MTN Nigeria’s nine-month PROFIT rises 55% to N1.17tn
and the service gets worse. share.google/n2gHbFVY6cFzRTg…
PDBraide retweeted
Several Jews participated in the Holocaust. They led their people to their deaths and benefited greatly from it.
There is no history that White people remember and ensure the entire world remembers that doesn't have participants from the victims.
It is never used to diminish the Holocaust. In fact, you, Suella, would be apologising on Twitter and would have visited every Synagogue in London if an MP ever said this about the Holocaust.
This is exactly why we need to discuss a confrontation and a formal apology. Grave sins, and even outright insults like this about slavery, are very well acceptable. The Caribbeans, who, by the way, still largely have the King as a head of state, are talked down to and silenced when they call for their own reckoning.
Even "memory" to a white supremacist poster child like you is something only reserved for the European colonialist descendants. That is how badly this has gotten.
Africans fully participated in the slave trade at Elmina, Ghana.
Trade records from the Dutch West India Company, Royal African Company, and Danish ledgers from Elmina, Cape Coast show African rulers and merchants negotiating prices, quantities, and terms with European factors.
African brokers and rulers controlled who could trade and where.
African-authored testimony, for example, Ottobah Cugoano, a Fante man enslaved around 1770, wrote that he was kidnapped by fellow Africans and sold into slavery.
In fact the Asante expansion in modern-day Ghana involved conquering neighbours like Denkyira, Akyem, and Gonja. The prisoners taken in those wars- by Africans- supplied both the coastal trade and domestic labour.
The fort archaeology from excavations at Elmina, Cape Coast, and inland Asante sites back all of this up.
On your logic, the government of Ghana should be apologising for their involvement in slavery.
I will never not support woman's view on this
I am thoroughly exhausted by the intellectual gymnastics and extraordinary moral cowardice that emerge whenever Africans and people of African descent raise the question of reparations for slavery and colonialism.
Every time we discuss the transatlantic slave trade, someone rushes to remind us that Europeans were not the only people who enslaved Africans. There was the Arab slave trade, they say. Africans sold other Africans, they insist, as though they have just unearthed some extraordinary historical revelation capable of absolving Europe of centuries of organized human exploitation.
And what exactly is the argument here? That because several people participated in a crime, none of them should be held accountable? That the involvement of an African merchant somehow diminished the suffering of the African who was sold? What a spectacular bankruptcy of moral reasoning.
Yes, some Africans participated in the slave trade. Some African monarchs, merchants and elites profited from the trafficking of human beings. These are historical realities that deserve serious examination. We can even discuss the Afro-Brazilian returnees who settled along the West African coast. Some were formerly enslaved Africans who had obtained their freedom in Brazil, returned to Africa and subsequently participated in the very trade that had once deprived them of their own liberty. Joaquim d’Almeida, for example, was enslaved in Brazil, obtained his freedom, returned to West Africa and became a slave trader. Francisco Félix de Souza, a Brazilian-born merchant, built an immense commercial enterprise around the trafficking of enslaved Africans from Ouidah.
We can examine the royal families, merchant dynasties and political institutions that benefited from this commerce. We can investigate the fortunes accumulated, the properties acquired and the privileges transmitted across generations. I have absolutely no objection to holding African historical actors accountable for their participation in slavery. But now that we have identified some of the sellers, can we please return to the people who were SOLD? Can we talk about their descendants?
Can we talk about the millions of human beings whose bodies became commercial merchandise, whose children were born into captivity and whose descendants were subsequently denied access to land, education, property, political equality and economic opportunity for centuries?
The participation of an African king in the slave trade does not absolve the European merchant who purchased human beings, the shipowner who transported them, the banker who financed the enterprise, the plantation owner who extracted their labor or the governments that legalized and protected the entire system for centuries.
And then comes my favorite exhibition of historical illiteracy, the claim that Europeans today cannot be expected to pay for the sins of their ancestors. How convenient!
Apparently, nations can inherit the wealth of their ancestors, the institutions of their ancestors, the territories acquired by their ancestors, the commercial advantages secured by their ancestors and the accumulated prosperity produced by centuries of exploitation. Oh they can even compensate the slave owners for freeing their slaves. But the moment we discuss the obligations attached to that inheritance, history suddenly becomes irrelevant. You can inherit the estate, but apparently the debts buried beneath its foundations must remain with the dead.
What an extraordinary understanding of justice!
😂😂😂😂😂
Madam Honesty
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who don’t know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britain’s greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britain’s deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
PDBraide retweeted
Still?
My dear, I've been consistently extraordinary for decades.
You're still consistently bothered.
At this point, we're both committed to our crafts.
Mine is showbiz, yours is surveillance. 😝😝😝😝😝
HAPPY NEW MONTH!
PDBraide retweeted
The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC) has confirmed that two suspected Ebola cases reported in Adamawa State tested negative after two rounds of laboratory testing, with no confirmed case recorded in the state.
Good. Very good.
We actually need more suspected cases being reported and tests.
Aside from hospitals and clinics case description should be on every phone, schools, worship centres etc.
The Director-General of the centre, Dr. Jide Idris, disclosed this in a statement, said that samples collected for laboratory testing to establish the cause of the illness observed in the two individuals turned out negative for EBV after two rounds of testing.
channelstv.com/2026/11/01/eb…
PDBraide retweeted
I will be adding screenshots from the logical gender perspective on this issue.
1
Notice how he uses the term "Lock Up"
Mind you, we are talking about a fully alive woman who happens to be a wife oo.
This one believes that it shouldn't even end with banning, she should be locked up too.
PDBraide retweeted
We are so dishonest on this app.
A Nigerian man in his 30s is married to a girl in her early 20s who, according to him, is currently pursuing her master's degree.
The said man is online but has banned his wife from being on X, Facebook and TikTok. He has instructed her not to be here.
Men are cheering him on for MANNING HIS HOUSE.
Do you understand what it means for a fully grown adult woman, who has gone through the four walls of a university and is currently pursuing her master's degree, to get married to a man who then decides that she is no longer sensible enough to distinguish good from evil?
This same man can be on these platforms, where people like Andrew Tate and others exist, and somehow has the discernment to decide what is good for him to consume, what to learn from and what to ignore.
But the woman he has married? Apparently, she lacks that same ability. She is only book-smart and home-smart. She is suddenly a child who cannot navigate the world without her husband's supervision and authorization.
So, what does he do as the head of the house? He bans her from three or four major social media platforms, presumably because he has appointed himself her guardian angel, responsible for shielding her from the toxicity of the internet.
Do you understand the contradiction?🤷
A man who celebrates his wife's intelligence when it suits him suddenly considers her incapable of exercising independent judgment when it comes to her own exposure to the world. The same world that she was dealing with before meeting him.
And somehow, people do not see the intent behind this action. They do not see how it infantilises a grown, educated woman. They do not see how it strips her of the autonomy to make decisions for herself. They do not see how control is being packaged and celebrated as responsible husbandhood.
Nobody is arguing that social media is harmless. Nobody is saying people should not make decisions about what they consume or the platforms they use. But there is a fundamental difference between a grown woman deciding what is healthy for her and a grown man deciding that his wife is incapable of making that decision for herself. You cannot celebrate a woman's education, intelligence and accomplishments and then expect her to surrender her critical thinking and personal autonomy at the entrance of marriage.
And somehow, in all of this, supposedly educated men do not see the problem in the big year 2026 of our Lord Jesus.
God will judge all of you who pretend not to understand what we are talking about when we discuss these things.
PDBraide retweeted
In 1988, the Ibrahim Babangida regime introduced Nigeria’s first national population policy: women should have no more than four children.
The government hoped to bring annual population growth down from 3.4% to 2% by 2000, but the proposal quickly sparked controversy.
Maryam Abacha, president of the Nigerian Army Officers’ Wives’ Association (NAOWA), argued that the policy should also be binding on men.
Hilda Adefarasin, president of the National Council of Women Societies (NCWS), also said, "Since the policy does not regulate the number of wives a man can have, it cannot control population growth."
The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) condemned the policy as an attempt to interfere with God's commandment to "multiply and fill the earth." Christian leaders argued that the restriction would favour Muslims because Islam permits polygamy.
But opposition had also come from Muslim leaders. Months before the policy was announced, a communique from a Muslim seminar at the University of Ibadan had advised the government against making population control a matter of national policy.
Supporters, however, argued that the policy was necessary. Abayomi Fajobi, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Nigeria, said limiting childbirth could protect mothers, who faced greater risks of complications after their fourth pregnancy.
The debate came amid growing concerns about Nigeria's ability to feed its population. In 1987, Population Bureau International estimated the country's population at 108.6 million and warned that only strict family planning could prevent a population explosion from putting further pressure on national resources.
By 1988, Nigeria's daily per capita calorie intake and protein supply were reportedly below global minimums, with fears that overpopulation would make matters worse.
"Nigerians generally don't appear to see anything wrong here," Newswatch wrote. "They argue that since they (children) are God's gifts, He will always provide for them."
As criticism mounted, the Babangida regime clarified that the population policy would be voluntary, insisting it had no intention of forcing it on citizens.
PDBraide retweeted
I am in disbelief that after Javits Frimpong was shot in the stomach, he laid there on the concrete for 30 minutes b/c multiple people saw him, walked by and didn’t call 911.
He could’ve survived. So many people failed him and that’s a reflection of a “me first” community.
PDBraide retweeted
Kemi, congratulations on leading a major British party as a Black Woman. It takes real talent to rise to where you are and deceit is what it takes to rise as a Black leader in a western Conservative Party.
It is a pity the climb did not leave room for a history book and since you chose to argue in the language of history, let us do the history. Let’s dissect your verbal diarrhea point by point.
Everyone participated." Slavery existed on every continent. So did war, and nobody calls a village feud the World War. The transatlantic trade ran for 366 years (1501 to 1866) and put about 12.5 million Africans on ships, of whom about 1.8 million died before they saw the Americas, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database. It ran through joint-stock companies, chartered monopolies, Lloyd's underwriters and acts of Parliament. It was hereditary, because the law made the child of an enslaved mother property from birth. It was racial, because a whole continent was defined as chattel. No other system in history combined those features at that scale. Dissolving all of it into "people from every continent" is far worse than intellectual dishonesty.
Britain was a market leader, not a participant. British ships carried about 3.2 million Africans, second only to Portugal and Brazil. The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) gave Britain the asiento, a thirty-year monopoly to supply 4,800 enslaved Africans a year to Spanish America. The Royal African Company, chartered in 1672 and headed by the Duke of York, later James II, branded its captives "DY". During Edward Colston's years in its leadership it shipped about 84,000 people, and roughly 19,000 died on the way.
You say British taxpayers should not answer for what happened before they were born. They did. In 1833 Britain borrowed £20 million to compensate slaveholders, and taxpayers serviced that loan until 2015, including the descendants of the enslaved. So the principle you invoke was not applied when the cheque went to slaveholders. It only appears when the cheque changes direction.
"Navel-gazing" is a curious charge from someone whose party spends more energy on the past (Empire nostalgia, culture war crusades) than most of those you accuse. Defend Britain if you must. But do not use your Nigerian name as the permission slip for arguments Nigerians know better than anyone.
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who don’t know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britain’s greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britain’s deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
Suspected cases. Surveillance is now on. Case definition will be in medical centres with reporting pathway to NCDC
Expect more suspected cases This is a good sign surveillance is active
Suspected isn't confirmed ebola It means patients with symptoms are flagged
BREAKING: UPDATE ON EBOLA DISEASE IN NIGERIA
Two suspected cases of Ebola disease have been identified in Nigeria’s North-East region. Both individuals have been isolated, contact identification and listing is ongoing, and laboratory testing is being conducted.
Being classified as suspected cases does not mean they are confirmed Ebola cases; confirmation is subject to laboratory results.
The public is advised to maintain good hand hygiene, practise enhanced sanitation and follow guidance from public health authorities.
Further updates will be provided as verified information becomes available.
PDBraide retweeted
Denmark is moving to ban Frankenchickens — the first country in the world to do so.
What we’ve done to chickens is the largest genetic experiment ever run on any animal, and one of the most troubling.
Geneticists took a scrawny bird and engineered an obese meat machine. The chickens we eat today grow four times faster than chickens did in 1957.
But their bodies are not four times stronger. By just six weeks old, many will suffer ailments of old age — heart failure, organ colapse — while one in four will become lame (Knowles et al., 2008).
In studies, lame birds will choose feed laced with painkillers — a sign of chronic pain (Danbury et al., 2000).
Their parents meanwhile are kept on starvation rations. Birds engineered to grow this fast would otherwise eat themselves to death before laying a single egg.
We now breed over 70 billion of these birds a year. Denmark is acting to reverse this giant genetic experiment. The rest of the world should follow suit.
The Danish government wants to ban a fast-growing breed known as “turbo chickens,” setting up another clash with the farm sector over animal welfare.
vist.ly/5qhf8
