Headline

‘Jaw-jaw Better Than War-war’, Bode George Cautions Tinubu Over Niger

Published

2 years ago

August 4, 2023

Former Deputy National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Bode George, has asked President Bola Tinubu to shelve the planned military intervention against neighbouring country, Niger.

Tinubu, as the Chairman of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government, has written the National Assembly, to approve the use of force in Niger, after all, mediation talks have yielded no result.

In an open letter on Friday, George lauded Tinubu for his efforts to reinstate ousted President Mohamed Bazoum, by sending a delegation to hold talks with the coupists led by Gen Abdourahmane Tchiani.

He, however, warned the President to desist from the plans of invading Niger by using Nigerian soldiers in the ECOWAS, adding that Tinubu, as a leader has enough tasks to attend to in the most populous African country.

The PDP chieftain said the protest against Tinubu in Niger was a bad omen, and he should let the West African country face its problems.

George affirmed that dialogue is a better tool for the President to use in ending the crisis than military forces as he said, “It is okay to send a delegation. Diplomacy is always a better option to war. To jaw-jaw is better than war-war.”

“I write to you as a Nigerian, a retired General in the Nigerian military, a patriot and a war tactician,” George said.

“First of all, you have done the right thing by sending a delegation consisting of former Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar (rtd), and Sultan of Sokoto, Muhammad Saad Abubakar, a retired Brigadier-General, to meet the Military High Command in Niger.

“Number two, when you have a crisis within, you solve that first before going international with a ‘Big Brother’ posture.”

He continued, “In Nigeria today, there is no food, no financial power to buy fuel, no light, no money. Nigerians are psychologically stranded and people are really going through a lot. So, I don’t know what our going to the Niger Republic with full military power will achieve.

“If you remember, Nigeria, almost singularly, financed ECOMOG military operations and that was when our economy was better. Which economy are we going to use now to finance a full military operation in Niger Republic, when Mali and Burkina Faso have threatened to take sides with the Niger Republic?”

George warned that Nigeria usually bore the financial burden of the ECOWAS by sending ECOMOG to the troubled neighbouring nations, as it was during the military regimes, adding that the country cannot afford that at the moment.

“Will this not lead to the collapse of ECOWAS? Do we really know the type of partisan game Western Powers, on one hand, Russia and China, on another hand, and some other African countries, are playing behind the scene?

“Can we really trust any one of them? Should Nigeria’s interest not play a major role before taking any decision of this gargantuan dimension which can lead to loss of lives and destruction of properties?

“I saw a video today of some Nigeriens, on a road show, backing Tchiani and abusing you. That may have been arranged by the coupists quite alright but do we need that type of distraction now when everything is being done to ensure that Nigeria moves its economy to the next level?”

He raised fears that Russia and China supporting Niger would be dangerous for Nigeria to confront, as well as other French West African countries, which are pledging their alliance with Niger.

“Do we know the involvement of Russians because of the Uranium in Niger?

“In Nigeria, the electoral process is yet to be concluded, the palliatives you promised because of the removal of fuel subsidy payment are still in the air, so why do we want to send our soldiers to engage in a needless war?

“In ECOMOG, Nigeria paid for almost everything. But the economy then was different from what we have now.

“We all know that Nigeriens, directly or indirectly, are fighting the French because of Assimilation Policy which has affected the Francophone-speaking countries, unlike what we have in English-speaking countries, like Nigeria.

“We should think twice before entering another country militarily. Don’t start what you cannot finish.

“Niger is one of the largest (land border) countries in the world and also one of the poorest. What exactly do we gain if we go to war in Niger? What? So that people can praise us as a defender of democracy? When people are dying at home, do we need that type of commendation from anybody?”

The former military general admonished Tinubu to let Niger deal with its problems, as he faces the daunting tasks of Nigeria that litter his desk.

I am a retired General. So, I know that war is not easy. Please, don’t force Nigerians to engage in an endless war.

“Let Nigeriens deal with their rot and let us focus on how to save our own situation back home.

“I am sure you know that seven Northern states – Kebbi, Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, Jigawa, Yobe and Borno – share a 1,608 kilometres long border with five regions in Niger Republic.

“In case of any war, residents of these states will be direct targets of bullets and missiles. This can also lead to a resurgence of criminal activities in the border areas.

“Also, some countries, such as Algeria, Libya, Chad, Benin, Burkina Faso and Mali share borders with Niger Republic. Can we trust these countries to support us militarily and otherwise in case of a war with Niger Republic?” George added.

Headline

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Is Dead

Published

9 hours ago

September 23, 2025

Editor

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz, has died at the age of 82.

According to a statement from the Royal Court, the revered cleric passed away on Tuesday morning.

Born in Mecca in November 1943, Sheikh Abdulaziz rose to become one of the most influential religious authorities in the Kingdom.

He served as head of the General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Ifta, as well as the Supreme Council of the Muslim World League.

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

2 days ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

“We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

AFP

Headline

Google Faces Court Battle Over Breakup Of Ad Tech Business

Published

2 days ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year after the California-based tech juggernaut saw a similar government demand to split up its empire shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.
Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.
Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.
Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.
Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.