IMF board approves Kenya's reviews, unlocking access to $606 million

The executive board of the International Monetary Fund has approved the seventh and eighth reviews of Kenya's program, the IMF said on Wednesday, paving the way for the cash-strapped government to access a $606 million loan tranche. The East African nation and staff of the IMF announced an agreement on the seventh review of its $3.6 billion program in June, but completion of the review at the board level and the subsequent disbursement were disrupted by deadly protests. More than 60 people were killed in the violent protests which forced President William Ruto to abandon the government's finance bill, which contained a slew of tax hikes. "Kenya's economy remains resilient, with growth above the regional average, inflation decelerating, and external inflows supporting the shilling and a buildup of external buffers, despite a difficult socio-economic environment," IMF First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath said in a statement on Wednesday.

Botswana ruling party rejected after 58 years in power

The Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) – in power since independence in 1966 – had won only one parliamentary seat as of early Friday morning, preliminary election results show.

The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC), led by human rights lawyer Duma Boko, won 20 seats, according to the early tallies.

UDC looks set to form the government as it is projected to pass the 31-seat threshold for a majority in parliament.

As MPs elect the president in Botswana, Duma Boko is on course to become the next head of state once parliament meets for the first time.

Boko, who is running for the third time, has urged his supporters to "maintain vigilance and discipline".

Despite overseeing a dramatic change in Botswana, recent poor economic growth and high unemployment dented the BDP’s popularity.

He will replace Mokgweetsi Masisi – in office since 2018 – who led the BDP’s failed campaign.

The president ran on a message that his party could bring about “change”, but not enough voters were convinced the BDP could do what was needed for the country.

Link

Israel’s military reported Thursday that it intercepted a drone transporting weapons from Egypt into Israeli territory on Wednesday.

Amid ongoing conflict in Gaza, Israeli authorities have noted that Hamas has used tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border to smuggle arms, Reuters reported.

However, Egypt maintains that it dismantled these tunnel networks years ago, establishing a buffer zone and bolstering border security to prevent such smuggling activities.

Earlier in October, Israel’s military reported thwarting another weapons smuggling attempt from Egypt, intercepting a drone loaded with guns and ammunition.

Israeli soldiers also sealed off an essential supply channel into the Gaza Strip on May 7 by taking control of the major Rafah border crossing. They said Hamas used the border for terrorist objectives. It is frequently assumed that weapons and other prohibited materials are smuggled into the Strip from Egypt.

The two borders into southern Gaza, Rafah, and Israeli-controlled Kerem Shalom, were closed, according to the UN and other international relief organizations, effectively cutting off the region from outside help and leaving very few stores open.

According to Red Crescent sources in Egypt, supplies have ceased.

Israel is however worried that Egypt's failure to coordinate the admission of supplies might result in immense global pressure and jeopardize its capacity to operate in Rafah.

Link

Last week at a lavish global summit in the Russian city of Kazan, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia, once a darling of the West — winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and formerly a staunch ally of the United States — spoke up to heap praise on his host: Vladimir Putin, the bête noire of the rules-based order. “Allow me to congratulate you on maintaining economic resilience during a difficult period,” Abiy cooed. “This period was not easy for Russia, but under your leadership you have succeeded to maintain the economic resilience which might be exemplary for most of us.” This might sound to an untrained ear like the kind of empty flattery typically offered at a talking shop of global leaders. But to me, it was a telling bit of theater that hints at the dangerous crossroads at which a world riven by inequality and beset by endless crises finds itself. It was a glimpse of the world to come and how the shifting balance of global power increasingly eludes the West’s grasp.

Abiy is an ambitious nation builder who presides over one of Africa’s fastest-growing economies. He is also increasingly at odds with the West, and his mention of Russian resilience in the face of very tough sanctions was a not-so-subtle shot across the bow. Should the West seek to contain Abiy’s aggressive moves in his strategically vital neighborhood, his country has an ally and role model in Putin’s Russia. Abiy was speaking at the annual summit of the BRICS nations, the largest gathering of world leaders in Russia since its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The pomp-filled event was meant to project to the West that its attempt at isolating Putin as punishment for his invasion of Ukraine had failed. Surrounded by the leaders of some three dozen nations, Putin looked like the cat who ate the canary — a man who reportedly has the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, on something close to speed dial and has reportedly had private phone calls with the past and possibly future president of the United States, Donald Trump. The secretary general of the United Nations attended as well, raising eyebrows as he made his first visit to Russia in more than two years.

In a news conference at the end of the summit, Putin indulged in some digs at his Western tormentors. “As you can observe, we continue to live and work normally, and our economy is developing,” he said, trotting out Russia’s growth stats, which the International Monetary Fund says will outstrip other developed economies’ this year. For that he can thank, in no small part, the deals that it has inked with fellow BRICS members, most especially India and China, two of the world’s top three oil importers and a crucial source of trade for Russia in the face of sanctions. Good luck, Putin seemed to say, with your rules-based order. My friends and I are building a different future.

Abiy Ahmed was keen to congratulate Vladimir Putin on Russia’s resilience.Credit...Pool photo by Maxim Shemetov It was a long way from the first summit of the BRICs, the euphonious acronym coined by Goldman Sachs for the rising beneficiaries and shapers of an increasingly interconnected and globalized world. These powers — Brazil, Russia, India and China, with South Africa added later — first came together in 2009 amid the global financial crisis to ask for a share of power from the Western-dominated world order commensurate with their increasing economic and geopolitical strength. At the time, for most of the powers involved, this was an urgent but relatively friendly set of demands.

The West, for its part, seemed ready to welcome these changes, albeit on its timetable and terms. “There was also always a consensus that multipolarity was both inevitable and desirable, that this wouldn’t really lead to a breakup of the system,” said Oliver Stuenkel, a Brazilian-German political scientist and expert on the BRICS alliance. “There was no talk of a new Cold War.” Fifteen years later the world looks very different. War, pandemic, the climate crisis and more have ravaged the globe. The lift-all-boats-through-globalization ethos of the period at the end of the Cold War is long gone, replaced in many parts of the world by a stark return to an inward-looking nationalism driven by zero-sum self-interest.

In the midst of this turmoil, the demand for reform has gone largely unanswered. The United States dollar remains the dominant currency of global trade, and the Group of 7 club of wealthy, developed economies if anything play an even bigger role in shaping the global economy, much to the chagrin of poorer countries. The powerful global financial institutions that hold sway over the lives of billions of people, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have continued their tradition of being led by Europe and the United States. The institutions created toward the end of World War II that helped ensure global peace remain dominated by the West.

Russia and China, meanwhile, have moved sharply away from the West and joined forces in powerful ways, seeking to unite the developing world against a recalcitrant Western hegemony that makes little room for others to rise. They claim to speak for the “global majority,” a term Putin has begun to use quite liberally of late, though in his case it is clearly a matter of opportunism rather than solidarity. But he is tapping into a very real set of resentments that I have been hearing about with increasing anger and frustration from leaders, scholars and ordinary people across the global south. They hear from the global north a clear set of messages directed at the poor world: Do not cross our borders. Trade on our terms. (Forget globalization; we’re going to focus on building at home.) Help shoulder the burden of reducing emissions and don’t expect much assistance dealing with climate change despite the fact that we historically caused almost all of the damage. Stand with us on the sovereignty of Ukraine and condemning Russian indifference to civilian casualties. Listen to our lectures about human rights, democracy and international law, but do not question our support for Israel’s blood-soaked war in Gaza.

There are, of course, nuances and counterarguments to these perceptions. But it is hard to deny the fundamental truth that the global balance of power does not reflect the actual shape of economic and political might or even tilt toward the inevitable direction of travel of that power — South and East — in the decades to come. And so it was against this backdrop that Putin gathered the members of the BRICS bloc — newly expanded with Egypt, Iran and the United Arab Emirates in addition to Ethiopia, as well as many aspiring countries, notably Turkey, which is a member of NATO and a one-time aspirant to European Union membership. It is, to be sure, a rather motley bunch of countries whose interests are varied and quite often at odds. For some new members and aspirants, like Iran and Venezuela, the attraction is clearly to join and perhaps seek protection within China and Russia’s anti-Western axis. But its original members are divided on what the alliance is for. For a couple of the most powerful among the players, the goal is to hedge, to find advantage in whatever arena you can and to remind the West that you have other options.

For all its talk about creating alternative institutions to those dominated by the West, BRICS has made little progress. Its development bank, meant to compete with the World Bank, is relatively tiny. It is no closer to creating an alternative currency to the dollar, though local currency trades among members are on the rise. India, Brazil and South Africa reject the explicit anti-Western tilt and seek a more flexible, multilateral approach. India of course has long had a deep geostrategic rivalry with China. Their disputed Himalayan border is a dangerous nuclear flashpoint, though on the eve of the summit they reached an agreement that will ease tensions for now. Still, the two countries are in a pitched battle to be the pre-eminent power in Asia. India is the world’s most populous country and has its fastest-growing large economy, and it has a long tradition of charting its own multilateral course in world affairs, cognizant of its power to shape events. “The BRICS have struggled to take common lines on the major crises of the last year because of their deep-seated political differences,” Comfort Ero, the president and chief executive of the International Crisis Group, told me.

Indeed, watching the summit unfold from afar, it seemed less an effort to lead the world in a new direction than to further weaken the powers leading the current order by playing up the selfishness and hypocrisy of its leaders. The Gaza crisis in particular offered considerable fodder for autocrats like Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, who stole his last election and whose violent rule has propelled a fifth of Venezuelans fleeing the country, and Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who smothered his country’s nascent democracy with a coup in 2013. But their cynical opportunism doesn’t lessen the charge of Western double-dealing. Image Nine world leaders, from Ethiopia, Egypt, South Africa, China, Russia, India, the UAE, Iran and Brazil, standing in a line for a photo. The newly expanded BRICS group is a motley bunch of countries whose interests are varied and often at odds.Credit...Pool photo by Maxim Shipenkov Which brings me back to Ethiopia, a country intimately acquainted with the West’s inconstancy to its own stated principles. In 1935, fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia, one of the only countries in Africa never to be colonized. Ethiopia’s leader, Emperor Haile Selassie, sought the support and protection of the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations. “Should it happen that a strong government finds it may with impunity destroy a weak people, then the hour strikes for that weak people to appeal to the League of Nations to give its judgment in all freedom,” he declared in a speech before the assembled leaders. “God and history will remember your judgment.” His plea fell on deaf ears. The league’s failure to protect Ethiopia helped speed the march to a devastating world war. Selassie was right: History did indeed remember the League of Nations’ judgment, and not very kindly.

It might seem ironic that Abiy in his remarks was aligning himself with the aggressor in a contemporary conflict that poses a similar threat to the current global order. But Abiy, like Putin, is an avid student of his country’s imperial history. If Selassie pleaded with the strong to protect the weak, Abiy seems determined not to be weak in the first place. And yet I do not believe that Ethiopia wants to be on the side of pariahs. It is one thing to complain about the dollar and high interest rates, or roll your eyes at lectures on democracy and human rights from a West that seems either willfully blind to its own double standards or too arrogant to realize it no longer has enough power to carry off its hypocrisy. But I suspect that few of these nations, home to almost half of humanity, would willingly sever themselves from the existing world order in favor of one dominated by China, an economic and strategic superpower in the making, and its junior partner, Russia. In Kazan, it would have been hard for delegates to escape the signs of Russia’s isolation, despite all the pomp. They were instructed to bring stacks of cash in U.S. dollars or euros because their credit cards would not work in Russia, thanks to sanctions. If this version of multilateralism looks like North Korean troops helping Russia colonize an independent nation and tastes like fake Coca-Cola, it is hard to imagine the rising world will be satisfied with anything less than the real thing. Why would a young, fast-growing nation want to throw in its lot with Russia’s revanchist grievance, even if China does?

The good news is that there is still time to change the existing order and plenty of important partners willing to engage in that effort. In a few weeks the Group of 20, a club of the world’s biggest economies, will be meeting in Brazil. Many of the leaders who gathered in Kazan will descend on Rio de Janeiro along with other rising powers of the global south, to meet on more even ground with the big powers of the global north. One leader who won’t be there is Vladimir Putin: He faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, a battered but enduring symbol of the rules-based order and its aspiration, however imperfectly, to build a more just world. It is hard to imagine a more apt moment, in his absence, for the West to seize the opportunity and begin, genuinely, to cede power to the rest.

The Sudan massacre.

Back in 1889, Al Khalifa Abdullahi, in a bold yet reckless bid, dispatched his forces from the North and Al Butana—regions that align closely with today's Eastern Al Gezira—in a quest to conquer Egypt. He was acutely aware that he was sending them on a mission steeped in futility, as their loyalty lay with Al Khalifa Sherif, not with him. Abdullahi wasn't the sole Khalifa; the Mahdi had appointed three before his own demise. Ascending to power as the primary ruler of the Mahdist State, Abdullahi cunningly sent his rivals' supporters into perilous battles while ensuring that his own Baggara tribesmen remained safe from the fray.

As Abudllahi’s military ambitions led to the decimation of the Bataheen's adult male population, the community reached a breaking point; they resolved to abstain from invading Egypt any longer. In retaliation, Abdullahi ruthlessly executed numerous Bataheen men, while their women and children were shackled and sold into the abyss of slavery. Fast forward a century, and we witness another Baggara warlord exacting vengeance on the people of Eastern Al Gezira for their refusal to engage in his struggles. The parallels in this narrative are astonishing, revealing the cyclical nature of history and the tragedies that if left unchecked, weave a relentless tapestry of suffering.

Link

The church has also directed the Special Assistant to the General Overseer on Administration to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegation within two weeks.

The Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) has suspended one of its pastors, Pastor Ayorinde AdeBello, and Deacon Oke Mayowa, from office over allegations of homosexuality against young people in the church.

The church has also directed the Special Assistant to the General Overseer on Administration to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegation within two weeks.

In an internal memo dated 28th of October, 2024 with Ref: RCCG/NO/s.04/13/vol.1 and titled: "Investigation and Suspension Regarding Allegations of Homosexuality," addressed to Special Assistant to the General Overseer on Administration, the church stated that its doctrine does not allow or tolerate any act of homosexuality.

Signed by RCCG National Overseer, Pastor Sunday Akande and copied to all National organs in the church, it advised that the situation must be handled with care and integrity, and in accordance with the their values as a church.

"This memo serves to inform you of serious allegations of homosexuality against Pastor Ayorinde Ade Bello and Dcn. Oke Mayowa. In accordance with our mission's commitment to upholding the teachings of the Bible, we must address these allegations with the utmost seriousness it deserves," the church stated.

"As you are aware, the doctrine of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) does not allow or tolerate any act of homosexuality. This stance is firmly rooted in biblical teachings, including but not limited to: "Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

"1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality."

"In light of these allegations, you are now directed to conduct a thorough investigation. Furthermore, Pastor Ayorinde AdeBello, Dcn Oke Mayowa, and all others who are alleged are to be temporarily relieved from all of their responsibilities in all mission organs pending the outcome of this investigation, which is expected to be concluded within two weeks.

"It is crucial that we handle this situation with care and integrity, and in accordance with our values as a church. Please ensure that the investigation is conducted confidentially and with respect for all parties involved."

In letter of removal addressed to Pastor Ayorinde Bello, dated October 25, which SaharaReporters obtained on Tuesday, the church directed him to comply and relinquish all his positions in the church, given the seriousness of the allegations.

In the letter of Removal From Office - pastor Ayorinde AdeBello which was signed by Laolu Oroge, Secretary, RCCG PSF Global Council, reminded him that the offences he was alleged to have committed are criminal offences against the state and punishable by law, where a person is proven to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubts.

The letter partly read: "We write to inform you of your immediate suspension from any responsibilities within the RCCG Pastors Seed Family. This decision comes in light of the serious allegations that have materialised about your inappropriate conduct with teenage boys.

"Furthermore, these allegations undermine the core values of the RCCG Pastors Seed Family, which include holiness, accountability, transparency and the protection of all individuals, particularly the vulnerable."

The church insisted that predatory behaviour against those to whom the church owe a duty of care, is gravely unacceptable and will not be tolerated, if found to be true.

"We also owe those to whom we are called to serve, nurture and protect a duty to listen, investigate and redress grievances and allegations brought against those in positions of influence and authority. Therefore, an independent internal and no partial investigation will be conducted. If the allegations are substantiated, it will result in your indefinite removal from any office within the organisation.

"During this period, you are required to step down from your position and relinquish all associated responsibilities and privileges, including removal from all Pastors Seed Family related platforms. This is because, screenshots of your interactions on a WhatsApp group of teenage boys have emerged where you encouraged inappropriate and unethical discourse, any sensible person of authority and influence should not do.

"We also advise you in the spirit of integrity to voluntarily step down from any other positions you hold within and outside the Church.

"We further advise you to kindly cooperate with the investigation and avoid any actions that could compromise its integrity. Remember Acts 24: 16, And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men."

"We acknowledge the seriousness of this situation and are committed to ensuring that the truth is revealed and appropriate actions are taken in response to these allegations.

"We expect your prompt compliance, given the seriousness of the allegations and wish to remind you that these allegations are criminal offences against the state and punishable by law, where a person is proven to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubts.

"If you have any questions or need clarification about this decision, please contact the appropriate authorities within the RCCG Pastors Seed Family."

Link

ROBERT JENRICK: Many of Britain's former colonies owe us a debt of gratitude for the inheritance we left them.

Sir Keir Starmer spent the weekend doing what he does best: capitulating to those determined to tear our country down.

After 48 hours of pressure to 'start a conversation' on paying reparations to Commonwealth countries for the slave trade, he U-turned on his position and capitulated.

As if that was not bad enough, Labour MPs attacked him for having a 'colonial mindset' because he has not already forked out billions of taxpayers' money.

Just over 100 days into this Government, Labour are cooking up ways to send our money overseas while they slash winter fuel payments for pensioners on as little as £13,000.

But this weakness points to a wider confusion in our society: the bizarre, unpatriotic belief that we should be embarrassed about our history.

It has seeped into our national debate through universities overrun by Leftists peddling pseudo-Marxist gibberish to impressionable undergraduates.

Our island story is remarkable in many ways. One thing we have never been, however, is uniquely bad.

I do not flippantly argue that the Empire was an unadulterated good. Like any story of human beings, it is complex.

'Britain's former colonies should thank us for the legacy of the Empire' says Robert Jenrick article image As theologian Nigel Biggar has written, the Empire committed crimes on a terrible scale, including slavery, the displacement of peoples, and military aggression.

Yet given the prevailing narrative – stoked by a liberal elite and Labour politicians – that our attitude to the Empire should be one of crippling shame, I want to make the balancing case.

Alongside honesty about the crimes of colonialism, we should be proud of its achievements.

Walk into almost any courtroom across the Commonwealth and you could be back in the UK. Advocates dress like British barristers and the courtrooms are modelled on the Old Bailey.

But the similarities go deeper. Long after independence, the institutions we built in these countries endure.

Why? Well, even amid their resentment towards us, former colonies recognised that the British system of governance was the best in the world for promoting peace and prosperity.

Sir Keir Starmer spent the weekend doing what he does best: capitulating to those determined to tear our country down, says Robert Jenrick

Sir Keir Starmer spent the weekend doing what he does best: capitulating to those determined to tear our country down, says Robert Jenrick It's why our former colonies have performed markedly better than, for example, French ones.

But academics don't judge our record against other empires of the day. They assume that modern western values were somehow universal 400 years ago.

It's an impossible standard to meet. The territories colonised by our Empire were not advanced democracies. Many had been cruel, slave-trading powers. Some had never been independent.

The British Empire broke the long chain of violent tyranny as we came to introduce – gradually and imperfectly – Christian values.

In West Africa, we initially continued the barbarism of slavery. But – confronted by its cruelty – we ended it.

Not only for ourselves, but for the world. It wasn't cheap either. Ending the trade cost an estimated 1.8 per cent of our GDP between 1808 and 1867 – over twice what we spend on overseas aid today.

British blood was spilled fighting the African kings that sought to perpetuate it. Ultimately, we willingly gave up our imperial treasures.

In 1940, after Germany's victories in Europe, Hitler implied that Britain could retain its empire if it accepted his dominance on the continent.

His overtures suggested that Britain might avoid invasion if it withdrew from European affairs.

Churchill refused, risking Britain's global position to stand against Nazi tyranny. The result was a free Europe, and a lost Empire. Of that we can be proud.

The malign idea that Britain's history is one of crime and shame is gaining currency in our national conversation.

Our elites uniquely practise what philosopher Roger Scruton called 'the culture of repudiation': a rejection of our national story and our national institutions.

To create the peaceful and united country we want, which immigrants can integrate into, we need a positive national identity.

I'm not ashamed of our history. It may not feel like it, but many of our former colonies – amid the complex realities of Empire – owe us a debt of gratitude for the inheritance we left them.

We must let go of the so-called contemplative life. This is the time to disown the mere sitting around, allowing others to decide our fate. The life of a passive detached judgment is deceptively addictive: all that happens with it is it gives us illusions of intellectual superiority as we sit on the sidelines. We watch, often from afar, the political world in our own country or abroad, scorn those who participate in the democratic process, and disdain those who actually vote, rally, or take active part. Yet this way, the contemplative becomes a bystander to history, a critic without solutions, naive to the realities that shape our societies, and increasingly irrelevant to the decisions that matter.

The attraction of introspection can easily come to take on a much darker tone in its disengagement. There's a more subtle and insidious danger here: silent decay. Silent decay - in which terrible things come to pass not because of fanatics, but because of the passive, the unthinking, the comfortably disengaged. The contemplative who does not act creates a vacuum, an empty space wherein power flows without control, wherein systems veer toward corruption, wherein self-serving leaders rise to power, and civic rot results. In his disengagement, the contemplative aids, however indirectly, in the decrementing of democracy and justice. Without an acting will to complement it, critique is but complaint and passivity compliance.

The more citizens resign themselves to the contemplative life, the more they gradually abdicate their self-governance. This leads to a culture where fewer and fewer people feel obligated even to think independently, let alone cultivate individuality, leading to a lack of engagement that allows autocratic and corrupt systems to go unchallenged. History is replete with the stories of nations that failed not as a result of some grand evil, but rather because of millions of small acts of apathy. Apathy becomes a habit, and over time it corrodes the fundamental principles of state.

In this way, the contemplative life plants the seeds of a state in failure. Where persons cut themselves off from politics and civic life, they inadvertently give a seal of approval to those very regimes that they despise. Corruption, despotism, and social dissolution do not just appear in a vacuum. They thrive precisely because so many prefer to sit on the sidelines. It is the contemplative, through their distance, who emboldens those seeking power unto themselves, who thrive off of an uninvolved populace and who understand that silence is consent.

Democracy and freedom need active involvement, not passive observation. Were it left unchecked, the life of a contemplative would be the beginning of societies losing the voice of the individual, the dwindling of critical thinking, and people becoming mere spectators in their own life. Individuality inhibited, absence of independent thinking, and silence of critical voices make a society lose its very base. Without these, a nation becomes vulnerable to manipulation, propaganda, and eventually to tyranny. Systems tilt into autocracy not just by what a few do but also because of the inaction of the many.

Inaction and passivity are the means by which leaders get away with doing as they please: where the bending of laws serves the powerful and civic institutions rot. We have watched history repeat such stories. Where people surrender their right to participate, they hand over the conduct of their affairs to people who will exploit the vacuum. And so, nations fail-not in grand, dramatic gestures but in a quiet surrender to passivity.

We need to be willing to relinquish the comfort of merely thinking about such matters and to step out into the world of action as citizens. Anything less would betray the very concept of democracy. Participation is always imperfect and intensely problematic; only through this messiness can anything be achieved. Only through engagement can principles be protected. Let us not be spectators of our own life. Let us rather be authors of our common future.

Her mother was found to have stolen the identity of another person to register Chidimma's birth according to Home Affairs.

This means the victim couldn't receive bursaries, open a bank account, vote, get a driver's license and receive other benefits of citizenship for 22 years.

The photo of Chidimma Onwe Adetshina