The introduction of the 0.5 per cent cybersecurity levy on all banking transactions has sparked widespread discontent among Nigerians.

On Monday, the Central Bank of Nigeria(CBN) issued a circular to various financial institutions, including commercial, merchant, non-interest, and payment service banks, indicating that the levy would come into effect two weeks from 6 May.

“The levy shall be applied at the point of electronic transfer origination, then deducted and remitted by the financial institution. The deducted amount shall be reflected in the customer’s account with the narration, ‘Cybersecurity Levy’.”

“Deductions shall commence within two weeks from the date of this circular for all financial institutions and the monthly remittance of the levies collected in bulk to the NCF account domiciled at the CBN by the fifth business day of every subsequent month,” the directive read in part.

The new provision requires “a levy of 0.5% (0.005) equivalent to a half percent of all electronic transactions value” to be made by “the business specified in the Second Schedule to this Act”.

In essence, the act, which previously stated only the decimal value of the levy (0.005), introduced the percentage equivalent (0.5 percent) of the levy.

For instance, if a sender intends to send N50,000 to a recipient, 0.5 percent of the amount would amount to N250.

Similarly, multiplying N50,000 by 0.005 equals to N250. 

Consequently, it is important to note that 0.005 is 0.5 percent.

Reactions

Nigerians nationwide are expressing their dissatisfaction, highlighting that banking transactions are becoming increasingly costly due to numerous charges.

A user on the X microblogging platform, Sarki, wrote: “In a country plagued by hardship, poverty, & unemployment, the Federal government has introduced new cyber security levies”.

Lola Okunrin, another user, noted that “Cybersecurity Levy in a country where it’s looking like bank staff are giving out our banking details to scammers. Our cyberspace is not secure at all and we are getting charged for it,”

Yet another user, @seyilaw1 says: “Cybersecurity level, according to the act, is 0.005%, and different figures from 0.5% to 3% are being thrown around.

A 0.5% charge in the Nigeria of today is in itself too much punishment on Nigerians. Are we trying to discourage banking transactions again and encourage cash keeping? @cenbank should revisit this abeg. Stamp duty is something, and now this. It is unacceptable. @NGRPresident @officialABAT, let the poor breathe.”

In its intervention, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Nigeria Labour Congress have called for the withdrawal of the directive.

In a statement issued by Kolawole Oluwadare, Deputy Director of SERAP, the organisation called on President Bola Tinubu’s administration to retract the “arbitrary and illegal directive” issued by the CBN within 48 hours.

SERAP also urged the administration to halt Nuhu Ribadu and the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) from enforcing section 44 and other oppressive clauses of the Cybercrimes Act 2024.

These measures blatantly contravene the Nigerian Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all of which Nigeria is a signatory to, the organisation said.

“If the unlawful CBN directive is not withdrawn and appropriate steps are not taken to amend the repressive provisions of the Cybercrimes Act within 48 hours, SERAP shall consider appropriate legal actions to compel the Tinubu administration to comply with our request in the public interest.

“Withdrawing the unlawful CBN directive and repealing the repressive provisions of the Cybercrimes Act 2024 will be entirely consistent with Tinubu’s constitutional oath of office requires public officials to uphold the provisions of the constitution, and the rule of law and abstain from all improper acts,” the statement read in parts.

The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has bemoaned the newly introduced 0.5 per cent cybersecurity levy to be charged on all bank transactions.

In a communiqué issued by NANS President, Pedro Obi, the union expressed deep concerns over the introduction of another policy that “burdens the already-strained populace, especially amidst prevailing economic challenges.”

NANS firmly denounced the CBN’s new directive, labeling it as an undue strain on hardworking Nigerians.

“While purportedly aimed at enhancing cybersecurity frameworks, NANS emphasizes that this levy only adds to the financial pressures faced by individuals and businesses across the nation.

The NLC raised concerns over the imposition of a levy on electronic transactions, arguing that it burdens workers and vulnerable groups.

The union said it recognizes the importance of cybersecurity in today’s digital age but imposing such a levy on electronic transactions, without due consideration for its implications on workers and the vulnerable segments of society, is unjustifiable.

This levy stands as another tax too much for Nigerians, burdening them with additional financial responsibilities, a press statement signed by its president, Joe Ajaero, said.

“We see in this levy another gang up by the ruling elite to continue its extortion and exploitation of hapless and helpless workers and the masses so that their cronies in various financial centres can continue wallowing in unbridled consumption. During our last May day speech we called on the government to prioritize the welfare of Nigerian workers and masses in their policy directions and actions instead of profit-seeking that unleashes more pressure on the people.

“We wonder when it has become a crime for the people to save their meagre incomes in the Banks and whether the government intends to encourage people to resort once again to keeping cash and using cash transactions instead of electronic transfers which seem to have become an undoing for the people?

“While the CBN has exempted interbank transfers and loan transactions from this levy, the broader impact on everyday transactions cannot be overlooked. Such deductions directly affect the disposable income of workers and further diminish the purchasing power of the common citizen,” the statement said.

 

PT/Daily Trust/The Cable

 

Israel seizes Gaza's vital Rafah crossing, but the US says it isn't the full invasion many fear

Israeli troops seized control of Gaza’s vital Rafah border crossing on Tuesday in what the White House described as a limited operation, as fears mount of a full-scale invasion of the southern city and talks with Hamas over a cease-fire and hostage release remain on a knife’s edge.

The U.N. warned of a potential collapse of the flow of aid to Palestinians from the closure the Rafah crossing from Egypt and the other main crossing into Gaza, Kerem Shalom, from Israel, at a time when U.N. officials say northern Gaza is experiencing “full-blown famine.”

The Israeli foray came after hours of whiplash in the now 7-month-old Israel-Hamas war, with the militant group saying Monday it accepted a cease-fire proposal that Israel insisted fell short of its own core demands.

The high-stakes diplomatic moves and military brinkmanship left a glimmer of hope for a deal to bring at least a pause in the war, which has killed more than 34,700 Palestinians, according to local health officials, and has devastated the Gaza Strip.

The Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings are critical entry points for food, medicine and other supplies for Gaza’s 2.3 million people. They have been closed for at least two days, though the smaller Erez crossing between Israel and northern Gaza remains open.

By capturing the Rafah crossing, Israel gained full control over the entry and exit of people and goods for the first time since it withdrew soldiers and settlers from Gaza in 2005, though it has long maintained a blockade of the coastal enclave in cooperation with Egypt.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the capture of the crossing an “important step” toward dismantling Hamas’ military and governing capabilities, and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said Israel would “deepen” the Rafah operation if talks on the hostage deal failed.

Osama Hamdan, a Hamas official based in Beirut, said the militant group would not respond to military pressure or threats and would not accept any “occupying force” at the Rafah crossing.

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the operation along the Gaza-Egypt border in eastern Rafah was not a full-on Israeli invasion of the city that President Joe Biden has repeatedly warned against on humanitarian grounds. Kirby said Israel described it as “an operation of limited scale and duration” aimed at cutting off Hamas arms smuggling.

Kirby expressed optimism about the cease-fire negotiations, saying Israel and Hamas “should be able to close the remaining gaps” to complete an agreement. He said CIA chief William Burns will attend further talks in Cairo with representatives from Israel, Egypt and Qatar. Hamas also sent a delegation to Cairo, which will meet separately with the Arab mediators.

“Everybody is coming to the table,” Kirby said.

Fighting forced the evacuation of the Abu Youssef al-Najjar Hospital, one of the main medical centers receiving people wounded in airstrikes on Rafah in recent weeks. It was not immediately clear how many patients were moved to other facilities.

The looming operation threatens to widen a rift between Israel and its main backer, the United States, which says it is concerned over the fate of around 1.3 million Palestinians crammed into Rafah, most of whom fled fighting elsewhere.

Biden warned Netanyahu again Monday against launching an invasion of the city after Israel ordered 100,000 Palestinians to evacuate parts of Rafah. But Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners have threatened to bring down his government if he calls off an offensive or makes too many concessions in cease-fire talks.

A senior Biden administration official said late Tuesday that the U.S. had paused a shipment of bombs to Israel last week over concerns that Israel was approaching a decision on launching a full-scale assault on Rafah against U.S. wishes.

The U.S. has historically provided Israel enormous amounts of military aid, which has only accelerated since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack that ignited the war. The paused shipment was supposed to consist of 1,800 2,000-pound (900-kilogram) bombs and 1,700 smaller ones, with the U.S. concern focused on how the larger bombs could be used in a dense urban setting, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. The official said no final decision had been made yet on proceeding with the shipment later.

Palestinians’ cheers of joy over Hamas’acceptance of the cease-fire deal turned to fear Tuesday.

Families fled Rafah’s eastern neighborhoods on foot or in vehicles and donkey carts piled with mattresses and supplies. Children watched as parents disassembled tents in the sprawling camps that have filled Rafah for months to move to their next destination — which for many remained uncertain.

“Netanyahu only cares about coming out on top. He doesn’t care about children. I don’t think he’ll agree” to a deal, said Najwa al-Saksuk as her family packed up while Israeli strikes rang out amid plumes of black smoke.

Families of the Israeli hostages also saw their hope turn to despair. Rotem Cooper, whose 85-year-old father, Amiram, was among scores abducted during Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, slammed what he said was the government’s inaction on a deal.

“We see all sorts of explanations — ‘This isn’t the deal that we gave them, Hamas changed it without saying something,’” Cooper said at a parliamentary hearing Tuesday. He questioned whether military pressure was an effective bargaining tactic.

Israel’s 401st Brigade took “operational control” of the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing early Tuesday, the military said. Military footage showed Israeli flags flying from tanks in the area. It also said troops and airstrikes targeted suspected Hamas positions in Rafah.

The military claimed it had intelligence the crossing was “being used for terrorist purposes,” though it did not immediately provide evidence. It said Hamas fighters near the crossing launched a mortar attack that killed four Israeli troops near Kerem Shalom on Sunday and that more mortars and rockets were fired from the area Tuesday.

Israeli authorities denied the U.N. humanitarian affairs office access to the Rafah crossing Tuesday, said its spokesman, Jens Laerke. All fuel for aid trucks and generators comes through Rafah, and Laerke said there was a “very, very short buffer of about one day of fuel.”

Israeli strikes and bombardment across Rafah overnight killed at least 23 Palestinians, including at least six women and five children, according to hospital records.

Mohamed Abu Amra said his wife, two brothers, sister and niece were killed when a strike flattened their home as they slept. “We did nothing. ... We don’t have Hamas,” he said.

Egypt’s Foreign Ministry condemned the seizure of the Rafah crossing, calling it “a dangerous escalation.”

It has previously warned that any occupation of Rafah — which is supposed to be part of a demilitarized border zone — or an attack that forces Palestinians to flee into Egypt would threaten the 1979 peace treaty with Israel that’s been a linchpin for regional security.

Netanyahu has said an offensive to take Rafah — which Israel calls Hamas’ last major stronghold in Gaza — is crucial to destroying Hamas after its Oct. 7 attack in Israel when the militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took around 250 hostages.

The United States, Egypt and Qatar have spent months trying to broker a cease-fire agreement and the release of the estimated 100 hostages and remains of 30 others still held by Hamas, which insists it will not release them unless Israel ends the war and withdraws from Gaza.

Netanyahu and other top officials have publicly rejected those demands, saying they plan to launch the offensive after any hostage release and continue until Hamas is destroyed. For now, the hostages serve as Hamas’ strongest bargaining chip and potential human shields for its leaders.

An Egyptian official and a Western diplomat said the draft Hamas accepted had only minor changes in wording from a version the U.S. had earlier pushed for with Israeli approval. The changes were made in consultation with the CIA chief, who embraced the draft before sending it to Hamas, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations.

According to a copy released by Hamas, the proposal outlines a phased release of hostages alongside gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and ending with a “sustainable calm,” defined as a “permanent cessation of military and hostile operations.”

 

AP

Construction of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway has begun amid a myriad of fiscal and due process concerns. But indifference is the response of President Bola Tinubu’s administration to the challenges. The 700-kilometre stretch of road infrastructure, which will span eight years to complete, will gulp a staggering N15 trillion. This figure is tentative, given the country’s inflationary spiral. The project might well have significant economic benefits for the country but there are real questions involved, especially as regime spokespersons have repeatedly reiterated the fact that our economy is bankrupt, of which there is no question.

The pilot phase of the construction has started at the Eko Atlantic City and it will terminate at Lekki Deep Seaport, for which N1.06 trillion has already been released. It is a highway of 10 lanes, which will cost N4 billion per kilometre, and would be the first of its kind in Africa, says the Minister of Works, David Umahi. His zealousness in its implementation brooks no dissent, and sometimes it gets spiteful. The first set of victims, whose properties were demolished to pave the way for the construction, were paid N2.75 billion in compensation last week.

There are similar road networks in the offing, in the Sokoto-Badagry Coastal Highway and the Enugu-Abakaliki-Ogoja-Cameroon Highway, in what seems like a geo-political balancing act. As a spur, the latter will course through Oturkpo in Benue State, to Nasarawa State and end at Apo, in Abuja.

On the second project, Umahi said, “We have started the design and I’m sure that as soon as the Federal Executive Council approves it, we will be starting at the Sokoto side.” Given its 1,000-kilometre length, it will surely gulp over N20 trillion.

The political ecosystem is already astir on the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, with the circumstances surrounding its award. Adherence to due process has been raised by some critics, causing waffling in official quarters. The point has to be made: the project did not go through a competitive bidding process, which is imperative for such a huge venture, in line with the 2007 Public Procurement Act, as enunciated in Section 16 (1) (1) and (d), to create transparency, accountability and value for money.

As the minister admitted, the award sidestepped the public tender competitive bidding process. This raises the question of how the cost was arrived at. Was it a favour to a friend of the administration? Or is the government bidding farewell to the transparency and accountability of public tender and the competitive bidding process? In addition, why was the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) phase of the project not done before work began? We know this through a letter dated 18th April that emanated from the Ministry of Works, soliciting residents living in the Section 1 and 11 areas of the highway in Lagos, to attend a workshop organised for a scoping study that will generate this all-important data, after the project implementation had commenced.

This action, the letter reads in part, will “ensure that the project is developed in a responsible and sustainable manner, in line with regulations in Nigeria as well as international standards and frameworks.” No, this is sophistry! The country’s statute and global best practices do not uphold putting the cart before the horse in the award of a contract, as the ministry’s letter exemplifies. The ESIA precedes any contract.

How the project will be financed is still mired in obfuscation. On 23 September 2023, Umahi disclosed that Hitech – the construction company for the work, would fund the project, precisely under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) scheme. However, in a volte-face recently, he said that the government will provide 50 per cent counterpart funding, in an Engineering, Procurement, Construction plus Finance (EPC+F) model. This fiscal decision is not cast in stone yet, as he revealed that discussions were ongoing for a possible reduction to 30 per cent of government funding.

Recently my Inc. colleague Jeff Haden wrote a piece about the connection between bad bosses and toxic work environments, citing some 57 separate studies that effectively came to the same conclusion - "Destructive leadership significantly decreases employee job satisfaction." 

I immediately found myself wondering why otherwise intelligent business and thought leaders would need even one, let alone 57 studies to prove what should be self-evident - that horrible bosses create horrible places to work. 

What seemed even more important to understand though, is how, in the face of such a literal mountain of evidence, do these awful executives manage to keep their jobs?

Until now, it's been a question that most have been content to treat as rhetorical. After all, until a year or so ago, when presented with the century-old "take it or leave it" bargain, most workers felt compelled to take the "it" - one that included any or all of poor treatment, a toxic workplace and a lack of care ... until the Great Realization.

Since then, and in the "Great Resignation" that followed, which, through January, has seen some 41 million workers walk away from their positions - many in search of better conditions - employees have largely decided to stop taking it. No longer are they content to tolerate bad bosses and the toxic environments they propagate. 

The trouble is, the wrong people are leaving. It's the bad bosses that should be on their way out. Unfortunately, for the most part, they aren't, despite massive numbers of resignations because of them. I decided to take a look at exactly why, and what the rest of us can do about it.

To begin, there is no single reason that bad bosses keep their jobs. A few years ago, business giant Warren Buffet took a stab at guessing why they do. He posited that toxic CEOs hang on for three principal reasons: 

1. an absence of written performance standards for many of these leaders;
2. the fact that most CEOs have no immediate supervisor; and
3. that the boards that these CEOs typically answer to desire to maintain collegial boardroom atmospheres and, so, almost never directly confront their charges on any performance issue, let alone those having to do with the happiness of his/her associates.

While I buy that these three reasons - assembled from the bird's-eye perspective of the greatest organizational heights - apply in some cases, they certainly don't explain why all bad bosses stay employed. To fully understand this issue requires one to look at the problem from every altitude, not just the top. In doing so, a common theme emerges.

Mostly, including in the case of the three Buffet-supplied explanations, it's a courage problem, or at the very least one of conflict-avoidance. Take Warren Buffet's excuses. The reason most CEOs don't have clear performance standards is because most boards avoid the discomfort that comes with presenting him or her with them. 

Likewise for the point about supervision. Among the roles these boards are expected by shareholders to play, whether they choose to accept it or not, is to supervise and to hold CEOs accountable to deliver the expected results of the organization and, ostensibly, to reflect the values of it. 

Lastly, the desire for collegiality is less about back-slaps and smiles than it is about ensuring that board meetings and other interactions are devoid of difficult conversations around accountability or CEO behavior. And this avoidance strategy doesn't end here.

Remember that any executive hire, especially C-Suite hires like the chief of the company, involve many well-placed people - senior HR leaders, board members, and executives at the white-shoe recruiting firm that led the search. 

So, removing these people will require all of these people to admit that they either made a mistake or missed a gargantuan red flag. People like this rarely admit to having committed errors. So, they conspire to live with their mistake rather than live up to it.

It is also helpful to remember that in many of these organizations, whether privately held, public, for profit, or not, the people at these levels run together. They are friends. They socialize together. Their kids are in school together. They serve on community boards together. They belong to the same clubs and frequent the same service providers. 

As a result, for any part of the clique to move on another part of it becomes problematic and requires enormous amounts of fortitude.

Many companies hang on to bad bosses for fear of upsetting investors, creating bad press, or inviting litigation. So, they find doing nothing more favorable to airing their dirty laundry. As a result of this general lack of courage, these crafters of toxic cultures are left to roam freely, without compunction. 

Sensing the reluctance of the organization to deal with them, over time, these awful executives double down on their bad behavior, eventually making the work environment unbearable.

Finally, over time, a sort of Stockholm Syndrome begins to overtake many of these organizations. I have seen it first-hand. Left uncorrected, those constantly abused by a tormentor will, in time, begin to recognize him or her as a benefactor. 

Once this happens, finding a collective bloc with the courage to speak against the aggressor becomes very difficult. But regarding these people as aggressors and tormentors is precisely what is going to be required to make progress. And the very results of the business demand that it must happen.

Here's why. A recent Talenteck study published by Harvard Business Review found that employee experience is directly correlated to business results. In fact, top quartile businesses in regard to employee experience significantly outperform bottom quartile businesses - those offering a poor employee experience and ostensibly led by a bad boss. 

By the numbers, top quartile businesses deliver 53% higher revenue and 44% higher earnings than their bottom quartile counterparts. So, keeping bad bosses thinking they are good for business is, actually, a really bad idea. 

I cannot stress enough how important and timely it is for those responsible for making the decision to move on these bad bosses to begin finding the courage to do so. Not only will you start stemming the loss of good people, which has exceeded 4 million for five straight months, but you'll add to the numerical performance of your business too, and you'll avoid the inevitable grassroots action that's coming next.

Salesforce founder and co-CEO, Marc Benioff was recently quoted as saying, "We have a lot of examples in Silicon Valley, where CEOs were 'fired' by their employees because they did not listen." 

Small and medium enterprises that have left horrible bosses in place for far too long now have a decision to make: do the right thing now or risk being called out by an activist mob. Employees are increasingly losing their patience with boards and senior HR leaders who fail to act on these bad bosses. 

More and more they are speaking out against these tormentors in the same way they spoke out against sexual harassers of both genders. They are tired of being treated poorly or being the ones to have to uproot their lives when things become unbearable. They want to stop leaving; they want their companies to start doing the right thing.

It's not only about better leadership, it's about time.

 

Inc