POLITICS
Behold our Redeemers
Published
2 years agoon
By
Editor
By Chidi Amuta
On President Tinubu’s ministerial nomination list, I am surprised at our surprise. I am even more disappointed by our collective sense of disappointment. The note of public consternation is palpable and almost universal among Nigerians across all divides. Not only was the list late in submission, it was incomplete on first delivery. On closer scrutiny, nearly every segment of the Nigerian public has cried out. So much of a loud bang was expected. Instead, a flatulent loud thud was heard across the land.
The youth feel under represented at a time when our national demographics shows an undeniable youth bulge. Our women feel disappointed that in spite of their numbers and tremendous contributions to our national development from the home to the factory, from the boardroom to the bedroom, only a little more than 9 of them made a list of over 48 potential ministers.
Worse still, those of us, the elite, the high-minded and the incurable optimists of the Nigerian ideal are even more privately angry. For us, the depressing burden of Buhari’s wasted eight years meant that a successor regime should choose from the best of Nigeria to rescue our beleaguered nation. In our characteristic naivety and groundless idealism, we expected a lot of technocrats, citizens with know how and know why in a diversity of disciplines drawn from the private sector, the universities and the efflorescent Nigerian diaspora to adorn the federal cabinet. Alas, only a negligible sprinkle of such persons can be found in the list. AS elite, our judgments are blinded by meritocracy, not coloured by politics and silly compromised balancing.
But politicians and political animals of all hues are in large numbers in a list that looks more like a payback telephone directory of sundry political jobbers. Very conspicuously represented is the powerful trade union of former governors and potential ‘presidents’ who are viciously eyeing Tinubu’s seat and the opulence of the presidential villa where everything is free of charge for residents and their unlimited guests.
Of all the presences in the ministerial nominations list, the large representation of former governors is the most worrisome and embarrassing. It is of course understandable that most of these former governors are the ones responsible for the large vote returns in favour of the president in their respective states. The logic of crass political compensation and patronage only dictates that the president returns the ‘good turns’. But the basic requirement of a ministerial nomination also includes the public expectation that those nominated would be persons whose previous public service record should inspire the public in the expectation of better performance and service delivery. People also expect some modicum of public accountability from the new ministers. Bit here we are with over half a dozen former governors whose only qualification is that they carry the APC card or displayed electoral favoritism towards the ruling party.
Otherwise, Mr. Tinubu’s selection of so many ex -governors for ministerial appointment includes some of the most embarrassing specimens of state governance in Nigerian history. Some of them ran their states aground or drowned them in debt. Others were in cahoots with bandits to bleed their states. Yet others entered into power sharing arrangements with gunmen and bandits over the preponderance of violence and monopoly of force in their states. Quite a few have just had investigation files opened at the EFCC for sundry corruption allegations while in office. Yet others presided over states in which the citizenry never knew a moment of safety and security of life and property for upwards of eight years. In a few days time, these are some the ‘honorable’ ministers that the president will swear in and our public will be forced to welcome as redeemers of our besieged nation.
In many senses, President Tinubu has been very ‘Nigerian” in his approach to this business of cabinet selection. It has been typical Nigerian ‘cut and join’ cabinetry. Some resumes were not proof read for errors of sequence and logic. Some nominees started primary school only three years after they were born! Some nominees were not known to or cleared by the party chief priests in their states. One or two who are clear security risks escaped the eagle eyes of the security agencies. Some have cases pending in courts for unresolved cases of outright criminality but are awaiting conviction. For as long as there is as yet no conviction, you cannot exclude someone from the ministerial pork barrel simply because they are standing trial. That would be media trial and presidency spokespersons do not like that!
In all of this, the public expected perhaps a higher degree of scrutiny both by the relevant vetting agencies and especially the president’s office whose duty it is to approve the final list that went to the National Assembly. I hear the president’s Chief of Staff is diligent at ignoring what he chooses not to see. But in many ways, the ministerial list all bore the imprint of the typical Nigerian ‘cut and join ‘ carpenter.
The ‘cut and join’ carpenter is an ever-present metaphor of every instance of atrocious tinkering with most things that matter to us. It is ultimately a curiosity that reflects our national penchant for ad hoc solutions, short cuts, shoddiness and a general distaste for rigour even in important things. In street parlance, we are talking of the ‘any how’ and ‘anything goes’ syndrome in our national consciousness and culture. After all, “this is Nigeria!”, we casually declare, while expecting the same results as other nations who do their homework.
We even expect the rest of the world to lower standards, bend established rules or create our own standards for us to accommodate our untidy manners and even clap for us for ‘trying’. So, the ‘cut and join’ politician, judge or legislator etc. fall in line with their shoddy artisanal compatriots as typically Nigerian creatures of national convenience.
On the current public and private quarrels with President Tinubu’s cabinet nominations and their equally microwave Senate confirmations, we all-President, parliament, the commentariat and plain citizens out there- have displayed our trade mark lack of method even in momentary bouts of national madness. People have expressed their disgust and disappointment and then moved on with expecting business as usual in governance. Some even expect some magic, the miracle that this bunch of ordinary men and women will do some magic simply because they bear the badge of “new ministers”!
While we await the ritual swearing in of these Chiefs, the “honourable ministers”, our expectations need to be grounded in past experience and tempered by the anomalies of this selection. Some have pointed at the possible culpability of a good number of the new ministers for infractions ranging from wife beating to industrial scale corruption. Others have questioned the competence and basic capacity of some nominees. There is the equally important matter of the relative anonymity of the less known quantities among the new entrants. After all, it is echoed, this is a large country. You cannot possibly know everyone who has something to offer!
Over and above all the petty grumbles, however, there are larger issues that have been raised by Mr. Tinubu’s very ordinary ministerial nominations list. The high expectations are perhaps based on an anticipation that Mr. Tinubu or anyone that was elected to succeed Buhari would govern differently from the Daura general now turned herdsman.
That is wrong both politically and logically. Tinubu and Buhari are both APC chieftains. The party stands for only signpost progressivism but essentially ultra conservatism of the most decadent and even medieval hue. It is the party of politics as usual, of winner take all and business as usual. In many senses, Tinubu’s presidency is bound to be a continuation of the Buhari infamy. I wait to be corrected on this.
But at best, Tinubu’s ascendance is an in house succession from among advocates of the old politics of the African Chief, the African “Big Man” who is entitled to personalize and privatize the institutions and resources of state to advance a personal political end. This is a variant of the politics of Nguema, Mobutu, Arap Moi and Omar El Bashir only with a Nigerian coloration. In the context of that genre of African politics, it matters less who gets appointed minister. In this tradition, some ministers will recur in disguise or frontally. Mr. Festus Keyamo, Buhari’s junior minister of labour has metamorphosed into Tinubu’s megaphone and now ministerial nominee with the only qualification of insulting his superiors nd blindly praising his ever changing masters.
In this mode of politics, the behavior of the state and its prefects never changes. We can already see it in the behavior of the big chiefs of the state. It is there in Tinubu’s endless motorcades, in Akpabio’s imperial grand entrances into the Senate Chambers, the blatant arrogance of power minions like Dele Alake in their condescending and contemptuous rhetoric and attitude towards the public. You can see it in the sheer number of jobless state officials who leave their desks and troop to the airport to welcome the president who merely took a 30 minute hop across the border to attend an ECOWAS meeting. This is the contemporary African wasteful state. It never changes. The Chief or whatever his local ethnic nomenclature is the state and vice versa.
There is nothing so far in the political footprints of President Tinubu to suggest that he is likely to depart from the known footsteps of the African “Big Man” politics. His choice of key political figures sums it up. For party chairman for the APC, the President has literally hand –picked Mr. Ganduje, the authoritarian but dollar hugging former governor of Kano state, a new version of the famous Barkin Zuwo. For Senate President, President Tinubu assiduously worked for the emergence of Godwill Akpabio, the former Akwa Ibom State, Niger Delta Minister etc. as Senate President. This is the same man who for weeks regaled the public with comic strips from his exchanges with one Ms. Joi Nunei over the massive disappearance of funds from the coffers of the over ransacked NDDC. Before his was elected Senate Presdient, Mr. Akpabio was reportedly on medical leave abroad while the EFCC was reportedly looking for hom over a series of ongoing investigations and corruption related cases. Mr. Akpabio has just etched his signature on the identity of the new National Assembly by the viral video of his ‘vacation allowance’ for Senators last week. No one knows exactly how much holiday allowance has been credited to the accounts of their distinguished senatorial majesties courtesy of Akpabio’s generosity. Speculations now range from a paltry N2 million to a princely N30-N50 million! No one knows the real figure in a country where transparency is best described by the opaque black paper bag or “Ghana Must Go” money ferrhying bag! These key political figures can only signpost the moral identity of the new Presidency that has served us this tepid and embarrassing ministerial nomination list.
There is of course no doubt that there has been a mismatch between public expectation and political outcome since the 2023 presidential election. The expectation of the predominantly youthful voters who went to the polls expecting the emergence of a new leadership may have been vitiated by the outcomes announced by INEC. Let us make no mistake about it. There were two political and moral propositions before Nigerians in the 2023 election season. The old African chief politics of Tinubu and Atiku was posited against the new order politics of Peter Obi and his Obidients. The INEC announced electoral outcome enthroned a return to the old order. But the broad masses are expecting a new political order from the new president. This is the root of a certain dissonance between public expectation and the political reality of the moment. It is still the dominant tension of the moment in our national public mood and discourse especially in the social media.
The public expects Tinubu to emerge with an Obi-type governance model and perspective. The widespread disappointment over the ministerial list is coming from this dissonance and crisis of expectation. The political and electoral system has delivered an outcome at variance with the mood and expectations of the public. The result is bound to be widespread and incurable dissatisfaction and disappointment.
In another couple of days, a new federal cabinet will be sworn in with the usual injunctions and predictable speeches. New ministers will ascend the high pedestals of public office, many of them anonymous inconsequential entities catapulted from relative obscurity to the height of prominence and public notice. Quite a few previously impoverished and jobless entities will find work and unexpected monumental wealth. A few new scandals will germinate just as a few good men and women will find space to shine positively in the service of the nation. If for nothing else, perhaps our periodic political changes offer an opportunity for real change in the lives of a few political animals.
Those seeking images of the promised new life can perhaps find it if they look closely. After the ministerial swearing in, a few new men of power who arrived Abuja in night buses as ordinary party men and women will drive away from the venue in sparkling new black SUVs with fierce looking armed escorts. That, really, is perhaps the new meaning of the metaphor of the New Hope in the horizon!
Dr. Amuta, a Nigerian journalist, intellectual and literary critic, was previously a senior lecturer in literature and communications at the universities of Ife and Port Harcourt.
You may like
POLITICS
Israel’s Expansion in Gaza: A Turning Point in the Conflict and the Future of Palestinian Territory
Published
3 days agoon
April 16, 2025By
Editor
Baba Yunus Muhammad
In an alarming escalation, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has announced the “capture of large areas” of the Gaza Strip to be permanently integrated into Israeli “security zones.” This declaration, made on April 15, 2025, signals a dangerous and irreversible shift in the decades-long Israeli occupation: the transition from occupation to de facto annexation.
Israeli airstrikes continue to pummel Khan Younis and Rafah, killing dozens, including women, children, and the elderly. Gaza’s Health Ministry reports over 900 people killed in recent days alone — many of them children. The cumulative death toll now exceeds 50,000, with more than 110,000 injured, many maimed for life. The majority are civilians.
In the most chilling development this week, a mass grave was uncovered in Khan Younis containing the bodies of 15 Palestinian rescue workers — bound, shot, and buried. These were not combatants, but medics and volunteers. The execution-style killings speak to a deepening moral crisis that now grips the conflict.
Strategic Expansion: Occupation Masquerading as Security
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently confirmed Israel’s intentions to create a “second Philadelphi corridor,” effectively carving Gaza into disconnected territories. This would further divide and control the population, while seizing critical border areas along the Egypt-Gaza frontier.
Human rights organizations, including Israel’s own Gisha, warn that Israel has already seized 62 square kilometers of Gaza — nearly one-fifth of the territory — under the guise of “buffer zones.” These so-called zones increasingly resemble permanent annexations. What began as a war is morphing into a land grab, executed under the fog of military necessity.
As one analyst told The Islamic Economist: “This is not just about dismantling Hamas. It is about redrawing the map of Gaza, erasing Palestinian sovereignty, and engineering a demographic reality where Palestinians are forced to leave or live under siege indefinitely.”
Trump Administration and the Shift in American Policy
Under the current Trump administration, Israel enjoys unprecedented diplomatic latitude. Former President Biden opposed any moves to reoccupy Gaza or expel its residents, insisting on a political solution. President Trump, however, has openly spoken of Gaza as a potential “Riviera” and suggested relocating Palestinians to Egypt or Jordan — ideas widely condemned as ethnic cleansing.
Simultaneously, the Israeli government has quietly launched a bureau for the “voluntary transfer” of Gaza’s population. But with Gaza reduced to rubble, its hospitals shut down, bakeries burned, and humanitarian aid blocked, what appears voluntary on paper is, in reality, coerced displacement.
The UN and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have warned that such transfers violate international law, potentially amounting to war crimes. But with a muted response from key Western capitals, including Washington, the machinery of occupation continues unabated.
Deliberate Starvation as a Tool of War
Since January, Israel has imposed a near-total siege on Gaza. Water systems have been destroyed. Fuel is forbidden. Wheat reserves have run out. The United Nations World Food Programme says all bakeries are now closed. Only a few humanitarian kitchens remain — and they too are on the verge of collapse.
The result: Gaza is now facing famine. Children are dying from dehydration and starvation, not just bombs. Diseases are spreading through overcrowded shelters and makeshift camps. The siege is not a byproduct of war — it is the strategy itself.
By making Gaza uninhabitable, Israel appears to be pressuring its civilian population to flee. As history has shown — from the Nakba in 1948 to today — displacement is not a side effect. It is the plan.
Hostages and the Politics of Delay
Israel continues to justify its campaign by citing the 59 hostages held by Hamas since the October 2023 attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis. But as families of the hostages grow increasingly vocal, many accuse the government of sacrificing their loved ones for political and territorial gains.
Polls show that the Israeli public now favors a ceasefire deal that brings the hostages home, even if it means withdrawing from Gaza. But the Netanyahu government — emboldened by far-right coalition partners and a sympathetic White House — refuses to halt the offensive.
Hamas, meanwhile, demands a permanent ceasefire and the right to remain in power. Israel insists on total military victory and Hamas’s destruction. The resulting deadlock is costing lives — every day.
A Moment of Reckoning for the Muslim World
The silence from many Muslim capitals is deafening. While some countries have condemned the atrocities, few have taken tangible steps — whether diplomatic, legal, or economic — to halt the carnage. The Ummah watches in horror, but action remains limited.
Yet this is not just a Palestinian issue. It is a moral and existential test for the Islamic world. Gaza is not just being destroyed — it is being erased. If this moment passes without consequence, the precedent will be set: that under the right geopolitical conditions, a people can be displaced, their land seized, and their history rewritten — with impunity.
The Muslim world must ask: what kind of future are we building, if the soil of the Holy Land can be soaked in blood and the world simply watches?
Conclusion: Toward Justice, Not Just Ceasefire
This is not just a war. It is a transformation of Gaza’s geography, identity, and people. The Palestinian struggle is no longer about borders — it is about survival.
The Islamic world, together with all people of conscience, must raise its voice against this unfolding injustice. Ceasefire is no longer enough. What is needed is an international movement — legal, economic, political, and moral — to end the occupation, prevent annexation, and restore dignity and self-determination to the Palestinian people.
Gaza may be small in landmass. But in the story of justice, it has become a vast battlefield for the soul of humanity.
POLITICS
The Battle for Khartoum: Tracking Sudan’s War over Two Years
Published
2 weeks agoon
April 2, 2025By
Editor
After nearly two years of brutal fighting, Sudan’s civil war is at a critical juncture: the Sudanese Armed Forces announced it has regained control of the capital Khartoum from its rivals, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. It’s yet to be seen if this signals a break in the war or is simply another phase in the fighting. In this article, Kagure Gacheche tracks the conflict since it began in 2023.
Sudan has been engulfed in brutal conflict since 15 April 2023, when tensions between the country’s two most powerful military factions erupted into civil war.
The conflict stems from a long-standing power struggle over military control and integration. Fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces began in the capital, Khartoum, and quickly spread across the country. International efforts to broker peace since have largely failed.
The conflict, which has been going on for two years now, has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian emergencies. An estimated 30 million Sudanese civilians are in need of aid. Brutal attacks, looting and destruction of infrastructure have become commonplace. Millions of people lack access to essential medical care. Food shortages and economic collapse have worsened the suffering. The war has also triggered a massive displacement crisis, with more than 14 million people forced to flee their homes. Many have sought refuge in neighbouring countries, while others remain trapped in dangerous conditions within Sudan.
As the conflict drags on, the toll on Sudan’s people continues to grow. Estimates of those killed vary widely, from 20,000 to 62,000, but the actual figure could be much larger. With no clear resolution in sight, Sudan’s crisis is one of the most urgent and devastating conflicts in the world. At The Conversation Africa, we have worked with academics who have tracked the conflict since 2023.
Weapons flow
Early on, it was clear that both the Sudanese army and the paramilitary force had a sufficient supply of weapons to sustain a protracted conflict. The country was already awash with firearms. It is ranked second – after Egypt – among its regional neighbours in total firearms estimates. Khristopher Carlson, part of a research project tracking small arms and armed violence in Sudan, noted that the two Sudanese forces might have different fighting methods but were adequately equipped to trade fire. The army’s superiority was its air force and heavy arsenal on the ground. The paramilitary force relied on nimble mobile units equipped primarily with small and light weapons.
External interference
This proliferation of weapons has been compounded by financial and military support from external states. Various foreign players – Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar and Russia – have picked a side to support. However, the influence of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates has been particularly problematic. Political scientist Federico Donelli explained that the two nations viewed Sudan as a key nation because of its location. Following President Omar al-Bashir’s ouster in 2019, the two monarchies bet on different factions within Sudan’s security apparatus. This external support exacerbated internal competition. Riyadh maintained close ties with army leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Abu Dhabi aligned itself with the head of the Rapid Support Forces, Mohamed Dagalo, or Hemedti.
Regional dynamics
The support from international players in Sudan’s war has had a damaging effect on regional dynamics. The Sudanese army recently accused the United Arab Emirates of supplying the Rapid Support Forces with weapons through Chad. At a ceremony for an officer killed in a drone strike carried out by paramilitary forces, a senior army official said Chad’s airports would be “legitimate targets” should retaliatory action become necessary. This heightened the risk of a spillover of the Sudanese conflict. Sudan shares borders with seven countries in an unstable region, including Chad, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia. Economics professor and legal expert John Mukum Mbaku warned that a spillover of the fighting could devastate the region economically, socially and politically.
Protecting civilians
The conflict has put millions of civilians in Sudan in the crossfire. A UN report in September 2024 called for an independent force to protect civilians; Sudan’s officials rejected the proposal. However, peace talks have yet to achieve a lasting ceasefire. Sudan had a peacekeeping force between 2007 and 2020, followed by a UN-led political mission that exited in February 2024. Since then, there has been no security presence in Sudan responsible for protecting civilians. Peacekeeping researcher Jenna Russo noted the need for a regional or international peace force that could create “green zones”. This would help protect areas where displaced persons were sheltering and facilitate humanitarian aid.
What’s been missing?
High-level peace talks brokered by the African Union and the UN to negotiate a ceasefire have largely been unsuccessful, putting civilians at constant risk. Talks held in Switzerland and Jeddah have had little impact. Philipp Kastner, a peace scholar, highlighted that the countries hosting or supporting these talks were pursuing competing interests in Sudan, which affected their impartiality. Progress to negotiate an end to the war would be unlikely if external military support to the warring parties continued unabated. Civilians would continue to pay the price.
Kagure Gacheche is the commissioning Editor, East Africa.
Courtesy: The Conservation
POLITICS
Russia-Ukraine War: A Delicate Pause Amid Geopolitical Maneuvering
Published
4 weeks agoon
March 20, 2025By
Editor
B.Y. Muhammad
In a surprising development, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has agreed to a mutual pause in attacks on energy infrastructure with Russia for 30 days, marking a potential step toward a broader cease-fire. The agreement, facilitated through a phone conversation with former U.S. President Donald Trump, underscores the shifting dynamics of international involvement in the ongoing conflict.
The Cease-Fire Agreement: Tactical or Strategic?
While the 30-day truce is being framed as a diplomatic breakthrough, there are indications that the Kremlin has not deviated from its broader objectives in Ukraine. Russia’s agreement to pause strikes on energy infrastructure, participate in prisoner exchanges, and discuss security in the Black Sea has been presented as a concession. However, these elements align with longstanding Russian interests, making it unclear whether the Kremlin has genuinely altered its stance or is simply buying time.
Zelensky, while agreeing to the deal, expressed skepticism regarding Russia’s commitment, emphasizing the need for U.S. monitoring. “Just the assertion and the word of Putin that he will not strike energy sites is too little,” he remarked, underscoring the deep mistrust between Kyiv and Moscow.
Russian Strategy and Western Concerns
Western analysts argue that the Kremlin’s approach remains fundamentally unchanged. Putin’s overarching demand—a complete cessation of foreign military and intelligence support for Ukraine—would, if met, leave Kyiv vulnerable to Russian dominance. While Trump denied discussing aid with Putin, the Kremlin’s statement suggested otherwise, raising questions about the true nature of their discussions.
This development has heightened fears that Moscow is merely playing for time, anticipating that the U.S. may eventually disengage from Ukraine. The timing of this cease-fire agreement, coupled with Russia’s battlefield momentum and growing Western fatigue, suggests that Moscow might be maneuvering for a strategic advantage rather than pursuing genuine peace.
U.S. and Russian Diplomatic Calculations
Trump’s involvement in the negotiations signals a potential shift in U.S. policy. The former president has historically expressed skepticism toward Ukraine’s strategic importance, and his willingness to engage with Putin could indicate a broader recalibration of Washington’s stance. Russia, in turn, appears eager to leverage this opportunity to normalize relations with the U.S. without making significant concessions on Ukraine.
Moscow has already floated the prospect of economic cooperation with American firms, particularly in the rare earth metals and energy sectors. Additionally, discussions have included cultural engagements, such as a proposed U.S.-Russia hockey tournament—seemingly trivial, yet indicative of Russia’s broader attempt to reframe its relationship with Washington beyond the Ukraine conflict.
Implications for Ukraine and the Global Order
For Ukraine, the stakes remain high. While a temporary cessation of hostilities on energy infrastructure provides some relief, the country remains in a precarious position. The prospect of losing its principal backer, the U.S., could force Kyiv into unfavorable compromises that undermine its sovereignty.
For the broader international community, the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to reflect a contest not only between two nations but between geopolitical blocs vying for influence. Russia seeks to restore its sphere of control, while the West struggles to maintain a unified front in supporting Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Islamic world, with its historical ties to both Russia and Ukraine, watches closely, balancing economic interests and diplomatic relations in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
While the 30-day cease-fire offers a temporary reprieve, it is far from a definitive step toward peace. The agreement highlights the ongoing complexities of diplomacy in wartime, the strategic calculations of global powers, and the uncertain future of Ukraine’s sovereignty. As negotiations continue, the world waits to see whether this pause will serve as a bridge to lasting peace or merely as a tactical interlude in a protracted conflict.

Israel’s Expansion in Gaza: A Turning Point in the Conflict and the Future of Palestinian Territory

Are we Bound to this Violence?

GLOBAL VISION 2000 HOSTS 9TH ESCHATOLOGY CONFERENCE: “ENTERING THE FINAL STAGES OF END TIMES”

How Shariah-Compliant is Islamic Banking?

How Hajj Has Become a Billion-Dollar Industry in Saudi Arabia

The Triangulation of Entrepreneurialism with Women, Food Production and Technologies
Topics
- AGRIBUSINESS & AGRICULTURE
- BUSINESS & ECONOMY
- CULTURE
- DIGITAL ECONOMY & TECHNOLOGY
- EDITORIAL
- ENERGY
- EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
- HEALTH & EDUCATION
- IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
- ISLAMIC ECONOMY
- ISLAMIC FINANCE & CAPITAL MARKETS
- KNOWLEDGE CENTRE, CULTURE & INTERVIEWS
- OBITUARY
- OPINION
- POLITICS
- PROFILE
- PUBLICATIONS
- REPORTS
- SPECIAL FEATURES/ECONOMIC FOOTPRINTS
- SPECIAL REPORTS
- SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE CHANGE
- THIS WEEK'S TOP STORIES
- TRENDING
- UNCATEGORIZED
- UNITED NATIONS SDGS
Trending
-
EDITORIAL3 days ago
Trump’s Tariff Tsunami: Charting a Strategic Response from the Islamic World
-
POLITICS3 days ago
Israel’s Expansion in Gaza: A Turning Point in the Conflict and the Future of Palestinian Territory
-
ISLAMIC ECONOMY3 days ago
IsDB and Algeria Enhance Strategic Partnership
-
EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS3 days ago
Madinah to Host the 45th AlBaraka Islamic Economics Symposium
-
BUSINESS & ECONOMY3 days ago
Trump’s Tariff Tsunami: A Global Economic Earthquake with Far-Reaching Implications
-
SPECIAL REPORTS3 days ago
Are we Bound to this Violence?
-
EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS3 days ago
GLOBAL VISION 2000 HOSTS 9TH ESCHATOLOGY CONFERENCE: “ENTERING THE FINAL STAGES OF END TIMES”