events. His warning that chaos would erupt if Hamas refused to negotiate a ceasefire prompted a temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A pattern of strategic pressure appears to be emerging. After Trump excluded Europe from negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, French President Emmanuel Macron, a longtime acquaintance of Trump, was among the first European leaders to visit him in Washington, seeking clarity on France’s position in the shifting geopolitical landscape. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer soon followed, with Zelensky arriving thereafter.

Notably, Scholz maintained Germany’s trademark direct and pragmatic approach during his White House visit. Macron, having built a rapport with Trump during his previous presidency, engaged in lighthearted banter, reflecting the French leader’s personable style. Starmer, adhering to Britain’s tradition of diplomatic finesse, presented Trump with a letter from King Charles III, inviting him for a state visit—an overture that reportedly charmed the U.S. president. This diplomatic strategy was reminiscent of how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had won Trump over with personal letters, following initial hostilities.

Unlike these European leaders, who carefully navigated discussions with Trump, Zelensky adopted a confrontational tone, attempting to lecture Trump on why defending Ukraine was also in America’s best interest. He argued that, despite the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from Europe, Russia still posed a threat. However, Trump and Vance found this stance presumptuous and swiftly dismissed his arguments, reminding him that he was in no position to dictate U.S. security policy.

Zelensky’s misstep revealed his lack of diplomatic finesse, likely stemming from his inexperience—having transitioned directly from a comedian satirizing politicians to a wartime president. His extensive international support, largely driven by Western sympathy for Ukraine as the underdog in its struggle against Russia, may have inflated his sense of importance, leading him to expect universal backing. But Trump was not swayed by this sentiment.

The flurry of European leaders visiting Washington underscores Trump’s influence as a dominant global figure. While critics often overlook it, Trump’s approach is rooted in pragmatism and his commitment to his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda. His numerous executive orders are designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and give it an edge over competitors.

A key aspect of Trump’s legacy-building efforts is tackling the U.S. budget deficit, which currently stands at approximately $36 trillion. He is also seeking to reverse trade imbalances with major partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. One of his unconventional strategies to generate revenue is the significant increase in the EB-5 visa investment threshold—from $1 million to $5 million—offering a direct pathway to U.S. residency for high-net-worth individuals willing to invest in the country.

Similarly, his tariff hikes are aimed at shifting trade dynamics in America’s favor. These strategies are already causing ripples globally, sending shockwaves across markets and international relations. While some argue that Trump’s ambitious goal of attracting 10 million investors through the $5 million EB-5 visa is unrealistic—citing the UK’s modest intake of 1,000 applicants for its similar program—others believe the U.S. will draw significant interest, particularly from wealthy individuals in China, Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and even Britain.

For many affluent foreigners, the opportunity to secure U.S. residency through the “Golden Green Card” is worth the steep price tag. With Trump’s administration pursuing aggressive economic and geopolitical strategies, the global landscape is rapidly evolving—whether the world is ready for it or not.

A provision in the U.S. Constitution, which the new administration attempted to nullify through an executive order, was subsequently suspended by a court ruling.

Many may be surprised to learn that people worldwide already pay amounts equivalent to or even exceeding $5 million to participate in the U.S. citizenship-by-investment program. This is similar to how, in Nigeria, bureaucratic hurdles and corruption sometimes force citizens to pay up to four times the official cost to obtain an international passport. Likewise, visa application fees for certain countries are often inflated by syndicates, as seen in recent allegations against South African High Commission officials accused of visa racketeering.

The current $5 million fee is significantly higher than the original cost when the EB-5 visa program was introduced in 1990. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Congress initially established the EB-5 Program to stimulate the economy through job creation and foreign investment. In 1992, lawmakers expanded the initiative by creating the Immigrant Investor Program, or Regional Center Program, allowing investors to fund projects tied to designated regional centers that promote economic growth. While the program initially required a $1 million investment, this amount increased to $1.8 million in 1992 and has now been raised to $5 million under President Trump in 2025.

Critics who accuse Trump of being overly transactional for increasing the cost of the EB-5 visa may be unaware—or deliberately ignoring—the fact that he is not the first president to revise its pricing.

Following his tense meeting at the White House, Zelensky has shifted his tone, seemingly acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory approach. On Saturday, he issued a statement of appreciation, saying, “America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that.” He also emphasized the need for open dialogue, stating, “Despite the tough discussions, we remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”

At its core, Zelensky’s visit aimed to secure U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. His skepticism toward any agreement with Moscow is understandable, given that Russia previously invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexing Crimea during President Obama’s tenure. Zelensky does not trust Putin, especially since Russia violated the 2015 peace agreement with Ukraine.

However, his confrontational approach—marked by emotional appeals rather than pragmatic diplomacy—worked against him. As a result, he left the White House empty-handed, failing to secure his key objectives, including a potential deal to trade rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. military protection.

Zelensky has since sought solace among European leaders, but this offers little real security. Even those comforting him recognize their own vulnerabilities, as they, too, rely on U.S. military support. Despite Europe’s show of solidarity with Ukraine during a recent meeting in London on March 2—where they agreed to form a coalition—it remains clear that Europe cannot effectively defend itself without the United States. This reality, which became evident after World War II and led to NATO’s formation under U.S. leadership, remains unchanged.

Recognizing this, European leaders—including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Italy—have prioritized maintaining strong ties with the U.S., frequently traveling across the Atlantic to engage with President Trump, despite the turbulent state of their current relationship.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to end both the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, possibly through unconventional means. In a phone conversation with Putin, he reportedly expressed no opposition to Europe deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine—a concept that closely resembles Ukraine’s original desire to join NATO, which sparked Russia’s invasion in the first place.

Strangely, this significant development has received little attention, with European leaders instead opting to continue funding Ukraine’s war efforts. The UK, for instance, approved a $2.8 billion loan to Ukraine just last Sunday, despite the reality that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive military victory, no matter how determined it remains.

Ultimately, the U.S. remains central to resolving these major conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion about achieving lasting peace in regions where wars have left millions dead or struggling with extreme hunger.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

Opinion

On the Suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan: A Grave Injustice and a Desperate Smear Campaign

Published

7 days ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

By Senator Ojudu Babafemi

The decision of the Nigerian Senate to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for raising allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is deeply troubling and unjustifiable. While I take no position on the veracity of her claim, the fundamental principle of fairness demands that Akpabio should not have presided over a case in which he was personally implicated. It was his duty to step aside and allow his deputy to handle the matter impartially. By failing to do so, he compromised the integrity of the Senate and reinforced the perception of institutional bias against women who dare to speak up.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not one to be dismissed lightly. I had the opportunity to interact with her in an official capacity while serving in the presidency, and I can attest that she is a woman of immense strength, intelligence, and purpose. She is not frivolous, nor is she someone who can be easily intimidated. Her journey in Kogi State has been marked by monumental struggles and persecution, yet she has remained unwavering in her commitment to her people. Her grassroots connection is undeniable, and her dedication to uplifting her constituency is evident in her relentless advocacy.

Beyond the unjust suspension, what is even more disgraceful is the rash of hired protesters in both Abuja and Akwa Ibom, clearly orchestrated to malign her. These so-called protests are glaringly artificial, a poorly executed charade that insults the intelligence of Nigerians. It is evident to the world that these are not spontaneous expressions of public sentiment but paid theatrics aimed at discrediting a strong woman who refuses to be silenced. The fact that such desperate measures are being deployed only signals that someone has something to hide. This playbook is cheap, nauseating, and frankly, an embarrassment to any society that claims to uphold democratic values.

But history has shown that truth and justice always prevail. This suspension is nothing more than a temporary setback. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan will emerge from this even stronger, her resilience further cementing her place as a formidable politician and conscientious public servant. Meanwhile, those orchestrating this smear campaign will find their names recorded in the book of infamy—a stark reminder of those who stood on the wrong side of history.

Nigeria deserves a legislative chamber where justice is not only done but seen to be done. The Senate must correct this grave injustice and ensure that no lawmaker, especially a woman, faces persecution for speaking out.