By Sani Sa’idu Baba

In recent years, Nigeria has witnessed a troubling narrative gain traction in public discourse: the so-called “fulanisation of criminality.” This term refers to the growing tendency to associate criminal activities, especially rural banditry, kidnapping, and violence, with the Fulani ethnic group. While the rise in insecurity across the country is undeniable, the framing of these crises through an ethnic lens has far-reaching consequences socially, politically, and culturally.

I intend to discuss this matter vis-a-vis the origins, implications, and dangers of the fulanisation narrative, while also highlighting the complex and nuanced realities that defy simplistic ethnic profiling.

In order to discuss this topic fairly and justly, the historical and social context of Fulani identity is worth taking into account at this point.
The Fulani are a diverse and widely dispersed ethnic group found across West Africa. In Nigeria, they are traditionally pastoralists, known for cattle herding and seasonal migration. Over time, many Fulanis have also settled in towns and cities, engaging in commerce, education, and politics and these originated the inter-marietal relationship that exists between the Fulanis and other ethnic groups especially the Hausa and also Yoruba (mostly from Kwara state).

Despite this existing relationship however, tensions between the Fulani settlers and farmers particularly in North-Central and southern Nigeria have escalated in recent decades due to land pressure, climate change, and poor leadership. These disputes, often over land and grazing routes, have sometimes turned violent, and some of these confrontations have involved Fulani individuals or groups. This has contributed to the growing perception that Fulani people are inherently violent or predisposed to criminality, a perception that is mythical in its entirety.

It seems the situation has assumed a paradigm shift from insecurity to ethnic stereotyping.

I never doubted the fact that Nigeria’s security landscape has deteriorated significantly, with a surge in banditry, kidnapping, terrorism, and communal clashes, we must accept the reality that terrorism isn’t a monopoly of any tribe, region, religion or ethnic group. While various criminal groups operate across different regions, like the Boko Haram in the Northeast, IPOB in the Southeast, and cultism in the South-South, the association of Fulani herders with banditry in the North-West and North-Central has led to a blanket stereotype.

This stereotype has been amplified by social media, political rhetoric, and even some mainstream media outlets, creating a narrative that criminality is synonymous with Fulani identity. Terms like “Fulani herdsmen” have become shorthand for violent actors, despite the fact that most Fulani people are peaceful and law-abiding citizens. My humble self is a classical example. Fulani blood runs in my arteries and veins but I can confidently say that I am not a criminal. The same thing with many of our present leaders today. A significant number of president Tinubu’s ministers and other appointees are Fulanis, likewise many serving governors especially in the Northern states. And their Fulani identity doesn’t make them criminals.

Moreover, the fulanisation narrative has also been weaponized for political purposes. Accusations that the government, particularly under former President Muhammadu Buhari (who is himself a Fulani), was soft on Fulani-related crimes fed into suspicions of ethnic favoritism. This perception fueled ethnic nationalism, deepened mistrust, and created a toxic political climate.

The framing of national insecurity as an ethnically driven agenda has dangerous implications. It undermines national unity, delegitimizes state institutions, and can incite retaliatory violence. It also distracts from the real drivers of crime: poverty, weak governance, corruption, unemployment, and the proliferation of arms.

Therefore, labeling an entire ethnic group as criminal creates fertile ground for discrimination, mob justice, and even genocide. There have been reports of Fulani communities being attacked or displaced based on mere suspicion. Such acts not only violate human rights but also fuel cycles of revenge and further destabilization.

Moreover, ethnic profiling hinders effective security solutions. When law enforcement targets or overlooks individuals based on their ethnic identity rather than evidence, the real criminals escape justice, and innocent lives are destroyed.

Toward a more nuanced and just approach to addressing insecurity in Nigeria, there must be a rejection of simplistic and dangerous ethnic narratives. The government must:

(1) Strengthen law enforcement and intelligence services to tackle crime without bias.

(2) Invest in rural development and conflict resolution, particularly in areas plagued by herder-farmer clashes. Although people like Sheikh Ahmad Gumi might not be well understood by many Nigerians, his effort in mediating peace restoration especially in the North-West region must be acknowledged and complemented.

(3) Promote inter-ethnic dialogue and reconciliation through education, media, civic engagement, which could easily be achieved through the establishment of tolerance and unity promotion commission of Nigeria (TUPCON).

(4) A regulatory agency must also be established to oversee the activities of young media influencers, bloggers and online media houses to especially verify the truth or otherwise of information before promotion especially if it involves security issues. Spreading hate speech and unverified claims must be controlled. However, I am not in support of the Sultan of Sokoto ‘s view that social media is a terrorist organisation, No!

In closing, the fulanisation of criminality is a dangerous distortion of a complex reality. While certain criminal groups may include Fulani individuals, it is unjust and counterproductive to indict an entire ethnic group. Nigeria’s strength lies in its diversity, and only by addressing security challenges with fairness and objectivity can the nation begin to heal and rebuild trust across its many communities.

Ethnic scapegoating is not a solution, it is a symptom of deeper systemic issues that require urgent and inclusive attention.
I hope Nigerian and Nigerian leaders will pause and rethink…

Baba can be reached via ssbaba.pys@buk.edu.ng

By Dr. Sani S. Baba

In a world where African stories were too often filtered through the lenses of poverty, conflict, and underdevelopment, one man dared to reframe the narrative. That man is Chief Dele Momodu, and his creation Ovation International Magazine became the bold lens through which Africa’s glamour, success, and brilliance could finally be seen, appreciated, and celebrated. How Momodu’s vision transformed Africa’s narrative, created opportunities in the last three decades and is still in conformity with the ever changing world remains a subject to be studied.

Founded 29 years ago in April, 1996, during Momodu’s political exile in the United Kingdom, Ovation International was born out of a simple but radical idea: Africa deserves to be seen in full color. While most Western publications chose to spotlight despair, Momodu’s mission was to showcase excellence from fashion, business, entertainment, and politics, to philanthropy and innovation. In other words, the child of circumstance as some call it, Ovation has proved that Africa is not synonymous with bad news.

Moreover, in changing the African narrative, Momodu’s vision was bigger than just glossy pages. He aimed to create a cultural revolution. Ovation became the red carpet for African stars long before global media paid attention to the continent. The magazine gave African personalities celebrities, presidents, royalty, entrepreneurs a platform to tell their own stories, in their own voice.

Through dazzling photo spreads and exclusive interviews, Ovation didn’t just report the news; it celebrated achievements, redefining what it meant to be African in a globalized world. From Accra, Ghana to Abuja, Lagos to London, Liberia, Kenya, Sierra Leone, South Africa, etc, the magazine quickly became a status symbol a staple at high profile events and elite homes.

Further more, as a pan-African vision with global impact, what set Ovation apart was its immense love for Africa, making it an African identity with international reach. Chief Dele Momodu didn’t restrict the magazine’s lens to Nigeria alone. He traveled extensively, covering events in Ghana, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Cote dIvoire, and far beyond. Ovation became the de facto platform for the African diaspora, connecting the continent to its global community in Europe, the U.S., and the Caribbean.

In terms of job creation, Ovation International Magazine has done wonders. Beyond the pages, Ovation has been a powerful engine for employment. As one of the few African-owned international lifestyle magazines, it created jobs across sectors journalism, photography, videography, fashion, makeup, event planning, printing, and logistics. Emerging talents were given a springboard to launch their careers, while professionals found a platform that respected and valued their craft.
In the early 2000s, when media digitization was still young in Africa, Ovation began pioneering multimedia storytelling, hiring tech-savvy youth for video editing, social media marketing, and digital design effectively nurturing a new generation of African media professionals.

Today, Ovation International is more than a magazine, but a legacy, a movement, and a symbol of African excellence. Chief Dele Momodu, with his relentless belief in the continent’s potential, has proven that African stories, when told with pride and power, can reshape perceptions and influence generations.
By putting African success stories on the global stage and backing them with real opportunities, Momodu didn’t just build a media empire, but a mirror in which Africa could see its true, radiant reflection.

In an age of fleeting digital fame, Ovation remains timeless because it didn’t chase trends, it made an indelible history.

Long live Ovation International Magazine, and happy 65th birthday to its founder, Chief Dele Momodu, the pride of Africa.

Dr. Sani S. Baba writes from Kano

By Magnus Onyibe

A peek into Canadian, Mexican, Chinese, European, Japanese, and Korean media platforms reveals palpable angst, driven by strong expressions of nationalistic passion against the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and his administration. Citizens of these countries are expressing indignation due to the ongoing trade war—especially regarding the 10% across-the-board tariff on imports from 180 countries and, in some cases, additional tariffs of up to 54% on imported vehicles and other goods into the US from around 60 nations.

The tariffs took effect on April 2, a date President Trump has dubbed Liberation Day—drawing a parallel to July 4, 1776, when the original 13 American colonies declared independence from Britain after a brutal war.

In line with America’s foundational respect for freedom of speech and association, it’s remarkable—and indeed ironic—that, unlike other nations whose media are responding with patriotic fervor, the American media have not rallied behind their president. Instead of pushing back against foreign hostility, the highly vibrant US media have joined the global chorus in criticizing President Trump’s “America First” policies. In some quarters, they are even vilifying or outright demonizing their own president.

Such is the potency of free speech in the United States—a feature perhaps best captured by the concept of American Exceptionalism.

Despite a tumbling stock market and widespread protests fueled by fears of inflation and an impending recession—as predicted by anti-Trump politicians—President Trump appears unperturbed by the tumultuous effects his tariff policies are having on US trading partners. In fact, he has threatened to raise tariffs even further if Canada and European countries attempt to collude against the US. Although this has yet to happen, China—arguably the hardest hit—has retaliated with a 34% tariff on US imports.

In my view, these developments are reshaping the global trade ecosystem. As countries seek alternative trade partners to avoid the constraints of trading with the US on Trump’s terms, they may carve out entirely new trade pathways. Thus, the net effect of President Trump’s sweeping tariff hikes—targeting both allies and rivals—can be likened to the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory, the leading explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe, posits that the universe began as an infinitely hot and dense singularity about 13 billion years ago. According to its proponents, this singularity expanded rapidly, cooling and giving rise to subatomic particles, atoms, stars, and galaxies. The universe, they say, is still expanding—accelerated by the mysterious force known as dark energy.

President Trump’s “bang” can be seen through a similar lens: an explosive policy shift—rooted in an unconventional America First ideology—that has disrupted all previous global trade arrangements. Like a singularity, his approach is transforming the established order, replacing it with an untested but highly consequential framework. Though unproven in the modern era, it already appears to be generating seismic changes across the global economy.

Trump is leveraging tariffs as a strategy to boost job creation and repatriate manufacturing to the US. He also views them as a tool to generate revenue to reduce the national budget deficit, which stands at a staggering $36 trillion and continues to grow.

Given the global upheaval triggered by this astronomical tariff increase, it is difficult to find a better metaphor for Trump’s trade policy than the Big Bang. The ripple effects are so powerful that fear has gripped not only North and South American neighbors, but also Europeans, Asians, Arabs, and Africans—on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The only country that might remain untouched or unaffected by the far-reaching Trump effect is one operating in complete autarky—such as the reclusive regime of Kim Jong Un in North Korea.

While the Big Bang theory provides a comprehensive explanation for the origins of the universe, many unanswered questions remain—such as what caused the universe to begin expanding in the first place, and what is the true nature of dark matter and dark energy.
Similarly, what explains President Trump’s determination to upend the old world order remains an enigma to his opponents. At this point, not even his staunchest devotees can convincingly argue that his motives are purely patriotic, driven by the Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideology with the primary aim of correcting trade imbalances and closing the deficit gap that has led to a massive budget shortfall.

Of course, as is typical in opposition politics, Trump’s high tariffs and efforts to reduce the size of the US government—driven by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE) under the leadership of Elon Musk, the world’s richest man—are being framed as a gambit to cut taxes for billionaires. That narrative seems to have resonated, as Americans have taken to the streets in protest, in ways that suggest resistance to what former President Joe Biden described as an “oligarchic regime,” citing the number of billionaires in Trump’s cabinet.

The reality, however, is that Trump’s “bang” is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It affects different countries and regions in different ways.

Starting with Africa, where aid is critically needed to manage persistent social and public health challenges like HIV/AIDS, the suspension of USAID funding by President Trump is deeply concerning. USAID has been a vital source of funding for health and humanitarian initiatives, and its absence poses a significant threat. This is especially so because many African leaders have practically abdicated their responsibilities in this area, relying heavily on donor countries—led by the US—to provide for their citizens.

With USAID funding now cut off, many African countries are left scrambling to fill the gap. In Nigeria, the government has made an extra-budgetary provision of $200 million for healthcare services, while the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has injected almost $200 million into the foreign exchange (FX) market to help cushion the volatility and uncertainty resulting from the tariff hikes.

In Europe, the 25% tariff imposed on vehicles and alcoholic beverages—particularly from France and Scotland—poses a massive economic challenge. Many European economies are either already in recession or teetering on the brink. Even more alarming is the US threat to withdraw from its heavy financial commitment to NATO, coupled with demands that member nations pay up their dues. This creates a sense of vulnerability, especially as fears rise that Vladimir Putin may turn his attention to another European country after Ukraine.

From my perspective, the European Union’s support for Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine is less about altruism and more about self-interest—the first rule of nature. This is evidenced by the show of unity by European leaders around Zelensky after he was snubbed at the White House by President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. This strategic interest is also why Europe is now planning to set up a joint European military force as an alternative to NATO—an initiative already underway. But given the current economic strain on European economies, is the formation of a standing European force feaseable?

Regarding the high tariffs, Europe appears to have adopted a measured response, likely in line with the counsel of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Hence it seems to have adopted a studied approach.

The Arab world is also not left out. President Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra means that the US will reduce its dependence on oil imports from countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman. Instead of preserving strategic oil reserves, the US will now focus on domestic drilling. Trump’s rationale appears to be that if fossil fuels are eventually being phased out due to the rise of Electric Vehicles (EVs), then it makes sense to exploit the existing oil reserves before combustion-engine vehicles become obsolete.

In any case, Trump has never embraced climate change in the way it is currently framed. The world is alarmed that he has once again pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, after former President Biden had rejoined during his administration. With oil prices crashing due to the tariff shock, an OPEC strategy meeting may soon be on the horizon.

China, currently celebrated as the world’s foremost manufacturing hub and the second-largest economy, has borne the brunt of Trump’s trade war. The 54% tariff imposed on goods ranging from vehicles to washing machines has essentially locked China out of the US market. These items were previously taxed at 10–25%, but after Trump’s April 2 Rose Garden announcement, the tariff soared to 54%. In response, China has imposed a 34% tariff on US exports. That has excerbated the chaos already wracking the global economy in the past couple of days.

The rationale behind these tariffs, according to Trump, is to bring manufacturing back to the US from Mexico, Canada, China, and Europe, where it had migrated due to what he deems as unfair trade practices. His strategy is designed to reverse this trend.

By understanding how President Trump’s influence is shaping events across Western, Asian, Middle Eastern (Arab), and African regions, we can better grasp the phenomenon—The Trump Effect—that I am likening to the Big Bang. Hopefully, this will encourage a more balanced perspective and lead to negotiations rather than a tit-for-tat trade war.

One irrefutable fact is that Trump is rewriting the global trade rulebook, and he is doing so by squelching globalization—a phenomenon that began between the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Placing this into historical context, the Silk Road and the Industrial Revolution—which began in Great Britain following the invention of the steam engine and the mechanical loom—kickstarted global trade by enabling mass production for markets beyond local demand.

In the modern era, global trade received a significant boost from the establishment of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971, in Davos, Switzerland. Since then, global trade has been guided by the Davos Manifesto, which champions ethical entrepreneurship, responsible governance, and the neutral ideals of Swiss diplomacy—underpinning the spirit of globalization. A formal charter for this vision was adopted in 1973 and renewed in 2020.

History shows that global trade thrives when protected—and falters when it is not. For instance, trade in silk and spices between China and Rome during the first century BC flourished when protected by powerful empires. Once those empires declined, so did the trade routes and their prosperity.

Now, as President Trump—the leader of the current global hegemon—takes a protectionist stance, it is consistent with his past. He has long used tariffs as a tool for economic leverage. Even back in 1988, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Trump,then a real estate mogul criticized China for what he saw as exploitation of the US economy.

Trump is not alone in this. A resurfaced video from 1996 shows Nancy Pelosi, then a Congresswoman from California, opposing a bill that would give China a special trade status. She argued against tariff exemptions for Chinese products—effectively advocating for the same policy Trump now champions.

In summary, the use of tariffs as a strategic tool in global trade has bipartisan roots in the US. What has changed is the scale and audacity of the Trump administration’s approach, which has sent shockwaves across the global economic landscape—earning it the moniker of a Big Bang moment in trade history.

So, Trump is literally echoing Pelosi’s sentiments with his current introduction of high tariffs. The only difference is that the tariff hike is not limited to China but has been extended to roughly 180 countries, with an estimated 60 nations significantly affected.

Even more interestingly, reports suggest that as recently as 2019, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was also on record proposing the use of tariffs as a defense against unfair trade practices—an argument now forming the basis of Trump’s ongoing global tariff war, which has placed the world on edge.

Experts familiar with the history and current application of tariffs reveal that about $400 billion worth of U.S. products were tariffed during Trump’s first term. In his current second term, projections suggest that up to $1 trillion worth of goods may fall under U.S. trade tariffs.

According to estimates by economists, approximately $3.3 billion worth of imports arrive in the U.S. annually.

President Trump is convinced that his high-tariff regime will generate more wealth for the United States through increased domestic production, which would, in turn, boost employment for working-class Americans. Another key objective is to create fairness in trade between the U.S. and its trading partners, whom Trump has accused of benefiting unfairly at America’s expense.

Ultimately, President Trump aims to use the proceeds from these high tariffs to help close the $36 trillion budget deficit currently facing the world’s largest and most powerful economy.

In light of this, Mr. Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser, believes that high tariffs have the potential to generate over $6 trillion for the U.S. in the short term.

In all of this, my main concern and interest ly in how Africa can benefit from the reimagining of the global socioeconomic ecosystem, as President Trump upends the old world order.

With a 14% tariff now imposed by the U.S. on Nigerian goods and 10% across most of the 54 nations continent , Nigeria’s exports to the U.S.—valued at between $5–$6 billion (with oil and gas making up over 90% and non-oil/gas exports accounting for less than 10%)—are under threat.

Even among non-oil/gas exports, the bulk comprises raw materials such as urea/fertilizer, ammonia, flower plants, and cashew nuts, which make up about 8%.

It is disappointing that value-added or processed exports from Nigeria to the U.S. are so minuscule—just 2%.

Despite this low figure, the imposition of a 14% tariff on Nigerian goods—despite the trade balance favoring the U.S.—should serve as a wake-up call for Nigeria, and indeed all of Africa, to begin adding value to their exports. If non-oil exports, facing a 10% tariff, are to be competitive in the U.S. market, they must move up the value chain.

The dominance of raw materials in Nigeria’s exports reflects the country’s continuing role as a supplier of raw materials to the industrialized nations of Europe, North America, and Asia. Among the six continents, only South America and the Arab world have yet to fully exploit Africa as a raw material source and dumping ground for finished products. So, for too long Africa has remained the weeping child as it has held the wrong end of the stick and it must make strategic and intentional efforts to change the negative narrative.
What the Trump tariffs spells in my mind is deglobalization as economic trade and investments between countries go on decline. But the global tariff war is also an opportunity for the continent to reposition herself on the global stage by taking a collective stance on how African countries can trade amongst themselves who to trade with in global south or west and even Asia based on her terms not the Berlin, Germany type of framework and agreement when she was not at the table when her resources were being shared as war spoils amongst Europeans who transformed from African slave traders into colonialists exploiting the resources of the continent.

Although, stocks have been crashing worldwide since the hike in tariffs by Trump it may be recalled that stock prices also rose sharply upon the innauguration of Trump on 20th January and has fallen therafter. Similarly, the stocks that have tanked globally in the past few days may rise again once clarity is achieved. With barely 100 days into his four (4) years tenure those projecting that President Trump and the Republican party may be punished by the electorate during mid -term elections that comes up 100 days shy of two (2) years, may be too hasty in their judgement.

That is because in politics a lot could still happen in the lifespan of Trump’s administration which is still 100 days shy of the 730 days(two years ) tenure to change course if the reciprocal high tariffs imposition on trading partners does not pan out well with high inflation wrecking the economy or unemployement rising astronomically to the point that US economy stagnates or goes into recession as being predicted by those against Trump’s unorthodox policies.

In the event that the unique approach defies the logic of economists, Trump may turnout to be the a hero of the new world order.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy aadvocate, 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.