The horrific suffocation of George Floyd, by the knee of Officer Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis, has not only shocked and enraged the world it has once again brought the surface the degree of hatred, prejudice and wickedness inspired by race that still exist in the hearts of some human beings.
Thursday
Flashback: Black lives matter; All lives matter
The horrific suffocation of George Floyd, by the knee of Officer Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis, has not only shocked and enraged the world it has once again brought the surface the degree of hatred, prejudice and wickedness inspired by race that still exist in the hearts of some human beings.
Wednesday
Putin warns West it is leading the world towards a potential nuclear confrontation
CC™ Headline News
President Vladimir Putin has warned of a “real” risk of nuclear war if the West escalates the conflict in Ukraine, offering a defiant and emboldened stance in his annual speech to Russians.
Speaking in Moscow, Putin said his soldiers were advancing in Ukraine and warned the West of “tragic consequences” for any country that dared to send troops to Kyiv.
They have announced the possibility of sending Western military contingents to Ukraine. The consequences for possible interventionists will be much more tragic,” he said in his address to the nation.
“They should eventually realise that we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory. Everything that the West comes up with creates the real threat of a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and thus the destruction of civilisation,” said Putin.
His comments appeared to be a response to French President Emmanuel Macron’s refusal earlier this week to rule out sending troops to Ukraine — a stance that drew swift rejection from other leaders in Europe.
Nevertheless, the debate has struck a nerve in Moscow, which has long seen its conflict with Ukraine as part of a wider “hybrid war” being waged against it by NATO.
Western leaders have repeatedly criticised Putin for what they see as his reckless use of nuclear rhetoric.
After pulling Russia out of arms control treaties with the United States and previously warning he was “not bluffing” when he said he was ready to use nuclear weapons, Putin had appeared in recent months to dial down his nuclear threats.
But the fresh warning comes with the Kremlin buoyed by recent gains on the battlefield in Ukraine, but also an economy that has largely defied sanctions and ahead of an election certain to extend Putin’s term in the Kremlin until 2030.
- Russian forces ‘advancing’ -
The current state of affairs marks a sharp reversal in fortunes for Moscow over the last 12 months.
Last year at this time, Russian troops were reeling from Ukrainian counteroffensives that pushed them back in northeastern and southern Ukraine.
But after a Ukrainian campaign in the summer of 2023 failed to bring similar results, Kyiv is back on the defensive.
The initially strong Western support for Ukraine also appears to be fraying, with a $60-billion US aid package stalled in Congress.
Outgunning Ukrainian forces on the battlefield, Putin’s troops seized the eastern stronghold of Avdiivka and are attempting to build on their advances.
Putin on Thursday pointed to recent successes.
“The combat capacity of our armed forces has increased many times over,” he said.
“They are advancing confidently in a number of areas,” he added, without providing details.
Flanked by Russian tricolour flags and standing alone on stage at the Gostiny Dvor Palace near Moscow’s Red Square, the Russian leader reeled off his country’s arsenal of advanced weapons, including the Zircon and Kinzhal supersonic missiles.
But he slammed reports Russia was preparing to deploy a nuclear weapon in space as a “ploy” by Washington to draw Moscow into arms control talks “on their terms”.
- Election campaign -
Putin also touted Russia’s strong economic performance at home and outlined a number of small-scale domestic reforms as part of his pitch to Russians ahead of next month’s presidential election.
His speech was broadcast not only on state television but also on large digital screens and free of charge in cinemas across the country.
On the economic front, he said Russia was faring better than many expected.
Massive investment in military production, as well as high salaries and benefits for soldiers, has largely shielded the economy from the worst consequences of Western sanctions.
There is little doubt on the outcome of the March 15-17 vote, with all genuine opposition candidates barred from standing and the Kremlin’s most vocal critic Alexei Navalny now dead.
But Putin has still been campaigning, traveling around the country and making numerous media appearances since the start of the year, including recently flying a Russian bomber.
The 71-year-old former KGB officer, in power since the final day of 1999, is the longest serving Russian leader since Joseph Stalin — a record he is set to pass during his next six-year term.
Even before Putin ordered forces into Ukraine in February 2022, he had increasingly portrayed himself as a defender of Russian values against a decadent, liberal and expansionist West.
He has used the military campaign to escalate a crackdown on domestic opponents, with hundreds prosecuted for criticising the Kremlin and its military offensive.
The speech came on the eve of a planned funeral for Putin’s top opponent Navalny, who died in prison on 16 February in unclear circumstances.
Putin, who famously never referred to the opposition leader by name, has remained silent on Navalny’s shock death that prompted outrage at home and abroad.
AFP
Tuesday
A TREACHEROUS GIFT AND POWER OF MANIPULATION
CC™ NewsPost
"Saintly and well-behaved humans rarely make history. Humans who make history are very disruptive, honestly disrespectful to disrespectful humans, assertive toward manipulators, and respectful and honest to good humans. History is shaped not by the virtuous only, but by those who stand boldly against the manipulative, show respect to the noble, and challenge the unruly humans." -- Yahaya Balogun.
I considered giving this mindfulness piece the intriguing title 'A Good Human is a Dangerous Human' to infuse it with a more profound, nuanced significance. However, the current title resonates better and conveys the essence of the essay more clearly! It depicts the hackable nature of vulnerable minds, with the unhackable minds to their rescue.
The two quotes above explore the intricate depths of our human essence. Throughout the ages, many notable figures have boldly challenged societal norms, fueled by a commitment to values like honesty, dignity, respect, and the esteem of others.
In stark contrast, those who have receded into the shadows often cling to shallow attempts at proving their worth, all while they remain ensnared in the deceptive calm known as the "peace of the graveyard."
Anyone seeking to transform or confront a fragile society must brace themselves against the seductive charm of those who quietly wield influence and sow chaos. An intriguingly virtuous individual, who embraces “good trouble,” is driven by a profound empathy for fellow beings. Their own sense of well-being is intricately linked to the welfare of those around them.
In a world where the concept of normalcy is merely a façade, those who represent genuine normalcy appear as rare exceptions in a twisted society. At the same time, those exuding unconventionality are often celebrated as the standard. In other words, abnormalities are perceived as normal in an abnormal society, while normalities are underrated and disliked as abnormalities.
A truly outstanding person does not shy away from "good trouble"; instead, they skillfully navigate through it to provoke meaningful transformation. A harmless person is not synonymous with a virtuous one; indeed, the genuinely virtuous harness their inner perils with artfulness. They ignite “good troubles” to free society from the grips of tyranny and the manipulative tactics of Machiavellian leaders.
Though life offers no guarantees of fairness, equity, and equal justice before the law, those who embody virtue in a world of injustice present an exhilarating challenge, fanning the flames of equality. Just do good; the long-term rewards far outweigh the fleeting bad behavior or lasting consequences and the insidious or gradual harm of human manipulation.
Monday
Mile High Slap - President Emmanuel Macron denies dispute with wife, blames ‘disinformation’
CC™ NewsWeek
French President Emmanuel Macron denied Monday having a domestic dispute with his wife Brigitte after a video appeared to show her shoving his face away when they touched down for a visit to Vietnam, blaming disinformation campaigns for trying to put false meaning on the footage (below courtesy of The Sun).
The Elysee had been hoping that the visit to Vietnam would showcase France’s reach into the Indo-Pacific, but it has been shadowed by the incident which occurred as the doors of the presidential plane swung open after landing in Hanoi.
This is the third time this month that Macron has been the subject of viral video footage at a time when France says it is being targeted by repeated disinformation attacks as Russia steps up attacks on Ukraine.
It was falsely claimed Macron took cocaine on a trip to Kyiv alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and images also emerged purporting to show Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan dominate the French leader in a handshake.
Brigitte sticks out both her hands and gives her husband’s face a shove, according to footage shot by the Associated Press news agency.
The French president appears startled but quickly recovers and turns to wave through the open door. But with most of her body hidden by the aircraft, it is impossible to see his wife’s facial expression or body language.
“My wife and I were squabbling, we were rather joking, and I was taken by surprise,” he said.
Now it’s “become a kind of planetary catastrophe, and some are even coming up with theories,” Macron told reporters.
Macron testily referred to the other incidents, including the images shot on a train to Kyiv where some accounts falsely claimed he shared cocaine with Merz and Starmer.
But the object Macron removed from the table when the media entered was a tissue.
Erdogan, meanwhile, was filmed holding the president’s finger at a summit.
“For three weeks… there are people who have watched videos and think I shared a bag of cocaine, that I had a fight with the Turkish president, and that now I’m having a domestic dispute with my wife,” said Macron.
“None of these are true,” he said.
“Everyone needs to calm down,” he added.
After the incident in Hanoi, the couple proceeded down the staircase for the official welcome by Vietnamese officials, though Brigitte Macron did not take her husband’s arm when he offered it.
The video circulated rapidly online, promoted particularly by accounts that are habitually hostile to the French leader.
Macron’s office initially denied the authenticity of the images, before they were confirmed as genuine. A close associate of the president later described the incident as a couple’s harmless “squabble”.
Referring to the past incidents, Macron said: “In these three videos I took a tissue, shook someone’s hand and just joked with my wife, as we do quite often. Nothing more.”
“We have loads of accounts, anonymous or not, whose frustrations are going to their heads, including news commentators who said this morning that I have the diplomacy of a beaten man,” he added.
He emphasised that all three videos were “completely authentic” but the meanings attached to them were not.
Vietnam is the first stop on Macron’s almost week-long tour of Southeast Asia where he will pitch France as a reliable alternative to the United States and China.
He will also visit Indonesia and Singapore.
The relationship between Macron, 47, and his 72-year-old wife has long been a subject of fascination at home and abroad.
She was a drama teacher and he a pupil when they met at a private school in their hometown of Amiens in northeast France. A mother of three children, Brigitte divorced her husband and began a relationship with Macron while he was in his late teens.
A high-profile first lady, she has taken legal action to counter false claims on social media about her gender.
SOURCE: AFP
Sunday
As the Fulani Jihadist killing orgy continues, a Catholic priest and two others shot in Nigeria’s volatile North
![]() |
The Catholic Priest in Charge of St. John Quasi Parish Jimba, Rev. Fr. Solomon Atongu has been reportedly shot by suspected armed herdsmen along the deadly Makurdi-Naka road.
The priest was shot Saturday evening while on his way from Makurdi back to his duty post in Naka when he drove into an ambush by the armed herdsmen.
It was also gathered that two other occupants of the vehicle were abducted by the armed men and whisked away into the forest after they mistook the clergy for dead.
“Luckily security personnel got to the scene of the attack and rescued the Priest who had already lost so much blood, and took him to hospital where efforts are being made by medical personnel to stabilise him,” he said.
While confirming the incident in a statement, the Chancellor, Catholic Diocese of Makurdi, Revd. Fr. Shima Ukpanya, called for prayers for his quickly recovery.
Part of the statement read: “I write on behalf the Bishop, Catholic Diocese of Makurdi, Most Revd. Wilfred Chikpa Anagbe, to inform and request for your prayers for the quick recovery of one of our Priests, Revd. Fr. Solomon Atongo who was attacked and shot this evening around Tyolaha, Makurdi-Naka Road, Gwer West Local Government Area, LGA, by suspected terrorist herdsmen.
“Let us unite in prayer for God’s healing upon him as the medics try to stabilize him. May our Lady Mother of Perpetual Help intercede for us.”
The Police Public Relations Officer, Chief Superintendent, CSP, Catherine Anene could not be reached.
Thursday
Laura Ingraham: An epitome of hypocrisy and a walking contradiction of privileged ignorance
![]() |
| Laura Ingraham |
One of the most consistent things in life is time. Time never fails to tell the story. The story of the day, the story of your life and the events that have shaped that very life; but even more importantly, time never fails to remind us of our past, with historical and poignant markers that speak to how our past actions ultimately determine where and who we are, or will become.
For Laura Ingraham, a talk show host of Fox News and someone whom I had never heard of until she name dropped basketball superstar, Lebron James, a few years ago by telling him to shut up and dribble, time has essentially encapsulated the very essence of her being, as it relates to her place in the evolving but contentious conversation about Americas contract with people of African descent, in particular.
Wednesday
Flashback: White Evangelicals Made A Deal With The Devil And Are Still In Bed With Him.
![]() |
| Donald Trump holds a Bible outside St John's Church in Washington DC. Credits: Getty Images |
By Sarah Jones
In the end, white Christian America stood by its man. The exit polls present an imperfect but definitive picture. At least three-quarters of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in November, a figure largely unchanged from 2016. Evangelicals didn’t win Trump another four years in power, but not for lack of effort. While most of America tired of the president’s impieties, the born-again found in themselves a higher tolerance for sin.
And the sins are legion, lest we forget. He tear-gassed protesters so he could walk to a D.C. church and hold a Bible upside-down in front of it without interference. He lied and cheated, and smeared women who accused him of sexual assault. He separated migrant children from their parents and staffed his administration with white nationalists. Over a quarter of a million Americans died of coronavirus, while he railed against doctors and scientists trying to save lives. Not even a plague turned evangelicals from their earthly lord. For Trump, the consequences are political and legal. For evangelicals, the fallout has a more spiritual quality. What does it profit a faith to gain a whole country and then lose it, along with its own soul?
Evangelicals had more to lose than Republicans, for reasons I learned in church as a child. You can’t evangelize anyone if your testimony is poor. If you disobey your parents, or wear a skirt that falls above your knees, how can anyone believe you’re saved? Another Sunday School lesson, conveniently forgotten? Be sure that your sin will find you out. Evangelicals bought power, and the bill is coming due. The price is their Christian witness, the credibility of their redemption by God. Evangelicalism won’t disappear after Trump, but its alliance with an unpopular and brutal president could alienate all but the most zealous.
To be evangelical in the 1990s was to learn fear. The world was so dangerous, and our status in it so fragile. The fossil record was a lie, and scientists knew it. You could not watch the Teletubbies because Jerry Falwell thought the purple one was gay. No Disney, either, and not because Walt had been a fascist; Disneyworld allowed a gay pride day, and in one scene of The Lion King, you could see the stars spell out “sex.” You were lucky to even be alive, to have escaped the abortion mill. The predominantly white evangelical world in which I was raised had created its own shadow universe, a buffer between it and the hostile world. Our parents could put us in Christian schools or homeschool us; if they did risk public school, we could take shelter with groups like YoungLife and the Fellowship Christian of Athletes, which would tell we to make the most of this chance to save souls. We had alternatives for everything; our own pop music, our own kids’ shows, our own versions of biology and U.S. history, and an ecosystem of colleges and universities to train us up in the way we should go: toward the Republican Party, and away from the left, with no equivocation.
Whatever the cause, whatever the rumor, the fear was always the same. It was about power, and what would happen if we lost it. Certain facts, like the whiteness of our congregations and the maleness of our pulpits and the shortcomings of our leaders, were not worth mentioning. You were fighting for God, and God was not racist or sexist; He was only true. The unsaved hated this, it made them angry, and that was proof you were doing the right thing. If “owning the libs” has a discernible origin point, it’s here, in the white evangelical church.
While I was in college and Trump was still a reality show star, evangelicals faced a crisis in the pews. Young people were leaving the church, and they weren’t coming back. The first signs arrived in 2007, in the last hopeful months before the Great Recession. A pair of Christian researchers released a study with troubling implications for the future of the church. Young people aged 16 to 29 were skeptical of Christianity and of evangelicalism in particular, concluded Dave Kinnaman of the Barna Group and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Group. “Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political,” they wrote. Among the unchurched, attitudes were even more negative. A mere 3 percent said they had positive views of evangelicalism, a precipitous decline from previous generations.
I interviewed Lyons about his research while I was a student journalist at Cedarville University, a conservative Baptist school in Ohio. By the time I graduated, I’d become one of his statistics, an atheist with a minor in Bible. Trump was not even a glimmer in Steve Bannon’s eye, but the evangelical tradition had already asked me to tolerate many sins. There was George W. Bush and his catastrophic invasion of Iraq; welfare policies that starved the poor; the dehumanization of immigrants, of LGBT people, of women who do not wish to stay pregnant, and my own, non-negotiable submission to men. At some point I realized that I had traveled some distance in my mind, and I could not go back the way I came. I was over it, I was through.
The years after my personal exodus brought with them more proof that the church was in trouble. Partisanship did not entirely explain why. Membership declined fastest in mainline congregations, even though they tend to be more liberal than the independent churches of my youth. Social media has expanded the philosophical marketplace; all Christian traditions face competition from new ideologies for the hearts and minds of the young. But conservative denominations are suffering, too. The Southern Baptist Convention said this June it had experienced its thirteenth consecutive year of membership decline. By age 22, two-thirds of adults who attend Protestant services as teenagers have dropped out of church for at least a year, LifeWay Research found last year, and a quarter cited political disagreements as the reason. An alliance with a president the young largely hated might not lure new generations to the fold.
Years of attrition have taken a toll on white evangelicals, said Robert Jones, the author of White Christian America and the founder of the Public Religion Research Institute. “If you go back a couple of election cycles ago, into Barack Obama’s first election, they were 21 percent of the population, and today they are 15 percent of the population,” he told me. The share of Black evangelicals has remained relatively stable, he added, while the numbers of Latino evangelicals have grown. And while these groups ostensibly share a religious label, politically they are far apart.
“If I take the religious landscape, and I sort religious groups by their support for one candidate or the other, what inevitably happens is that there are no two groups further away from each other in that sorting than white evangelical Protestants and African-American Protestants,” Jones said, adding that Latino evangelicals are “a little more divided.” (Indeed, Trump won significant support from this group in 2020.)
But white evangelicals are still outliers overall: They’re more conservative than other Protestants, more conservative than Catholics, more conservative, in fact, than any other demographic in the country. The implicit claim of the Moral Majority — that it embodied mainstream opinion — always lacked evidence, but it’s become even less true over time. By the time Trump applied Richard Nixon’s label of a “silent majority” to his own coalition, it barely made sense at all. A bloc that can only take the White House through the electoral college, and not the popular vote, only to lose it outright four years later, has no claim to majority status. They are a remnant within a remnant, a nation within a nation.
There are still dissenters. Last year, the outgoing editor of Christianity Today, Mark Galli, called for Trump’s removal from office. Galli wrote the typical approach for his magazine was to “stay above the fray,” and “allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible,” he wrote. But Trump had abused the power of his office and revealed a “grossly deficient moral character.” Galli has since converted to Catholicism, a decision he explained to Religion News Services as being more personal than political.
Others stay. But they can experience a painful friction between their spiritual convictions and political independence. My parents, both pro-life evangelicals, have now voted against Trump twice. I spoke to another by Skype, not long before the election.
I know Marlena Proper Graves from my days at that Baptist university, when I was an upstart college feminist, and she was a resident director and the spouse of a professor. Now the author of two books on faith and a doctoral candidate at Bowling Green State University, Graves worries about the influence of Trump, and Trump’s party, on her beloved church. The word “evangelical,” she noted, had always referred to a constellation of beliefs. “You have a relationship with God, God cares about you, God cares about all people, and Christ is central,” she said, ticking them off. “But now it seems to be something of a culture.” That culture is an exclusionary one. “I’ve been disinvited from events because of my views and activism for immigrants, because it’s controversial,” she said.
When Proper was young, she told me, she listened to Christian radio all the time, just like I did. Preachers and commentators like James Dobson, a famed radio personality and the founder of Focus on the Family, would opine on the issues of the day, on morality, and virtue. “All these people would talk about character,” she said. “How you can’t vote for Bill Clinton in particular because of Monica Lewinsky, because he had affairs.” Then came Trump. “People said, first, that they didn’t think he would win. Then it was all about abortion and judges. I felt like I was being punked,” she remembered. But many evangelicals are in on the joke. Faced with popular rejection and the humiliation of Trump, they declare themselves persecuted, and identify numerous enemies. The mission remains the same: Purify the nation, and pacify the barbarians.
Beyond the usual celebrity preacher scandals, the faith’s place in the broader Christian right required it to make moral compromises it never tolerated among the rank-and-file members of the flock. Our definition of morality narrowed the further up the pyramid you climbed. For the politicians we backed, it shrank to a pinprick point: Ronald Reagan was divorced. What mattered instead to the Moral Majority was his opposition to abortion, his hippie-bashing, his ability to trade in euphemisms about “states’ rights.” Two Bush presidents later, thrice-married Trump gave evangelicals the conservative Supreme Court of their dreams.
As hypocritical as white evangelical support for Trump may look from the outside, the president actually understood his base quite well. Eight years of a Black, liberal president threatened their hegemony. So had the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Sarah Posner, an investigative journalist and the author of Unholy: Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump, told me that Trump managed to tap into two key evangelical tendencies. “Those two things were the racial grievances of the white base of the Republican Party, and how televangelism had changed evangelicalism from the 1970s onward,” she said.
Galli, the former Christianity Today editor, believes Trump also appealed to an entrenched evangelical sense of marginalization. By the time same-sex marriage was legalized, public opinion on LGBT rights had already liberalized; the gap between white evangelicals, and everyone else, on matters of sexuality is now wider than it’s ever been. “Here comes Donald Trump, saying it’s OK to be Christian, it’s OK to have your values, it’s OK to practice your values in the public square. And he does this in a very authoritative manner,” Galli explained. Trump didn’t know his Scripture, but he knew there was a war on, and that was enough. The nation’s culture warriors had found their general.
Evangelicals, Galli added, “are deeply suspicious of human authority,” but only to a point. What they may fear, really, is authority they don’t control. “Paradoxically,” he continued, “they are a group that’s attracted to authoritarian leaders, whether that person be a pastor of a megachurch or a dictator.” Those tendencies existed before Trump. With the help of the far-right press, social media, and alternative institutions, they will survive Trump, too.
“I think that the thing that we have to keep our eye on is the ways in which the infrastructure that they built gives them an advantage beyond what their numbers would tell you,” Posner said. Conservative evangelicals already know that they’re no longer the Moral Majority, and they’ve found a way to make it work for them. “They’ll recognize, for example, that they may be in the minority on LGBTQ rights, but in their view, that’s all the more reason that they should be protected by either the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or the First Amendment, in having the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people.”
That infrastructure still churns out new acolytes, who embrace the worst elements of the tradition we all used to share. The same movement that produced me also spawned Madison Cawthorn, a Republican elected to Congress last month. He was born the year the Southern Baptist Convention first apologized for slavery, and he will be the youngest member of Congress when he takes office in January. He’ll also be one of furthest-right Republicans in office, with a personal life that once again tests the bounds of evangelical toleration for sin. Women from his Christian homeschooling community in North Carolina and women who studied with him at the conservative Patrick Henry College have accused him repeatedly of sexual harassment and misconduct. A racist website linked to his campaign criticized a local journalist for leaving academia to “work for non-white males” like Senator Cory Booker, “who aims to ruin white males.” After he won, he celebrated with a tweet. “Cry more, lib,” he wrote.
There’s time for Cawthorn to self-immolate on a pyre of his own sins before he’s old enough to run for president. But there will be other Cawthorns, other white evangelical candidates who will try to master Trumpism-without-Trump. They might not need an army to win, either. The GOP already knows it doesn’t have to be popular to stay in power. They need a radical remnant, and a lot of dirty tricks. Republicans can get what they want by suppressing the vote, or by undermining our confidence in elections. They can protect themselves through the subtle tyranny of inequality, which empowers the wealthy while alienating the most under-represented among us. A party out of step with most voters must either reform, or it must cheat. This, too, is something the modern GOP has in common with the Christian right. Democracy is the enemy. People can’t be trusted with their own souls. Leave them to their own devices, and they make the wrong choices, take the easy way out, threaten everything holy. They need a savior, whether they like it or not.
Tuesday
Nigeria lost close to $200 billion in investment opportunities under Buhari administration
CC™ Global News
Nigeria may have lost close to $200 billion, representing more than 92 percent of investment opportunities available to the country between 2017 and 2020.
Details of a report by the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) on “Investment announcements versus FDI (Foreign Direct Investments) Inflow in Nigeria, 2017 – 2020” revealed that the actual inflows of FDI into Nigeria within the period was about 7.65 percent of the total investment announcements captured by the Commission.
This indicates that most investment announcements and expression of interests to invest did not materialize or translate to actual investment inflow.
The report shows that total investment announcements captured by NIPC during the period amounted to $203.89 billion whereas actual FDI inflow was $15.6 billion, representing 7.65 percent.
Specifically, statistics obtained from NIPC stated that in 2017, only $3.5 billion actual FDI inflow was recorded out of a total investment announcements of $66.35 billion; in 2018 only $6.4 billion FDI materialized out $90.89 billion announced; in 2019, $3.3 billion out of $29.91 billion; and in 2020 only $2.4 billion actual FDI inflow was recorded out of $16.74 billion investment announcements that were captured.
NIPC noted, however, that its report is based only on investment announcements captured by the Commission which may not contain exhaustive information on all investment announcements in Nigeria during the period, adding that it did not independently verify the authenticity of the announcements.
NIPC further reported that in 2017, a total number of 112 projects were announced across 27 States and FCT; in 2018, there were 92 projects across 23 States and FCT; 2019, there were 76 Projects across 17 States, FCT; while in 2020, a total announcements of 63 projects were made across 21 States, FCT and the Niger Delta region.
Further details of the NIPC report revealed that in 2020, the top 10 announcements accounted for $15.59 billion, representing about 93 percent of total announcements.
The details show $6 billion by Indorama Petrochemicals and Fertilizer company from Singapore; $2.6 billion by Bank of China and Sinosure from China; $2 billion by 328 Support Serves GmbH from USA; $1.6 billion by MTN South Africa; and $1.05 billion by Sinoma CBMI of China.
Others are $1 billion by Torridon Investments of UK; $600 million by African Industries Group in Nigeria; $390 million by Savannah Petroleum of UK; $200 million by Stripe from USA; and $150 million by NESBITT Investment Nigeria.
In 2019, the top 10 announcements accounted for $26.29 billion or 88 percent of total. These include $10 billion by Royal Dutch Shell from Netherlands; $5 billion by Aiteo Eastern Exploration and Production Company from Nigeria; $3.15 billion by Sterling Oil and Energy Production Company (SEEPCO) from Nigeria; $2.3 billion by TREDIC Star Core from Canada; and $1.5 billion by OCP Group from Morocco.
Others are $1 billion by Tolaram Group from Singapore; $900 million by Yinson Holdings Bhd from Malaysia; $880 million by CMES-OMS Petroleum Development Company (CPDC) from Nigeria; $860 million by China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC)/Lagos State; and $700 million by Seplat/NNPC from Nigeria.
The top announcements in 2018 accounted for $79.3 billion, representing 87 percent of total announcements captured by the commission.
The details include $18 billion by Range Developers of UAE; $16 billion by Total from France; $12 billion by Azikel Refinery from Nigeria; $11.7 billion by Green Africa Airways from Nigeria; and $9 billion by Royal Dutch Shell from UK.
Others are $3.6 billion by Petrolex Oil & Gas from Nigeria; $3 billion by CNOOC from China; $2 billion by Vitol/Africa Oil/Delonex Energy from Luxembourg, Canada and Nigeria; $2 billion by General Electric from USA; and $2 billion by Blackoil Energy Refinery from Nigeria/Niger.
The NIPC report revealed that the top 10 announcements in 2017 accounted for $43.1billion, representing about 65 percent of total announcements captured.
The commission did not, however, provide the details of the investors, sector, source and destination.
According to NIPC, the gaps between announcements and actual investments demonstrate investments potentials which were not fully actualized.
The Commission stated: “A more proactive all-of-government approach to investor support, across federal and state governments is required to convert more announcements to actual investments.”
Reacting to the situation, Director General, Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA), Ambassador Ayoola Olukanni, noted that the gap may not be unconnected to the economic recession and COVID-19 pandemic events within the period, aggravated by policy instability.
Olukanni stated: “Numerous studies have established that Foreign Direct Investment is dependent on the market size of the host country, deregulation, level of political stability, investment incentives, openness to international trade, economic policy coherence, exchange rate depreciation, availability of skilled labor, endowment of natural resources and inflation.
“You will agree with me that the four years spanning 2017 and 2020 are characterized by struggle to exit from economic recession, a period of slight recovery, the COVID-19 pandemic, and another period of recession. These circumstances may or may not be responsible for the political and economic reaction that can be witnessed in the uncertainty in the foreign exchange market, increased inflation, increased unemployment, increased political unrest and insecurity and so on.
“What can be established is that Foreign Direct Investment is averse to risk and uncertainty, especially the kind of uncertainty brought about by policy instability and economic policy. An obvious example is the closure of the land borders in 2019, while justifiable through the lens of national security is certain to have a negative impact on Foreign Direct Investment which has a long-term planning horizon.
“In summary, to seek to increase actual FDI is to promote the factors that have been shown, empirically, to positively impact FDI. While the Nigerian economy checks the boxes of most of these factors, economic policy coherence, foreign exchange market stability and insecurity are issues that are currently the bane of FDI inflows.”
Also commenting, an economist and private sector advocate, Dr. Muda Yusuf, who is also the immediate past Director General of Lagos Chamber of Commerce of Industry (LCCI), said the development reflects low level of investors’ confidence occasioned by structural problems of infrastructure and worsening security situation.
His words: “It is investors’ confidence that drives investment, whether domestic or foreign. Investors are generally very cautious and painstaking in taking decisions with respect to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). This is because FDIs are often long term and invariably more risky, especially in volatile economic and business environments. Uncertainties aggravate investment risk.
“Investors in the real sector space are grappling with structural problems especially around infrastructure. There are also worries around liquidity in the forex market; there are concerns about the accelerated weakening of the currency. There are issues of heightened regulatory and policy risks in many sectors.
“Investors’ confidence has also been adversely affected by the worsening security situation in the country. Meanwhile, the economy is still struggling to recover from the shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic. These are the likely factors impacting investment decisions.
“Our ability to attract FDI will depend on how well we position ourselves. The critical question will be around expected returns on investment. Overall, it is the investment climate quality that will make the difference. We need to ensure an acceleration of necessary reforms to make Nigeria a much better investment destination. We need policy reforms, regulatory reforms and institutional reforms, among others.
“We should accelerate the ongoing foreign exchange reforms; we need to undertake trade policy reforms to liberalize trade in sectors of weak comparative advantage; we need regulatory reforms to make regulations more investment friendly. We need to create new opportunities in the public private partnership (PPP) space, especially in infrastructure. We need to see more privatization of public enterprises.
“It is important as well to quickly fix the ravaging insecurity in the country. All of these are crucial to boost investors’ confidence.”
AGENCY
Monday
Exclusive: Watchdog finds Black girls face more frequent, severe discipline in school
![]() |
| Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie |
CC™ Perspectives
Black girls face more discipline and more severe punishments in public schools than girls from other racial backgrounds, according to a groundbreaking new report set for release Thursday by a congressional watchdog.
The report, shared exclusively with NPR, took nearly a year-and-a-half to complete and comes after several Democratic congressional members requested the study.
Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, later with support from Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, asked the Government Accountability Office in 2022 to take on the report.
The findings offer a first of its kind snapshot of the disciplinary disparities that Black girls face in public schools across the U.S. — often for similar behaviors.
Over the course of the 85-page report, the GAO says it found that in K-12 public schools, Black girls had the highest rates of so-called "exclusionary discipline," such as suspensions and expulsions. Overall, the study found that during the 2017-18 school year, Black girls received nearly half of these punishments, even as they represent only 15% of girls in public schools.
According to the report, Black girls accounted for 45% of out-of-school suspensions, 37% of in-school suspensions and 43% of expulsions for actions like "defiance, disrespect, and disruption." Nationally, Black girls received such exclusionary discipline at rates 3 to 5.2 times those of white girls. The study also found that when they had a disability, discipline rates for Black girls grew even larger.
"This new report, it's damning. It affirms what we've known all along that Black girls continue to face a crisis of criminalization in our schools," Pressley said. "And the only way we can address this crisis is through intentional, trauma-informed policy. And Congress must act."
The GAO report is the first to examine underlying infraction data among discipline disparities and identify what contributes to them, according to Pressley's office. It found that school poverty levels, the percentage of girls facing disabilities, the number of new teachers and the presence of a school resource officer were among the factors tied to increased discipline for girls.
For her part, Pressley said it's clear that racism, colorism and other biases such as adultification — or perceiving girls as older and more mature than their peers — also contribute to the harsher discipline of Black girls.
Pressley and other women members of Congress are set to present the findings on Thursday.
“I hope that, because of these important findings, schools across the country and policymakers at every level of government examine the use of exclusionary discipline policies that are disproportionately harming Black girls,” said DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
The report found that punishments grow more dramatically in cases of girls who present with additional levels of diversity, such as Black girls who are also part of the LGBTQ community. Pressley said that the biased discipline patterns are deeply harmful, contributing to low self-esteem while detracting from students' ability to learn.
Sunday
The toxic legacy of the Confederacy and why the monuments remain a painful vestige of its sordid past
![]() |
| Caroline Randall Williams |
I have rape-colored skin. My light-brown-blackness is a living testament to the rules, the practices, the causes of the Old South.
If there are those who want to remember the legacy of the Confederacy, if they want monuments, well, then, my body is a monument. My skin is a monument.
Dead Confederates are honored all over this country — with cartoonish private statues, solemn public monuments and even in the names of United States Army bases. It fortifies and heartens me to witness the protests against this practice and the growing clamor from serious, nonpartisan public servants to redress it.
But there are still those — like President Trump and the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell — who cannot understand the difference between rewriting and reframing the past. I say it is not a matter of “airbrushing” history, but of adding a new perspective.
I am a black, Southern woman, and of my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists. My very existence is a relic of slavery and Jim Crow.
According to the rule of hypodescent (the social and legal practice of assigning a genetically mixed-race person to the race with less social power) I am the daughter of two black people, the granddaughter of four black people, the great-granddaughter of eight black people. Go back one more generation and it gets less straightforward, and more sinister. As far as family history has always told, and as modern DNA testing has allowed me to confirm, I am the descendant of black women who were domestic servants and white men who raped their help.
It is an extraordinary truth of my life that I am biologically more than half white, and yet I have no white people in my genealogy in living memory. No. Voluntary. Whiteness. I am more than half white, and none of it was consensual. White Southern men — my ancestors — took what they wanted from women they did not love, over whom they had extraordinary power, and then failed to claim their children.
What is a monument but a standing memory? An artifact to make tangible the truth of the past. My body and blood are a tangible truth of the South and its past. The black people I come from were owned by the white people I come from. The white people I come from fought and died for their Lost Cause. And I ask you now, who dares to tell me to celebrate them? Who dares to ask me to accept their mounted pedestals?
You cannot dismiss me as someone who doesn’t understand. You cannot say it wasn’t my family members who fought and died. My blackness does not put me on the other side of anything. It puts me squarely at the heart of the debate. I don’t just come from the South. I come from Confederates. I’ve got rebel-gray blue blood coursing my veins. My great-grandfather Will was raised with the knowledge that Edmund Pettus was his father. Pettus, the storied Confederate general, the grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, the man for whom Selma’s Bloody Sunday Bridge is named. So I am not an outsider who makes these demands. I am a great-great-granddaughter.
And here I’m called to say that there is much about the South that is precious to me. I do my best teaching and writing here. There is, however, a peculiar model of Southern pride that must now, at long last, be reckoned with.
This is not an ignorant pride but a defiant one. It is a pride that says, “Our history is rich, our causes are justified, our ancestors lie beyond reproach.” It is a pining for greatness, if you will, a wish again for a certain kind of American memory. A monument-worthy memory.
But here’s the thing: Our ancestors don’t deserve your unconditional pride. Yes, I am proud of every one of my black ancestors who survived slavery. They earned that pride, by any decent person’s reckoning. But I am not proud of the white ancestors whom I know, by virtue of my very existence, to be bad actors.
Among the apologists for the Southern cause and for its monuments, there are those who dismiss the hardships of the past. They imagine a world of benevolent masters, and speak with misty eyes of gentility and honor and the land. They deny plantation rape, or explain it away, or question the degree of frequency with which it occurred.
To those people it is my privilege to say, I am proof. I am proof that whatever else the South might have been, or might believe itself to be, it was and is a space whose prosperity and sense of romance and nostalgia were built upon the grievous exploitation of black life.
The dream version of the Old South never existed. Any manufactured monument to that time in that place tells half a truth at best. The ideas and ideals it purports to honor are not real. To those who have embraced these delusions: Now is the time to re-examine your position.
Either you have been blind to a truth that my body’s story forces you to see, or you really do mean to honor the oppressors at the expense of the oppressed, and you must at last acknowledge your emotional investment in a legacy of hate.
Either way, I say the monuments of stone and metal, the monuments of cloth and wood, all the man-made monuments, must come down. I defy any sentimental Southerner to defend our ancestors to me. I am quite literally made of the reasons to strip them of their laurels.
Caroline Randall Williams(@caroranwill) is the author of “Lucy Negro, Redux” and “Soul Food Love,” and a writer in residence at Vanderbilt University. Ms. Williams' oped piece was originally published in the New York Times.









