 Good morning to you. This is the breakfast on Klaus TV Africa. I am Justin Acadonia. And I am Messi Boko, beautiful morning to you. It feels great to know that you are on the other side of the divide. We certainly apologize for starting behind shadow. But on the show this morning, ahead of the 2023 January elections, the leadership of the all-progressive Congress has peaked. Lagos-based business, Montana called as its standard bearer in reverse state. What becomes of the APC in reverse state? Also on the breakfast, experts say Malera killed no fewer than 200,000 Nigerians. Affected 61 million orders in 2021 and the country lost over 1.1 million dollars, billion dollars, 645.7 billion annually to prevention and treatment. What is the way forward? And don't forget, we'll also be looking through today's newspapers and analyzing the biggest stories of the day. Welcome. It's still the breakfast on Klaus TV Africa. We'll just slide on to what is trending. And the president is trending and a whole lot is also trending. But this time around, a particular lawyer is actually suing the president. But before we get into that, the biggest story making headlines everywhere in the ICT space in the tech world is Twitter. And specifically, Elon Musk is in the news. And he is acquiring Twitter, the microblogging site. It has been on for quite some time. But the deal has actually been finalized and he is actually taking over Twitter all its shares. Merci. I don't know if you've been following that particular story. It's like one of the biggest acquisitions of all times. Yes. So we're looking at the fact that Elon Musk has actually been in this space for this conversation. As a matter of fact, you have reports saying the new Twitter daddy that has gotten a lot of persons reacting. So yes. So it feels like there's a lot of mix, I mean, this mixed reaction as regards Twitter right now. And some people are saying, oh, the fact that you have Elon Musk's buying Twitter might not be really, really good. And then that's because Elon Musk's often has criticized Twitter over misinformation calls for violence, harassment, conspiracy theory. And some people are saying, now, these are some of the things that he's talked about. Majorly, Elon Musk is very big and great on the issue of freedom of speech. I'd like to quickly run through what he says about freedom of speech. I mean, his thoughts right here, because we feel like we're getting to a point where there might just be a new horizon having Elon Musk on board right here. So he says, free speech is a bedrock of functioning democracy. And Twitter is a digital town square where matters, a virtual to the future of humanity are debated. I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open to source, increase trust and defeating the spam boots and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential. I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it. So we already understand what it is. But just in MOC that a lot of people think that there might just be some kind of trouble. Now way back, if you remember 2009 or about 2011, there were several hashtags. So if you talk about freedom, let's not forget that not too long you had Donald Trump kicked out of Twitter. And recently, he said that he's not going to come back on Twitter even if you have Elon Musk's buying Twitter. And you understand what led to all of that. So he's been very big. Elon Musk's been very big on freedom of speech. And so you get back to it. In 2009, about 2009 to about 2011, some people actually think that Twitter space was really not very controlled because you have people putting out stuff that were not really fantastic. For instance, you had hashtags that were trending at the time. Hitler did nothing wrong. Hashtag, Hitler did nothing wrong. You had a lot of racist kind of comments and hashtags actually trending. So people are saying that if Elon Musk is talking about freedom of speech, we need to begin to identify. He needs to come out very plain. I mean, the simple terms and language to tell us what exactly he means by freedom of speech. Are we going to get back to the time where Twitter had all of that toxic comment and content being put out because right now, there seem to be some regulation that kicked out Donald Trump for some certain comment. So it's a lot of energy. Some people saying that they're quitting Twitter. They can be part of it because they feel like it's going to be a disaster and all of that. So it's a lot that's going on. I just feel that you just gave him a chance to let's just see how it unfolds and before they start making decisions of running away. But another good thing about it is that it is really telling positively on the shares of Twitter and then the stakeholders stand to benefit a lot from what we have been told. Under the new terms of their shareholders will receive $54.20 set in cash for each stock they have on Twitter. That's a very big deal really. A very good return, not just because of this acquisition. I wish I had Twitter shares right now. The fact that he has like 73 million, I mean he's the highest shareholder at the end of the year for Twitter. Now also another thing is the fact that apparently he wants to achieve that takeover. Apart from the issue of freedom of speech, he's also talked about the long tweets. So you notice sometimes if you're very Yes. So if you have so much to write you get limited and so you get to a point where so he's saying that he's going to reduce all of that, authenticate humans and to come to a point where you have all of the ads, you know. So that's also calling for a lot of consent because those ads can be really annoying and so it might not just be a lot, businesses. So we're just we're just going to get to a period where there's going to be a lot of change. Now we can really, really tell what exactly the change will be, but you can also tell Yes, you can get the feelers from what he has always talked about. And some people say, oh, you have alien marks being attacked by Twitter, being criticized. What he decided to do was just buy Twitter. Not like, not like you have, you know, the comparison was also made to a president who said, oh, I mean he felt very violated by Twitter. And what he did was decide to ban Twitter. So you have Elon, Mark saying, oh, no, it's a different thing entirely. So all of that comparison has been put out. But we already know where he stands. I'm looking at all of the things that he's talked about, freedom of speech, you know, long tweets and all of that authentication of humans and what have you. So it's going to be a change. Some people haven't really embraced it. Some people think that. But the fact is that some changes could be very positive over time. Not necessarily. Not necessarily. If you talk about what positive are we talking about, even as we are on Twitter, it feels like it's very toxic and it feels like it's not properly regulated. So you have a lot of regulations. And that's why, like I mentioned earlier when you have the former president of the United States of America, Donald Trump being, you know, banned from Twitter. Donald Trump has said that whether or not you have alien marks buying Twitter, it doesn't change anything. He's not coming back, right? Now, he's very, alien marks is very big on having freedom of speech. And like he has categorically mentioned in his tweets over time, he talked about the fact that it's very vital to democracy. And so what freedom are we talking about here? Are we going to get to a point where we are going to really have some kind of comments like hashtag, he'd like to not do anything. I think you know that if those kind of tweets come up, there's going to be some kind of restrictions. And that's what happened to Donald Trump. And so people are beginning to say, so are we going to get back to the era where you have those kind of tweets coming back on board? I'm sure there would be a way to actually control all of this in as much as he owns a majority share in Twitter. Now, the sole decision of what happens on Twitter, then it does not really lie on him. Really? How do you even explain that? Because Twitter is not, I mean, if everything is being done, this is a bead, everyone said that this is a negotiation. Twitter at one time, once upon a time said, we're not going to, after a while, Twitter is dealing right now. So the question now, I mean, the real deal is if everything gets, you know, correct, I mean, everything goes well, all things being equal, that's what would happen. It therefore means that he becomes, Twitter is now a private owned company. He owns and controls Twitter. And you know what happens when you have- But he should also be aware that he's actually in need to make business. And if you're making decisions, you don't just put your personal interests first. At the end of the day, should also consider the bottom line. Because if you're making decisions and you're losing business, you might want to have a rethink. I understand. But let's also look at the fact that, for instance, combating Nigeria, once upon a time, you had telecommunication. I mean, setting service providers, dominating the entire scene. And you know what monopoly does to an economy? Yes. But eventually, the market was widened, was thrown open, and that you can see healthy competition. So do we have healthy- The question now is, is there a healthy competition for Twitter? Like you have- What's his name again? Don't start. Don't even start mercy. All right, let's just leave Twitter so we can actually move on to the top trend. Actually, just one more top trending. And this time around, a particular lawyer is serene, the president over the issue of a fuel scarcity in the country. And he said it is because the president also doubles as the minister of petroleum resources. And for the country to be having all of this scarcity, that means he has actually not done well as the minister of that particular ministry. So, yes, it's very commendable. I mean, how far this would go? No, first of all, you must appreciate the bravery of the lawyer. I mean, it's a very brave one. It's a welcome development. But we also need to understand, as much as he's a legal practitioner, one would expect that he should understand what the law says. I really do not know, but I stand to be corrected. The constitution has not made any provision. I mean, there's no fault in the constitution or there's nowhere in the constitution that states that the president cannot have, you know, does not play a dual role, like he doesn't hold two offices or position. So the constitution has not stated that. That's not wrong. No, it's not, I mean, it's not an illegality being. So that's what we're saying because at the end of the day, is the issue of, you know, legal. Is it legal? Is it illegal? And some quotas or some quota have actually argued that these suit is actually going to be dead on arrival. Because if you look at the constitution, the constitution has not specified that the president cannot be the president and be a minister or act in dual capacity. Well, is this one challenging? Let's look at the merit of the case right now. Is he actually challenging the fact that the president is actually the minister of transportation or basically the capacity in which he's acted and the fact that he has not performed? So what he's suing for is suing for the fact that Nigerians have suffered. There's been a lot of pain, costs, I mean hardship during that period where you had fuel scarcity, which was necessitated by the fact that you have some element in the system importing adult treated products into the market and that cost scarcity. And so you understand that the minister, the president is the president of the federal republic of Nigeria. He also doubles as the minister of petroleum resources. So you've got his deptitude, mismanagement, it's actually the whole foundation? Yes, so it lies on what premise, I mean that suit, as much as it's morally right, a lot of people, you don't forget the conversation that we had. It feels like Nigerians will move all the time, including the media. We have already moved from the start. We're going on to all the stuff. Nobody's talking about it. So we constantly screamed and talked about the fact that who is responsible for having us importing adult treated product, products that are not up to standard, and that has caused a lot of hardship and for Nigerians. Someone should answer to it. Should we get a solution for the minister, for the president himself? Yeah, where you have the president himself presiding over. There should be a lot of heads rolling. That has been the question. So he's suing that. How do you explain all of that? First of all, how do you explain it? Because the president is, he's suing the president because he's the president. He's also the minister. So in what sense? Now the issue of citizenship, if you begin to look at the issue of basic amenities for citizenship, I mean a matter of provision of good governance for citizens, constitutionally it's not justifiable. So there's no, you can't really hold it. It brings us back to the issue of saying that it would just be a moral issue. And you know, morality is not lower. It's very sad for us. So that's why a lot of peasants have actually cried out. If you look at it, we constantly say that our constitution has not done us any good. You look at those gray areas. I mean that's the reality. So fingers across, this is me just preempting and saying this is what we're looking at. So fingers across, let's see how far this issue actually goes. Yeah, we'll see how far it goes. But the whole idea is that at the end of the day, Nigerians should not have to suffer all of these, you know, issues that have lingered on for so long. The issue of a few scarcity, it's as though it has become part of, you know, Nigeria as in part of what we know, part of what we live with as if it's just a norm. That's actually an anomaly. We should not be grown in, you know, under the, you know, the pangs of a few scarcity in the country. We shouldn't. No, so which is totally, I mean, what happened is wrong, is not acceptable. But like we rightly mentioned, the constitution governs the activities of a nation. And if you look at everything, so you're going to have all of this argument coming for that, you know, where does the constitution talk about good governance and citizens going through pains and hardship? I don't know. So it's just going to be, you know, a very hard one, but very brave, a festival of festivities commendable. And that's the size of our top trending this morning. Definitely take a break. When we return, we'll be heading straight to the pages of a national game. We stay with us as we return tomorrow with more interesting conversations making the rounds in different spaces.