USA

By Sabiu Abdullahi 

The Comptroller-General of Customs (CGC), Bashir Adewale Adeniyi, in a bid to enhance service delivery and combat cross-border crimes, met with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Washington, DC, on July 18, 2024.

The meeting aimed to revive the over-decade-old Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement (CMAA) and promote global collaborations and data-driven decision-making. Adeniyi stated the importance of capacity building, particularly in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) enforcement and opiate issues.

He also stressed the need for a Center for Advanced Cargo and Passenger Data Analysis to mitigate risks and enhance cargo and passenger security. 

The meeting also covered commercial air cargo security and potential partnerships with US government agencies.

Adeniyi stated the importance of future operations, including CBP’s global targeting advisory directors and their capabilities in information sharing on cargo and passenger sides. 

James Collins, Assistant Commissioner of the Office of International Affairs at US CBP, noted data integration, partnerships, and targeted efforts to address transnational criminal groups.

He stressed the need for secure channels for sharing intelligence and building partnerships with international organizations. 

Key action items identified include establishing specific channels for continued intelligence sharing between Nigeria Customs and CBP, exploring operational partnerships, and leveraging INTERPOL programmes. 

The meeting concluded with a presentation on artificial intelligence and its role in enhancing customs operations and security. 

In a related event, CGC Adeniyi visited the Nigerian Embassy in the USA, where he was received by Mr. Rabiu Lawal, Charge d’Affaires a.i., and his team.

The CGC appreciated their warm reception and efforts for Nigerians in the diaspora. 

This bilateral meeting marks a significant step in strengthening global partnerships to promote better service delivery and enhance national security for Nigerians.

By Sabiu Abdullahi 

A 63-year-old Missouri woman, Sandra “Sandy” Hemme, has had her conviction overturned after spending 43 years in prison for a murder she did not commit.

Hemme was convicted in 1985 based on incriminating statements she made while a psychiatric patient, but a judge has now ruled that there is “clear and convincing” evidence of her innocence. 

Livingston County Circuit Judge Ryan Horsman ruled that evidence directly ties the murder of Patricia Jeschke to a local police officer, Michael Holman, who has since died.

Hemme must be freed within 30 days unless prosecutors decide to re-try her. Hemme’s legal team, with the Innocence Project, argued that authorities ignored contradictory statements and failed to disclose evidence that would have helped her defense.

Her attorneys said, “We are grateful to the Court for acknowledging the grave injustice Ms. Hemme has endured for more than four decades.” 

Hemme’s conviction was the longest-known wrongful conviction of a woman in US history. She initially pleaded guilty to capital murder to avoid the death penalty, but her conviction was later overturned on appeal.

At her retrial in 1985, the only evidence against her was her contradictory and factually impossible “confession” made while a psychiatric patient. 

Hemme’s attorneys noted that she had a history of inpatient psychiatric care, having spent most of her life in treatment since age 12.

Her exoneration is a testament to the tireless efforts of her legal team and the Innocence Project, bringing an end to a 43-year-long grave injustice.

By Sabiu Abdullahi  

The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has vehemently opposed any defence agreement between Nigeria and the United States or France, as well as the establishment of military bases by either country on Nigerian soil. 

In a statement released on Sunday, May 5, 2024, MURIC’s Executive Director, Professor Ishaq Akintola, stated that Nigeria must not allow itself to be recolonized.

He cited past and recent events worldwide, which have shown that both the US and France prioritize self-interest, imperialist agendas, and hegemonic goals that can never favor any African country. 

Professor Akintola stated, “We say clearly, emphatically, and categorically that Nigeria should not sign any military pact with either of these two countries. Neither should they be allowed to set up any military base in our country.” 

He highlighted France’s economic exploitation and inhumane treatment of francophone countries, as well as the US’s history of gun-boat diplomacy, funding, arming, and protecting Israel in its conflicts with Palestinians, as reasons for MURIC’s stance. 

“On no account should American or French soldiers set their feet on Nigerian soil,” Professor Akintola noted. 

MURIC’s opposition comes as the debate on a proposed defence pact between Nigeria, the US, and France continues.

The organisation’s stance reflects concerns about the potential risks and implications of such agreements for Nigeria’s sovereignty and national interests.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Fahad Danladi, a proud father from Kano, Nigeria, who resides in the United States, has taken to social media to celebrate his daughter Fariha’s outstanding academic achievements.

Fariha was rewarded with a brand new bike for her hard work and dedication to her studies. 

Fahad, who was overjoyed by his daughter’s success, shared the news on Twitter, saying, “I’m beaming with pride to share that my 2nd daughter, Fariha Danladi, has been rewarded with a brand new bike for her outstanding academic achievements in school! Her hard work and dedication have truly paid off, and I couldn’t be more thrilled to see her excel. Congratulations, Fariha, on this well-deserved recognition!” 

Fariha’s achievement is a testament to the importance of hard work and determination, and serves as an inspiration to her peers and the Nigerian community in the US.

Her family and community appeared to be proud of her accomplishments.

By Dr Raji Bello

I have no intention of aggravating anyone’s feelings over the war in Gaza. I also feel bad about it, even though I don’t write much on the subject. The main reason for this is that nothing surprises me about what is happening. I have completely anticipated what Israel would do as well as the reaction of the Western countries to Israel’s conduct. No UN vetoes or abstentions by the Western countries is a surprise or a shock to me. 

My interest in history and current affairs for over 40 years has taught me two uncomfortable truths, which I have written about a few times:

1. Might is right. Powerful civilisations, kingdoms or countries have always done as they wished and will continue to do so until the end. Most other countries would either accept or at least not confront what the powerful countries do.

2. Relations between human societies or countries have never been based on moral considerations and will never be. They have always, and will always be, based on interests. Morality only becomes a consideration when there are no compelling interests to pursue.

When these two truths have been understood, two conclusions can be made:

1. no level of horror of human suffering would make powerful countries stop pursuing their interests. This is why the US and the UK behave like they do at the UN.

2. While it is incumbent upon the less powerful countries to also pursue their interests, they should never get in the way of a powerful country’s pursuit of its interests. 

Human beings are not as mentally sophisticated as we might think. We are technically and materially advanced, but the ancient rules still apply. For less powerful countries to survive and flourish, tact is essential. They could get what they wanted through tact but would risk being crushed if they stood in the way of a powerful country. 

The only feasible way to take on a powerful country directly is by acquiring more power than them. Until a less powerful country acquires more power, its strategy should be tact, and tact only.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Comptroller-General of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), Bashir Adeniyi MFR, hosted a prestigious gathering at the Management Quarters in Abuja on Tuesday, marking the culmination of 2023.

Among the distinguished guests were the British High Commissioner to Nigeria, Ambassadors of the United States and Germany, and representatives from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes, as well as the World Bank. 

The event focused on reflecting on the Customs Service’s activities throughout the year, paving the way for discussions on innovative strategies to enhance efficiency. 

In his address to the diplomats, CGC Adeniyi showed the NCS’s commitment to harnessing new technological advancements.

He unveiled plans for the extensive deployment of scanners, the implementation of data analytics, and the adoption of open-door policies to foster collaboration with stakeholders, ultimately streamlining trade in the nation. 

Highlighting the responsibility to elucidate the new developments to stakeholders, CGC Adeniyi expressed the need for massive sensitization on the recently enacted Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023.

He emphasised ongoing initiatives to engage Area Controllers, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the Act to augment their operational effectiveness, and characterising the new Act as ‘User Friendly.’ 

Moreover, the Customs Chief delineated the Act’s emphasis on automation processes, including the use of a single window and the authorized economy operators’ system.

He discussed the incorporation of Advanced Ruling and the expansion of scanner usage, signaling a progressive move towards modernization. 

Addressing the issue of wildlife smuggling, CGC Adeniyi reassured diplomats of his commitment to sustaining efforts against illicit wildlife trade in Nigeria.

He stressed the importance of international cooperation in customs activities and highlighted collaborative efforts with stakeholders. 

The diplomats commended the NCS’s dedication and pledged ongoing collaboration to combat wildlife trafficking and related criminal activities.

By Ahmad Deedat Zakari

Amazon founder and second world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos, has hinted on plans to give away most of his massive fortune.

Bezos, in a response to CNN’s journalist question on whether he planned to give most of his wealth away, said: “Yeah, I do.”

He told CNN that he and his girlfriend, Lauren Sanchez, were building the capacity to be able to give away his money .

“We are building the capacity to be able to give away this money,” he said.

According to him, the money will go to causes that are dear to his heart. These include tackling climate change and supporting people who can unify humanity.

Jeff Bezos is the latest billionaire to make promises of giving away his massive fortune. While Warren Buffett and Bill Gates lead the world in support for philanthropic causes, Bezos has only given $2.4bn to philanthropic causes in his lifetime.

According to Forbes, his donations to charity is dwarfed by that of his ex-wife, Ms Scott, who has given away $12.8 bn of her money.

By Sadiya Abubakar Isa, PhD

It appals me to see the Muslim North divided on a trivial yet substantial religious issue like ‘interfaith’. I have for long heard Muslim clerics discrediting the whole idea of interfaith since the establishment of its centre in Bayero University Kano – one of North’s prestigious universities, something which was otherwise not their business. Still, thanks to this institution, interfaith is now localized enough to get such stimulating clerical attention in Northern Nigeria.

Having had the opportunity to study Islamophobia exploringly, I would say interfaith is significantly relevant where the identity of Islam is greatly contested. By definition, interfaith, whether as a dialogue in research or academic discourse, revolves around the peaceful, complaisant, and constructive interaction between people of different faiths for mutual benefit. It involves striking balance, a tolerable understanding of such interrelationships and beneficial engagements through dialogues, academic events, and activities aimed at peaceful coexistence. To say all these aren’t relevant for a Muslim community is a dismal misunderstanding of the whole concept and reasoning of interfaith.

The world witnessed an unprecedented rise in Islamophobia shortly after 9/11; statistics show that Islamophobia reached its peak in 2016. If you reside in the Western world in the decade after 9/11, you will understand the intricacy of the threat Islamophobia puts Muslims into. Especially for Muslim women who are more obviously identified than their male counterparts. Muslim women were subjected to hate speech, discrimination, and abuse, thanks to the incessant misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims in the Western media. Since the Muslims are a minority in such Western countries, their religious identity was at stake. As such, the results were provocative political discourses, foreign policies and the whole activities of the Islamophobia industry vigorously tarnished the image of Islam beyond doubt.

Islam was always portrayed as an intolerant and backward religion that advocates terrorism. Muslim men are seen as utter misogynists, violent, barbaric, and bloodthirsty fanatics, while Muslim women are said to be oppressed, voiceless, helpless, and subordinate in dire need of immediate liberation. Now, this has been the case centuries before 9/11, but the Orientalism surged after 9/11 because there was an agenda to create fear of Muslims and control the world using that purported fear—New World Order?

Consequently, 9/11, subjugation of women in Afghanistan, terrorist activities by ISIS, Boko Haram etc., were leveraged as justifications for those claims. The average Westerner believes every accusation about Islam and has little or no interest in discerning the images. One may ask, so what if they believed?

The consequences are bigotry against Muslims, vandalism of religious places, hate speeches, discrimination, loss of jobs (or other vital opportunities), rejection in the community they ought to belong to, and the worst is loss of lives. We have seen so many Islamophobic attacks on the Muslims, the New Zealand mosque shootings, for example. This misconception renders the Muslim communities in the West vulnerable. It puts them in constant fear of perceived danger and, consequently, loss of faith. Yes, look at it from the perspective of younger generations struggling to fit in.

Among many other factors, I acknowledge the efforts of Yaqeen Institute by Sheikh Omar Suleiman, a Palestinian American scholar. He has taken the lead in fighting Islamophobia through interfaith dialogues, among other methods. Why shouldn’t the Muslims engage in interfaith dialogue when it has been an avenue for discussing the Muslims’ predicaments? It has given Muslims a platform to talk about their real lives and share their religious practices contrary to the media’s narrative.

Interfaith dialogue has helped quell the flame of hate. It has given Muslims the room to openly operate as an inclusive religion – with lots of global moves to ascertain cultural harmony. It has opened laypeople’s minds about Islam which they would otherwise have remained unaware of. It has opened the door for discussion of religious differences politely and positively, which pushed many non-Muslims toward studying Islam.

Do you know the result of this increased curiosity about Islam? Acceptance of Islam, the Christian West has seen rapid growth in conversion to Islam. So, where is that extreme hate of Islam/Muslims today? Alhamdulillah, there is a significant improvement in the situation, thanks to interfaith dialogue, among other efforts taken by anti-Islamophobes.

So is interfaith precarious to Muslims in Nigeria? Why all the debates?

Would Nigerians understand the need for an interfaith dialogue without foreknowledge of Islamophobia, global diplomacy and religious inclusiveness? It’s a fact that Muslims aren’t a minority in Nigeria, but ethno-religious crises are still ravaging, in the North especially; crises in Jos and Kaduna would have been addressed amicably if the interfaith dialogue was well embraced. It is utterly disconcerting to say that, in this age, people are having religious disputes.

Similarly, Boko haram has been synonymous with Islam in Nigeria in that it is always referred to as an ‘Islamic terrorist group’. Don’t we need to dispel the myth of Islam advocating terror in Nigeria? Are Muslims too big to have a peaceful inter-religious conversation in Nigeria? Are we blind to the fact that Islam is under attack in Nigeria? When professor Farooq Kperogi wrote on Islamophobia in Yorubaland, I was bemused because I never expected that of all the tribes in Nigeria, Yorubas would discriminate against their tribespeople based on religion. The rapidity at which Islamophobia is manifesting in Nigeria is quite alarming. Nigerian Christain’s support for Donald Trump in the last election spells out their desperation for Muslims’ continued exclusion.

Religious harmony is still farfetched in most regions of Nigeria. We are just pretending to be harmonious and tolerant. Little wonder how minuscule events easily trigger provocation. We need to talk about our differences positively and engage in healthy interactions to progress as a nation. Colonialists already bond us together, so unity in diversity becomes a necessity. Or do we wait until our children begin to ask us questions before we get to talk about our differences nicely? If not for anything, interfaith in Nigeria will allow non-Muslims to learn about your faith – Islam. Isn’t that a form of da’awa?

My research acknowledges how interfaith dialogue in the US, Europe and other parts of the world contributed to the curbing of Islamophobia by promoting peaceful coexistence. So to use religion to relegate the whole idea is quite imprudent. To quote Shafiq, Muhammad, and Mohammed Abu-Nimer, the authors of Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, “although a relatively modern term, interfaith dialogue has, in fact, had a long and enduring history for Muslims, underscored by a spirit of genuine inquiry and respectful exchange. The primary role of interfaith dialogue is to remove misunderstanding and accept difference….”

Some Ulamas in Nigeria have taken a critical stance on this matter. I listened to one yesterday opening that interfaith is an extension of secularism. While I appreciate his disposition, I beg to disagree that ‘we don’t need interfaith’ due to his stated reasons. It should be at the participant’s discretion to know the aim of every dialogue before engaging in one. My focal point is that whoever participates in interfaith dialogue should be cognizant of their religious jurisdiction and wary of their intentions. I kindly advise our Ulama to focus on ways to religiously liberate the Northerners from the abject poverty that has infested this region instead of the debates surrounding the appropriateness of interfaith – which is long overdue.

Dr Sadiya Abubakar Isa is interested in research related to Islamophobia. She can be contacted via sadeeyaa@yahoo.com.

By Muhammad Sabiu

President of the United States, Joe Biden, is set to travel to Brussels, Belgium’s capital, amidst the invasion of Ukraine by Putin’s Russia.

President Biden is expected to hold a physical meeting with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) leaders in a show of support for Ukraine.

Press secretary of The White House, Jen Psaki, has confirmed to reporters on Tuesday that the meeting would be held on March 24.

Ms Psaki was quoted as saying, “The President will travel to Brussels, Belgium, later this month, where he will join the extraordinary NATO Summit on March 24 to discuss ongoing deterrence and defense efforts in response to Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine, as well as to refer reaffirm our ironclad commitment to our NATO allies.”

“He will also join a scheduled European Council summit to discuss our shared concerns about Ukraine, including transatlantic efforts to impose economic costs on Russia, provide humanitarian support to those affected by the violence and address other challenges related to the conflict.”

This is coming amidst condemnations and concern expressed by NATO allies as Russia continues to advance its invasion in parts of Ukraine.

By Sulaiman Badamasi (Mahir)

Russia of today is not the same as Russia yesterday. Russia used to be the Soviet Union, a superpower that sometimes acted with the West. The war of 1973, when the Zionists wanted both sides of the conflict taken to a draw and in 1954when Russia (Soviet Union) transferred the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine have said it all. Now, it is a post-Soviet Union Russia who toiled when the Soviet Union sagged, but within the breath-span of twenty-something years has grown now to a grandeur position.

The Western world has been ruling over humankind for the past 300 years or more, changing regimes worldwide, especially in the south and central America, which the famous Monroe Doctrine described as “America’s Backyard”. The West has been changing regimes after regimes all over the region. But have we ever asked why they have never changed the regime in Venezuela? America has done everything it could to change the Venezuelan government but to no avail because this can only be achieved through military intervention, and any move of such would mean facing Russia. They do not want to confront Russia. NOBODY WANT TO FACE RUSSIA because Russia is not Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, and of course, not Iraq.

What seemed to have convinced the world further to accept Russia’s predatory position was the tremendously dangerous step it took to intervene in Syria. This could have led to a nuclear war. Russia also took the world by surprise in 2014 when it took over or took back(?) Crimea in just two weeks. It seems like Russia is defeating the West in silence and stylishly repositioning itself back to the Soviet Union’s throne.

For the West to reduce the margin, it swiftly paid back with a regime change in Ukraine in 2014 in what was termed as “The Revolution of Dignity”, which saw the impeachment/replacement of the then Ukrainian (of course Russian loyalist) elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, and Petro Poroshenko (pro-West) became the president, who immediately began with leading the Russo-Ukrainian war in February 2014.

After three months, he forbade any cooperation with Russia in the military sphere and later signed the “Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement in June 2014.” Five months later, in president Poroshenko’s speech to the new parliament in November 2014, Poroshenko stated, “we’ve decided to return to the course of NATO integration” because “the nonalignment status of Ukraine proclaimed in 2010 couldn’t guarantee our security and territorial integrity”. Russia perceived all these, coupled with the ouster of Viktor Yanukovych, as a series of threats right at its closest border.  

Why does Russia detest/is against/is afraid of Ukraine’s alignment with NATO?

If Ukraine becomes a NATO member state, then Russia would have NATO on its very border, which means it will have its military bases a few distances away from Russian borders, where missiles could hit Moscow in minutes. Hence Russia does not seem to accept this security option. It could be said that Russia does not want to invade Ukraine because a full invasion MIGHT provoke a military response from the West (only time could tell, though). But certainly, all parties involved (Russia, Ukraine, and the West) hope the chaos ends through diplomatic means rather than war. Maybe Russia has a military strike as the only option for now?

Territorial control and elimination of perceived possible dangers around borders have become a norm or a widely practised approach by states nations. Let us digest in the following to shade more light:

Cuban Missile Crisis/Missile Scare: when the Soviet Union started installing nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1961 after reaching an agreement with Fidel Castro of Cuba, the Kennedy administration decided that this was too big a security threat to be contained. They put a “quarantine” (a station where weaponry logistics were searched) so that no nuclear missile could be shipped and demanded that all missiles in Cuba be taken back to the Soviet Union.

Syria and Israel: with Russia and Iran as Syrian friends and Israel sitting just 569.17 kilometres away from the Syrian border, it is not a surprise if Israel and her friends (America, Saudi, and Turkey) feel threatened or expect that the worst happens from Israel’s neighbourhood. The military campaign that aimed at toppling the Russia and Iran backed Assad’s government by the Saudi, Turkish and American backed rebel group, which began in March 2011 as an anti-government protest and later escalated to a full-scale war, could be understood as an effort to eliminate an enemy’s friend whose territory can be used to attack an immediate neighbour. Could America and Saudi afford to lose Israel?

Muslim Brotherhood and Israel: when Mohammed Morsi (may Allah have mercy on him) was sworn in as the first democratically elected president of Egypt on 30^th June 2012, he expressed dissatisfaction with the country’s 1979 policy which declared that it stands as a mediator between Israel and Palestine and determined to reset his country’s orientation to one of active support, not for a ‘self-governing authority and ‘autonomy’ in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but the attainment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of the Palestinian refugees to return.

In Morsi’s one year in office before his removal through a coup d’etat, he ordered the Egyptian authorities to open the Rafah Crossing, the only gateway that connects Palestinians to the outside world. This means Palestinians can travel any time without really passing through strict measures imposed on them by the Israeli government, and different kinds of support could reach them without obstacles. Trade began to flourish between Palestine and Egypt. The Israeli siege on the Palestinian land was eased. He became the first Egyptian president to declare rejection of Israel’s assault on Palestine since 1979. Israel and her friends felt threatened by the closest neighbour, and the result was his forceful ouster, imprisonment, the unjust killing of his supporters. The coup that ended Morsi’s regime has not been justified yet. Why was it done then? To eliminate a nearby perceived enemy.

Saudi and Houthi: the Houthi rebel group, which champions Yemen’s Zaidi Shia followers, took over Sana’a in 2014 and forced the then Yemeni president, Abdurrabbu Mansur Hadi, in March 2015, to flee the country. To many people, “a rebel group has taken over Yemen,” yet to Saudi and her allies, “Iran has succeeded in extending its proxy-war/proxy influence to the Saudi border.” There is no need to emphasise that implication on Saudi, thanks to the firing of ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia and UAE. Swiftly came a fierce joint reaction from Saudi-led coalition of eight(?) countries with logistics and intelligence support from America and France with Iran backing the Houthi rebels leading to the ongoing multilateral civil war.

Turkey and ISIS in Iraq: another interesting episode in the quest to defy near-border threats is having Turkey, a NATO member-state, fighting ISIS in Syria while ignoring the danger that the same ISIS poses in Iraq. Turkey has so far chosen to sit out the war to allow ISIS to fight the Kurdish militia group in Iraq. Turkey considers the Kurdish militia who craves a breakup to carve out its own country, Kurdistan, a more harmful enemy. Kurdistan encompasses southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), northwestern Iran (Eastern Kurdistan), and northern Syria (Western Kurdistan). Some definitions also include parts of southern Transcaucasia. Certain Kurdish nationalist organisations seek to create an independent nation-state consisting of some or all of these areas with a Kurdish majority, while others campaign for greater autonomy within the existing national boundaries. Do you see? The same struggle to protect territorial integrity is seen at its peak here.

Iraq invasion and Iran: this is the same reason that encouraged Iran’s interest in Iraq after the US and its allies removed and killed Saddam Hussein. Despite having a not-so-friendly relationship with the West, Iran was in total support of the strike against Iraq (Saddam) in March 2003 when the US, under Gorge W. Bush, led a coalition of the UK, Poland, and Australia to invade Iraq.

This has remained part of history for centuries and means that Russia is not necessarily fighting Ukraine as Ukraine but trying to send a clear signal to whoever wants to near her border in any form of disguise.

Will the war be taken further? I do not think Russia could be smart enough to launch a full-scale war yet. However, if it continues, there is a slim chance of having NATO respond militarily, which could further lead to an unimaginable end. It is to the world’s knowledge that if external forces intervene to support Ukraine, it could mean facing Russia, China, North Korea, Serbia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Belarus, etc.

Are we about to witness another World War? We pray for the best.

Sulaiman Badamasi (Mahir) sent this article via sulaimanmahir@gmail.com.