Nigeria's former president Buhari dies in London, presidency says
"President Buhari died today in London at about 4:30 p.m. (1530 GMT), following a prolonged illness," President Bola Tinubu's spokesperson said in a post on X.
Buhari, 82, also served as military head of state between January 1984 and August 1985, the spokesperson said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
Central bank independence needs a better defence: Peacock
LONDON, July 14 (Reuters) - Investors may be fixated on Donald Trump's attacks on the Federal Reserve, but the Bank of England also faces increasing political scrutiny, raising alarm bells about the future of central bank independence. The U.S. president has fired a regular volley of vitriol at Fed Chief Jerome Powell in recent months, demanding interest rates cuts and hinting that he will appoint a presumably more like-minded replacement when Powell's term ends next year. While Trump is not the first U.S. president to try to pressure the Fed since it formally became independent from the Treasury in 1951, his attacks are the most public, and this has caused some market wobbles. That's because history suggests that independent monetary policy is better at keeping prices in check than having politicians control interest rates, as the latter may be keen to keep borrowing costs low no matter what. The U.S. bond market has been unnerved by some of Trump's comments about the Fed in recent months, particularly when he wrote in April that Powell's termination 'cannot come soon enough.' But investors appear to be increasingly inured to the president's rhetoric, believing he will back down before doing anything truly destabilising. Relying on the markets as a safeguard, therefore, may not be enough. The Fed would be well advised to gird its defences in advance of Powell's departure, and one opportunity to do so is its periodic strategic review set to be unveiled this fall. The last review, in 2020, made the Fed's inflation targeting more flexible, allowing for periods of moderately higher inflation to balance times when it dropped below target. At a time when the U.S. president is both pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates and pursuing trade policies that could be inflationary, the Fed would be wise to drop the 'flexible' approach and instead focus on meeting its inflation target at all times. That would send a clear message to the American people that its top priority will be tamping down the cost-of-living pressures that have hit hard since 2021, helping to bolster its legitimacy with the public. On the other side of the pond, the Bank of England is also facing questions about the way it operates. Britain's insurgent Reform Party, which holds a consistent lead in opinion polls, says the Bank wastes billions of pounds of taxpayers' money by paying interest to commercial banks on their reserves and should therefore stop doing this. It has also suggested one or more government officials should sit on the BoE's Monetary Policy Committee. Bank Governor Andrew Bailey pushed back in a published letter, opens new tab, arguing that if the official interest rate was not paid on reserves, the transmission of monetary policy to the real economy would be hampered and banks would be tempted to reduce those holdings, potentially creating a financial stability risk. He also offered a cogent defence of the ongoing benefits of quantitative easing as well as the costs. Importantly, if this government or a future one were to mandate a change to the BoE's reserves regime, it would smack of 'fiscal dominance', whereby high government debts influence the way a central bank operates. Once that box has been opened, it could lead to speculation that interest rate changes were being swayed by the same factor, a massive red flag for investors. The UK government's last root-and-branch review of the Bank's remit was a decade ago. Given everything that has happened since then – Brexit, COVID-19, the cost-of-living crisis – it is time for another look and would give the Bank a forum to clarify its goals and available toolkit. To silence doubters, many issues need addressing, including the diversity of thought on the Bank's policy committees, accountability to parliament and the public, the breadth of its remit, the interplay of monetary policy and financial stability and the Bank's communications. Moreover, given that quantitative easing was a leap into uncharted waters, there are legitimate questions to ask about its effectiveness, its wider impact on the economy and its reversal via quantitative tightening. The Bank is closing in on its Preferred Minimum Range of Reserves, so it is a good time to evaluate this program and then communicate the findings clearly to the public. And now is likely a good time to act. It was only three years ago that then-Prime Minister Liz Truss attacked the Bank for not foreseeing the market's reaction to her ill-fated budget. Attempting to make any changes to BoE policy in such a charged environment would have been very challenging. In stark contrast, current Finance Minister Rachel Reeves, a former BoE employee, has pledged not to interfere with its independence and would thus be far less apt to politicize any Bank action. The same won't necessarily be the case with whomever succeeds her. As former Bank of England Deputy Governor Paul Tucker said at a recent conference in London, the best way for central banks to preserve independence is to 'do their job, stick to the mandate, explain it as clearly as possible. Don't try to intervene in politics'. The problem is that politics may continue to interfere with them. (The views expressed here are those of Mike Peacock, the former head of communications at the Bank of England and a former senior editor at Reuters). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI,, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn,, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
BBC's twin-crises prompt apologies and promises - but will it work?
One report about failings in its programme-making is difficult for the BBC. Two on the same day could be catastrophic - and that's what BBC bosses woke up to on Monday day has been about publicly apologising, announcing action plans and trying to turn a corner - on the Wallace misconduct story and on the failures over its Gaza documentary - after a deeply damaging few will it work?On Wallace there are still questions about whether the BBC created a culture where presenters lived by different rules (something the recent culture review aims to get a grip on) and also whether there was enough active monitoring of what was going out on its platforms.I think the BBC has a good case to say it did get a grip in the later years. Kate Phillips, now Chief Content Officer, warned Wallace about his behaviour in 2019 and after that, according to the report, no complaints were escalated to the BBC. If that is correct, the BBC can argue it thought the issue was the Gaza documentary about children in a warzone, with an investigation now launched by the regulator Ofcom into the BBC misleading audiences, it is by no means the end of the the review has on the face of it given the BBC a bit of breathing space. The culture secretary, who recently asked why nobody had been fired over the Gaza documentary, seems to have rowed back. I understand that Director General Tim Davie and Chairman Samir Shah met with Lisa Nandy last week to reassure her. Her more conciliatory tone will have prompted a corporate sigh of relief after her recent pointed attacks directed at the BBC's leadership. Questions still remain around whether anyone inside the BBC will lose their job. We know that the BBC team failed to get answers on the boy's family links, the investigation holds them partly responsible for the failures - and that the BBC says it is taking "fair, clear and appropriate action" to ensure is a question asked inside the BBC in situations where there have been failings. Will heads - or rather deputy heads - roll? It is a cynical take on whether there is real accountability at the top when something goes wrong. We still don't know the outcome more broadly, when it comes to Gaza, these past few months have been Davie gave evidence to MPs in March, a few weeks after he had pulled Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone from iPlayer, he told them he "lost trust in that film" once the fact that the child narrator was the son of a Hamas official became is not an exaggeration to say that the ongoing war has led others to lose trust in the BBC and its coverage of what is happening in Gaza, where access by foreign journalists is prevented by corporation has been accused of antisemitism. Broadcasting a documentary without knowing that fact about the link to Hamas - and not informing the audience of it - opened it up to those did the BBC's failure properly to deal with the livestream from Glastonbury when the punk duo Bob Vylan chanted "Death to the IDF" and made other offensive are people inside and outside the corporation who feel betrayed by the BBC's coverage. Some say it is biased against Israel and that the attacks on October 7th and the hostages have been forgotten. Some accuse the BBC of ignoring the plight of Gazans and Israel's actions in its coverage of the war. It recently axed another documentary about the conflict, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, because it said broadcasting it "risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC".Less than two weeks ago, at a packed screening at London's Riverside Studios, hundreds watched it on the big screen, after it had been shown on Channel 4. I was there. The woman sitting next to me was in tears as the horrors unfolded on screen. She wasn't the only BBC has said it first delayed running the Gaza: Doctors Under Attack film in light of the investigation into the other documentary. It then dropped it, deciding it could not run after its presenter went on BBC Radio 4'sToday programme and called Israel 'a rogue state that's committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing and mass murdering Palestinians'.The filmmakers at Basement Films have pushed back on that. On Monday they said "the film was never going to run on BBC News and we were given multiple and sometimes contradictory reasons for this, the only consistent theme for us being a paralysing atmosphere of fear around Gaza".Whatever the true story about why it wasn't shown on the BBC, that claim - that the BBC's Gaza coverage is compromised by fear - is just as damaging. The BBC refutes it, but in some quarters, it appears to be taking the screening room, Gary Lineker came onto the stage and said the BBC should "hang its head in shame" for not screening what he called "one of the most important films" of our time. He accused the BBC of bowing to pressure - and the audience noisily the Israel-Gaza war has tested the BBC almost like never before. One insider said to me that neither side wants impartial reporting, what they want is partisan reporting. But, from all sides, the BBC has come under BBC says it is "fully committed to reporting the Israel-Gaza conflict impartially, accurately and to the highest standards of journalism". It also says "We strongly reject the notion – levelled from different sides of this conflict – that we are pro or anti any position".Two years ago the annual report was overshadowed by the Huw Edwards crisis, last year it was the Strictly allegations, this year it is not one but three most important job for a director general is to secure charter renewal and the BBC has a strong story to tell and sell. But the difficulty for Tim Davie is that no matter how loud he bangs the drum for the BBC and its future, it is hard to be heard over with the din of crisis.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Miliband's climate statement not so much historic as histrionic
Have MPs started their holidays early? If so, Bangkok's loss is our gain. Westminster was cool and peaceful; the Commons half-empty. Only 42 Labour MPs attended Ed Miliband's statement on the climate, billed as 'historic'. The rest will remember where they were when it happened because they had such a lovely day at Lord's. 'The UK's climate is getting hotter and wetter,' ranted Ed. 'Thank God there's somebody in this chamber trying to save the planet!' squealed Stella Creasy. She can probably thank the whips there was anyone in it at all. A few sad sacks with nowt better to do congratulated the Environment Secretary for putting solar panels on school halls, gyms, even on the pupils – but this was a subject Ed would've been quite happy to talk about all by himself. Indeed I'm told by concerned members of staff that he frequently does. 'I notice there are young people sitting in the gallery,' he observed emotionally, thinking of all the rain they'll have to endure: 'future generations who have genuine anxiety about what world they're going to inherit.' One of the teenagers had a green mohawk. I felt more anxiety about meeting him down a dark alley than he's probably ever felt about coastal erosion. If the kids looked bored, who are we to judge? Labour plays its eco card by a tedious script. Appeal to bipartisanship, 'this is not a party political matter', then call anyone who asks questions a Right-wing crank. The Tories requested a costing for net zero; Miliband denounced them as 'anti-science… anti-jobs and anti-energy security.' This wasn't historic so much as histrionic, though at least Ed believes what he says. Even fewer MPs turned out to hear Yvette say what she doesn't, i.e. that borders are sacrosanct and illegal crossings unwelcome. For this Home Office statement I counted only 17 Labour MPs, 18 if you include Angela Eagle's massive handbag. Black and bulging, it looked as if she had dismembered a corpse and was looking for a place to dispose of it. In the Thames, perhaps? That would be illegal. Labour nabs serial killers for littering. Cooper is proud of the 'one-in, one-out' deal Britain has negotiated with France, along with a special offer on magic beans. It shows that 'treating other people with respect can result in positive action,' said Clive Efford. It also shows what you can get if you pay over the odds. Under this arrangement, if Britain returns a person who came by boat, France will deliver us a legitimate refugee – akin to rewarding a family who fends off a burglar by sending a complete stranger to live in their house. The public isn't interested in such reciprocity. They want lower numbers. Tory Chris Philp, who had an unsightly stain on his tie, accused Cooper of 'sounding rather pleased with herself' – but was dead wrong. She sounded exhausted. One year in, Labour is worn down. Perhaps its sole achievement is to liberalise attitudes towards recreational drugs. Lib Dem Josh Babarinde asked the Government if it could help tidy the verges of Eastbourne and 'make our grass great again!'. Never mind mowing it, I'd be tempted to smoke it. I wondered if Master Mohawk knew where to score some Eastbourne Kush.
