Headline

Senate, CBN Set To Clash Over Cash Withdrawal Policy

Published

3 years ago

December 13, 2022

Indications emerged on Tuesday that the Senate may have a running battle with the management of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, over the cash withdrawal limit policy of the apex bank.

Although the upper legislative chamber agreed to debate the latest policy on Wednesday, Senator Adamu Bulkachuwa (PDP Bauchi North), warned that the report of the Committee on Banking, Insurance, and Other Financial Institutions, chaired by Senator Uba Sani (APC Kaduna Central) must not be swept under the carpet.

This caused uneasy calm in the chamber, pointing to the fact that not many senators would agree to the cash withdrawal policy.

A member of the committee, Senator Olubunmi Adetunmbi (APC Ekiti North) had drew the attention of his colleagues to the absence of the panel chairman, who is the APC governorship candidate in Kaduna State from the chamber due to the North West zonal presidential campaign rally of the party in Kaduna.

Senator Adetunmbi said the chairman was billed to present the report of the screening exercise conducted for the two CBN Deputy Governor-nominees, Mrs Aishat Ahmad, and Mr. Edward Lametek Adamu.

Both Ahmad and Adamu were recently reappointed by President Muhammadu Buhari who requested the Senate’s screening and confirmation for their second and final tenure at the apex bank

Ahmad, who is the CBN Deputy Governor on Financial System Stability, had explained details of the policy to the panel during the screening last Friday when she and her colleague appeared for screening.

Details of the explanation given by the CBN chief was to be presented for debate, alongside the screening exercise on Tuesday by the senators.

However, Senator Adetunmbi said the debate could not take place because of the absence of the panel chairman.

He said: “Exactly a week ago the Senate resolved that the committee on banking and financial institutions should come forth today to report on the enquiries that it was mandated to make on the new policy of the Central Bank on the withdrawal limit.

“The committee was specifically mandated to interrogate these issues based on the concern that was expressed in the chamber, with the two deputy governors that were coming for clearance.

“This took place on Thursday last week. Two candidates came for clearance and the issues were thoroughly looked into, especially in the opening remarks of the chairman.

“He specifically reported that the Senate wanted the two deputy governors to elaborate on the rationale behind this policy in view of the massive public reaction to that policy.

“The deputy governors gave elaborate explanations and the committee also requested for further evidence in terms of documented reports that will enable the committee to fully understand the issues behind this policy during the plenary appropriately.

“Unfortunately, the report is not ready today because the chairman of the committee is busy on a political assignment; he is coming tomorrow to present the formal report of the committee.”

This explanation did not go down well with Senator Bulkachuwa, who said the fact that the panel didn’t submit its report should not stop the Senate debate on the CBN Nara withdrawal limit policy.

“We should not allow this thing to be swept under the carpet, it is a very serious issue and Nigerians are waiting to see what the Senate will do like the House or Representatives.

“The House of Representatives has asked the Governor of the Central Bank to stay action on this; leaving it till tomorrow is giving him another excuse and I urge this Senate to discuss this thing today,” he said.

The Senate President, Dr. Ahmad Lawan, ruled Senator Bulkachuwa out of order and insisted that the matter would be debated tomorrow (Wednesday).

He said: “I don’t think it is fair to say we are sweeping the matter under the carpet. To sweep something under the carpet in my understanding means to avoid it.

“Nobody here suggests by action or inaction that we are avoiding discussion on this matter.

“I think it is appropriate to give the Chairman of the Committee an opportunity to come and present his report personally and Senator Adetunmbi is a member of the Banking Committee.

“The Vice of the Committee who is the Chief Whip is here and they are all in attendance.

“They have something to tell us. The chairman wants to present the report himself and when he does that, we will be better informed and we can take appropriate action.

“Tomorrow is less than 24 hours by the grace of God., Please distinguished Senator Adamu Bulkachuwa, I want you to be present so that if there is anything that you want all of us to know even as all of us here feel strong about this.

“If we are going to debate it, let’s do that on the basis of information because that is when we can argue it and say no, stop it because of superior argument. So, let’s not doubt our sincerity here.”

Headline

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

Published

13 hours 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

13 hours 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.

Headline

Peru Anti-government Protesters Clash With Police

Published

1 day ago

September 21, 2025

Editor

Hundreds of anti-government protesters clashed with police in the Peruvian capital Lima on Saturday, throwing stones and sticks as officers fired tear gas on the demonstrators, AFP journalists reported.

The protest, organized by a youth collective called “Generation Z”, is part of growing social unrest in Peru against organized crime, corruption in public office, and a recent pension reform.

“Today, there is less democracy than before. It’s getting worse… because of fear, because of extortion,” said 54-year-old protester Gladys, who declined to give her last name.

Around 500 people gathered in the city center, under heavy police presence.

“Congress has no credibility, it doesn’t even have the approval of the people… It is wreaking havoc in this country,” said protester Celene Amasifuen.

The clashes broke out as demonstrators tried to approach executive and congressional buildings in Lima.

The radio station Exitosa said that its reporter and a cameraman were hit by pellets, commonly fired by law enforcement.

Police said at least three officers were wounded.

Approval ratings for President Dina Boluarte, whose term ends next year, have plummeted amid rising extortion and organized crime cases.

Several opinion polls show the government and conservative-majority Congress are seen by many as corrupt institutions.

This week, the legislature passed a law requiring young adults to join a private pension fund, despite many facing a precarious working environment.