Feature/OPED

The Constitutionality of S. 396 (7) ACJA in Light of Provisions of Constitution

Published

8 years ago

14/12/2018

Modupe Gbadeyanka

By Benita Ayo

Overview

This is a commentary on the paper presented by a learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo where he examines the issue of the vacuum created when a judge who is conducting a criminal trial is elevated to the Court of Appeal, as well as the conflict between the provisions of the constitution and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) when this situation arises.

With the aid of decided cases, he concluded that in this instance, an elevated judicial officer cannot continue to hear the matter because from the point of elevation, he/she lacks the requisite jurisdiction to do so.

According to him, the only resolution to the issue, is for the matter to be commenced ‘de novo’ before another judge having the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The said Section 396 (7) ACJA provides as follows;

“Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, A judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a high court Judge, only for the purpose of concluding any partly heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation, and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time, provided that this section shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of a Court of Appeal.”

Now, Section 1 (1) and 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that;

“1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation Republic of Nigeria.”

For purposes of clarity, its Section 1(3) goes further to state:

“1(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

COMMENTS

The issues arising from the conflicts are;

Jurisdiction of a Justice of the Court of Appeal to continue to sit over a matter at the State High Court
The doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution (1999 as amended)
Whether indeed, s. 396 (7) ACJA is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended)
JURISDICTION OF A JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO CONTINUE TO SIT OVER A MATTER AT THE STATE HIGH COURT.

Generally speaking, Jurisdiction means the official power to make legal decisions and judgments. It is also the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.

In FBN LTD v. ABRAHAM (2008) LPELR-1281 (SC), the Court defined jurisdiction thus, ‘What is the meaning of jurisdiction? By judicial authorities, jurisdiction is the authority by which a court has to decide matters that are laid before it for litigation or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Let it be said that the limits of this authority are, by practice, imposed by statute or law under which the court is constituted. It may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited’.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court per OPUTA, JSC (Pp. 39-40, paras. C-A) has defined jurisdiction in the case of ONYEMA & ORS v. OPUTA & ANOR (1987) LPELR-2736 (SC) that; ‘It is thus necessary for the proper appreciation of the issues in this case to understand the concept and content of “jurisdiction”. Briefly stated jurisdiction as it applies to courts can mean one of two things:-

1. The abstract right of a court to exercise its powers in causes of a certain class, or

2. The right of a court or tribunal to exercise its powers with respect to a particular subject matter.

In one sense, the broader sense, jurisdiction refers to the legal authority, the legal capacity, to adjudicate at all; while in the narrower sense it refers to the power of the court over the particular subject matter in dispute, over the res or property in contest. This latter sense may be referred to, as territorial jurisdiction, or venue, or the area of authority – the geographical area beyond which the court’s power (or legal jurisdiction) is not to be extended.’

CLASSES/TYPES OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction may be any of the following;

Territorial (This is the power or authority to preside over a particular location or venue e.g. the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over the entire territory of Nigeria but the State High Court only have jurisdiction over the state in which it is located)
Subject matter (The authority to adjudicate over certain causes of action. An example is the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to preside over Admiralty matters and Issues bordering on the interpretation of the provisions of CAMA)
Exclusive (This is the right to hear a matter to the exclusion of other courts e.g, the Supreme Court have exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters between the Federation and the State)
Concurrent (This is where the right to hear a matter is shared between more than one court)
Original (This is right to hear a matter before any other court. e.g, the Court of Appeal has original jurisdiction to hear matters on whether the President or Vice-President has been validly elected, whether the term of the President has ceased or become vacant See s. 239(1) CFRN 199 (As amended).
Appellate (This is the authority to hear appeals from lower courts e.g. is the Court of Appeal has the appellate jurisdiction over appeal from the Federal High Court, State High Court, National Industrial Court)
Substantive (This pertains to matters which the court may specifically adjudicate upon as stipulated by statute)
Procedural ( This pertains to the compliance of certain rules and principles of the court. this type of jurisdiction can be waived)

It is settled law that jurisdiction is the foundation of any court proceeding. Its importance is so fundamental to the matter that it can be raised at any time even up to the Supreme Court for the first time. A court cannot assume jurisdiction or confer itself with jurisdiction where it lacks same. In the case of CBN v. AUTO IMPORT EXPORT & ANOR (2012) LPELR-7858 (CA) the court held as follows;

“It has been stated, time without number, in a plethora of authorities, that jurisdiction is the threshold and livewire that determines the authority of a Court of law or tribunal to entertain a case before it. This is absolutely so, because it is only when a Court is imbued or conferred with the necessary jurisdiction by the Constitution and law that it will have the judicial power and authority to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon any cause or matter brought before it by parties. Conversely, the absence of such requisite jurisdiction would render any proceedings purportedly conducted by Court an exercise in futility, thus null, void and of no effect whatsoever, no matter how well conducted. ……………….

It is equally a well settled principle, that where a Court lacks jurisdiction to try a matter or case, it fundamentally lacks the vires to hear, and adjudicate upon any issue therein. Thus, due to the complex and fundamental nature thereof, the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and point in time of the proceedings, at the trial Court, the Court of Appeal, or even the apex Court itself. This trite principle has been settled in a plethora of authorities, including the locus classicus thereof, MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILM (1952) NSCC 374; (1952) 2 SCNLR 341.”

In the instant situation the question which comes to mind is whether a Judge of the High Court presiding over a criminal trial has the requisite jurisdiction to continue the hearing of the matter after he has been elevated to the Court of Appeal as a Justice.

I will say no because subject to the principles of hierarchy of courts in Nigeria, the Court of Appeal do not share concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Court in respect of any matter.

The Court of Appeal only has Appellate Jurisdiction to hear appeals from the High Court to it whereas the State High Court has jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal actions.

As stated before now, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a court nor can parties by agreement confer same on the court where the statute creating such courts like in this case, the constitution has not conferred such jurisdiction.

I will like to bring to our minds the provisions of the constitution conferring jurisdiction on the High Court and Court of Appeal accordingly.

Section 239 (1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended) conferred original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal on the following matters and it expressly provides that;

(1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to whether-

(a) any person has been validly elected to the office of President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor under this Constitution; or

(b) the term of office of the President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy-Governor has ceased; or

(c) the office of President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy has become vacant

(2) In the hearing and determination of an election petition under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, the Court of Appeal shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least three Justices of the Court of Appeal”.

Section 240 provides that;

S. 240 “Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the Court of Appeal shall have Jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, High Court of a State, Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Customary Court of Appeal of a State and from decisions of a court martial or other tribunals as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal is properly constituted where there are at least 3 Justices sitting. It does not have the requisite Jurisdiction to hear Criminal or Civil matters except on appeal from the State High Court.

On the other hand, section 270 of the constitution created the High Court of a State and section 272 (1) specifically confers the State High Court with its general jurisdiction where it provides that;

(1) “Subject to the provisions of section 251 and other provisions of this constitution, the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person.”

(2) The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section includes a reference to the proceedings which originate in the High Court of a State and those which are brought before the High Court to be dealt with by the court in the exercise of its appellate or supervisory jurisdiction.”

As it may be seen from the foregoing provisions, there is no where within the said sections as well as the ones stated above that a Justice of the Court of Appeal may continue with a matter he was previously hearing as a Judge of the State High Court. He simply lacks the jurisdiction to do so as the constitution never conferred it.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION (1999 AS AMENDED)

This doctrine postulates that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other statutory enactment of the National Assembly where it is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution shall to the extent of its inconsistency be null and void. (See s. 1 (3) 1999 CFRN (As amended))

This doctrine has been affirmed in the case of FBN PLC v. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) LPELR-1283 (SC) where the court pronounced on the nature and effect of the supremacy of the constitution and held that;

“By virtue of the provision of Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution , the doctrine of supremacy of the Constitution demands that if any law is inconsistent with the provision of the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail and the other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void. “

Also, in ABACHA & ORS. v. FAWEHINMI (2000) LPELR-14 (SC), the court stated that;

“The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; it is the grundnorm. Its supremacy has never been called to question in ordinary circumstances. For avoidance of doubt, the 1979 Constitution stated categorically in its Chapter 1, Section 1(1) as follows:

“1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation Republic of Nigeria.”

For purposes of clarity, its Section 1(3) goes further to state:

“1(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

The nature of this doctrine is that there is no other law which is above the constitution of Nigerian. It is immaterial that such law was enacted by the National Assembly and assented to by the President. Such law, in as much as it is not in tune or in line with what has been provided for by the constitution shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void. Such law cannot stand and should not be regarded or enforced by the courts.

In the instant situation, the provision of the S. 396 (7) ACJA which provides as follows;

Section 1 (3) of the CFRN 1999 (As Amended) provides that;

“If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

Thus, in the instant case, it is unconstitutional for a Judge of the High Court elevated to a Justice of the Court of Appeal to continue to preside over a criminal matter in the High Court as he is no longer a Judge of the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over matters in such court.

Going further, the constitution has provided for the composition/constitution of a State High Court under S. 273 of the constitution where it provides that;

“For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it under this constitution or any law, a High Court of a State shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that Court”

Going by the above provision, a Justice of the court of Appeal is not a judge of the State High Court and as such does not have the jurisdiction to preside over any matter whether partly heard by him or not in that court. Any decision of a court lacking the prerequisite jurisdiction constitutes a nullity and no one should submit to such jurisdiction and cannot agree to confer such jurisdiction where the statute creating such court has not created such jurisdiction.

WHETHER INDEED S. 396 (7) ACJA IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED)

Section 396 (7) of the ACJA provides that;

And Section 1 (1) and (3) of the Constitution says;

“1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation Republic of Nigeria.”

For purposes of clarity, its Section 1(3) goes further to state:

“1(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

The constitution has conferred different jurisdictions upon the High Court of a State and the Court of Appeal and they are no way similar. While the State High has jurisdiction to hear Civil and Criminal matters, the Court of Appeal has amongst others the jurisdiction to hear appeals from the State High Court, Federal High Court, National industrial Court and so on.

The composition of a State High Court according to the constitution is at least a Judge of the Court and I have stated earlier on that a Justice of the Court of Appeal is not a Judge of the State High Court at least not stated so by the Constitutional provisions creating the Court of Appeal.

Thus, it is not proper for a Justice of the Court of Appeal to continue with a matter which he was handling prior to his elevation as a Justice of the Court of Appeal. Jurisdiction, where it is non-existent, cannot be conferred on oneself nor can parties agree to it.

In the instant case, in light of the provisions of S. 1 (1) & (3) of the constitution, the provisions of S. 396 (7) ACJA is inconsistent with the constitution and is to the extent of its inconsistency null and void.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, having found that S. 396 (7) ACJA is inconsistent with the constitution, the said section should be expunged completely form the Act. It is my advise that where a Judge of a State High Court has been elevated to a higher office, any criminal matter that is being handled by him should be transferred to another trial Judge with concurrent jurisdiction as the former Judge prior to elevation and be allowed to commence de novo.

I completely agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate that where a Judge has been elevated from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, any partly heard criminal matter by him should be allowed to commence de novo before another Judge with the requisite jurisdiction to hear same.

Benita Ayois a legal practitioner based in Lagos, Nigeria.

Feature/OPED

Nigeria’s Olodo Uprising: An Assault on Critical Thinking

Published

16 hours ago

29/06/2026

Business Post Contributor

By Prince Charles Dickson, PhD

A sheep was passing and saw a lion crying inside a cage, trapped and helpless. The lion begged the sheep to rescue him, promising not to kill or eat it. The sheep refused at first, knowing fully well that a lion does not become a vegetarian because of captivity. But after much persuasion, emotional blackmail, and the sheep’s own gullibility, it opened the cage.

Now the lion was very hungry, having stayed in the cage for days without food. It quickly pounced on the sheep and was about to kill and eat it, but the sheep reminded him of his promise.

They were still arguing when other animals came passing. They sought to know what had happened. Both the lion and the sheep narrated their sides of the story, but because of fear, convenience, and a desperate need to gain favour in the lion’s eyes, all the animals took sides with the lion, except the tortoise, who claimed not to understand the whole scenario.

The tortoise asked the lion to show them where exactly he was before the sheep rescued him. The lion pointed at the cage.

The tortoise asked again, “Were you inside or outside when the sheep arrived?”

The lion replied, “I was inside.”

The tortoise then said, “Okay, enter and let us see how difficult it could be inside, because I am not getting the whole scenario.”

The lion entered, and immediately, the tortoise locked the cage. The lion was trapped again.

That story is not just folklore. It is a national diagnosis.

Nigeria today is full of trapped lions, gullible sheep, frightened animals, and very few tortoises. We have many people with opinions, but few with discernment. Many with certificates, but few with comprehension. Many with titles, but few with thought. Many who can quote policy, scripture, law, and ideology, but cannot ask the simple question that prevents disaster: “Wait first, how did we get here?”

That question is the beginning of critical thinking. Sadly, it is becoming an endangered species.

The easiest and most attractive national pastime remains buck-passing, especially with the bunch of leaders we have, some of whom can hardly peel a banana or wash an already white handkerchief. Not many of us want to take responsibility for anything, from personal life to family life, from community life to national life. The blame is always on the system, as if the system descended from the sky and imposed itself on innocent citizens.

We do not need to create demons out of our leaders because, in too many instances, they have behaved like ready-made specimens of public demons. So, we hang our sins on them, sometimes appropriately, sometimes lazily. Unfortunately, their behaviour has made it easy for the critics to descend on them. They shout loudly, lie casually, perform empathy only when cameras are present, and govern as though the people are background noise in their private banquet.

But there is a deeper tragedy. The lion is not our only problem. The sheep, too, must be examined. The other animals must be questioned. Even the silence of the forest must stand trial.

This is where the Olodo Syndrome enters.

In Nigerian street language, “Olodo” is often used to describe a dull person, someone slow to understand, someone who fails where basic reasoning should have saved them. But in this essay, Olodo is not merely the person who did not go to school. No. Nigeria has produced a more sophisticated creature: the educated olodo. The certificated illiterate. The graduate who cannot reason beyond slogans. The public officer who mistakes grammar for intelligence. The citizen who forwards nonsense with confidence. The analyst who mistakes noise for insight. The leader who confuses movement with progress. The voter who sells tomorrow for rice today, then spends four years complaining that the pot is empty.

Olodo, therefore, is not the absence of schooling. It is the failure of judgment.

It is what happens when a nation rewards mediocrity and punishes thought. It is what happens when people who ask serious questions are labelled troublesome, while those who clap for madness are called loyal. It is what happens when dumb, crazy things move the needle, while wisdom is treated like an old man coughing in the corner. It is what happens when unintelligent people do not merely exist, but are celebrated, promoted, defended, and installed as gatekeepers over those who still dare to think.

This is Nigeria’s Olodo Uprising.

It is an uprising not of the poor against the rich, nor of the uneducated against the educated. It is an uprising of shallow thinking against depth. An assault on memory, logic, accountability, and consequence. It is the national habit of refusing to connect action to outcome. We open the cage, release the lion, and then begin a prayer meeting when the lion remembers its appetite.

We talk, write, and discuss the Nigerian myth with a sense of fatalism. “This is Nigeria,” we say, as if that phrase is both an explanation and an excuse. If everyone thought as much about justice and fairness, life would be better. I am a critic, yes, but I am also a critic’s critic. I remain an unrepentant believer that one of the ways to keep the government on its toes is to keep harping on its flaws so that it can improve. But criticism without self-examination becomes entertainment. It becomes pepper soup politics, the kind we enjoy at drinking joints, suya spots, WhatsApp groups, and television studios where every table has a parliament and every loud voice is mistaken for a constitution.

Often, I say I believe the things I write are important for our nation, as they are for other nations. But when it appears to me that Nigerians, especially those in authority, do not react to these issues as people in other lands do, I repeat them in new essays to remind old readers and recruit new ones to participate in the continuing dialogue.

Because repetition, sometimes, is not a lack of creativity. It is the burden of memory in a country addicted to forgetting.

Sadly, this is Nigeria, where nothing works, and no one cares. When it works, it is often because someone’s interest is about to be served or is already being served, not because the people’s interest has suddenly become sacred. We talk about our institutions despairingly. Our leaders do not watch network news except when their faces will appear at their sons’ or daughters’ weddings, birthdays, burials, thanksgiving services, or self-sponsored ceremonies of public praise. They do not need newspapers anymore because too many pages are already full of their lies, paid adverts, and noisy banters dressed as governance.

A country that destroys thinking will eventually be governed by instinct.

That is why the Olodo Syndrome is dangerous. It not only makes people ignorant. It makes them confidently ignorant. It gives stupidity a microphone and asks wisdom to apply for permission to speak. It converts public debate into shouting contests. It turns leadership recruitment into ethnic arithmetic, religious panic, stomach infrastructure, and emotional blackmail. It makes citizens defend their oppressors because the oppressor speaks their language, attends their church, worships in their mosque, comes from their zone, or once gave them transport money.

This is how the other animals sided with the lion.

Not because the lion was right. They knew he was wrong. But fear is a powerful editor of truth. Hunger is a wicked lawyer. Proximity to power is a dangerous intoxicant. In Nigeria, many people do not support injustice because they are confused. They support it because they are calculating. They are asking themselves, “What if the lion remembers me tomorrow? What if I need a favour? What if I condemn him now and he becomes minister, governor, chairman, commissioner, vice chancellor, senator, president?”

So, they betray the sheep.

Government bashing remains a national pastime, and every drinking joint and suya spot has a sitting parliament with an expert on every issue. But we forget that no matter the input, if the politicians and actors on our national scene have questionable lives both at personal and domestic levels, nothing will change. The best government policy cannot change the individual when the policies themselves are formulated on a bad foundation by people with warped thinking.

A corrupt mind cannot midwife a clean system.

When a witch proclaims her presence, and an invalid does not make away, he must have money for sacrifices at home. Nigeria has been warned too many times. We have seen the witch. We have heard the announcement. Yet we remain seated, arguing about who invited her, who offended her, which village she came from, and whether her witchcraft is constitutionally recognised.

This is not merely a leadership failure. It is civic laziness. It is moral cowardice. It is intellectual surrender.

The tortoise in the story represents the rare citizen who does not join the chorus. The one who pauses the noise. The one who asks for sequence, evidence, context, motive, and consequence. The tortoise is not the loudest animal. It is not the strongest. It does not roar. It does not bleat. It thinks.

That is what Nigeria needs now: more tortoises.

Not slow people, but thoughtful people. Not cowards hiding under shells, but citizens who understand that speed without thought is national self-harm. We need people who can ask leaders: Where were you before power? What did you promise? What have you done? Who benefits? Who pays? What happens tomorrow? We need teachers who teach children to question, not merely to cram. We need voters who examine character before currency. We need religious leaders who produce conscience, not crowds. We need journalists who investigate, not decorate. We need institutions that reward competence over loyalty, substance over noise, and courage over convenience.

Because the lion will always be hungry again.

That is the part Nigeria refuses to learn. Appeasing bad leadership does not end its appetite. Excusing mediocrity does not transform it into excellence. Rewarding foolishness does not make it wise. If we allow the lion to eat the sheep today because we are afraid, hungry, tribal, religiously sentimental, or politically invested, we have not solved the hunger problem. We have only postponed our own turn.

In amazement, the other animals asked the tortoise, “why” and the tortoise replied. “If we allow him to eat the sheep today, he will still go hungry tomorrow, and we don’t know what will be eaten tomorrow—May Nigeria win.

Feature/OPED

Stocks vs Forex: Which is Better for Beginners in 2026?

Published

3 days ago

26/06/2026

Business Post Contributor

By Onah Ishioma Adaeze

As a beginner, choosing between stocks and forex for your investment goals in 2026 can feel overwhelming. Before investing your hard-earned money, it is important to understand how both markets work.

While both markets present investors with opportunities to grow their wealth, they also differ in terms of volatility, liquidity, market hours, and leverage. Stocks involve owning portions of a company, while forex has to do with trading a base currency against a quote currency.

In this article, we will be going through the basics of stocks and forex, pointing out their differences, and helping you decide which asset better suits your investment journey in 2026.

What is Stock Trading?

When it comes to stock trading, you are buying shares of a company, which makes you a shareholder of that company. As a shareholder, you may be entitled to receive dividends whenever the company decides to pay dividends.

As for those companies that do not pay dividends, there are other benefits a shareholder may enjoy, like being called upon to attend shareholder meetings and having voting rights on certain company matters.

On a global scale, over $100 trillion worth of shares are traded annually. Also, the rising popularity of AI companies and technological innovations continues to drive investor participation and market growth.

If you’re an investor looking to buy and hold capital assets, then stock trading is definitely for you, as it allows for short-term, medium-term and long-term investment goals.

When you buy shares of a company and the company performs well, your shares increase in value. Another benefit of stock trading is access to index funds and ETFs.

These funds consist of companies that are grouped under an index. They are carefully selected and monitored under the fund, sparing the investor the stress of actively tracking the fund.

They can be a way of building a long-term, diversified portfolio, and some of these funds may pay dividends.

What is Forex Trading?

Forex trading has to do with buying one currency and selling another. With a pair like USD/JPY, USD is the base currency being bought against JPY, which is the quote currency.

In order to execute a trade in the forex market, you have to analyse and make predictions based on price movement, as well as pay attention to what’s going on in the global news scene.

The forex market runs twenty-four hours every weekday, with over $9 trillion traded in the market every day. Being the largest financial market in the world, there is very high liquidity.

Forex trading involves buying one currency against another, making predictions based on price movements on the forex charts. Price moves based on the activities of large institutions like hedge funds, big banks, the government, etc.

The forex market runs 24 hours a day, every weekday, with global forex turnover reaching $9 trillion per day in the BIS 2025 survey. Being the largest financial market in the world, there is very high volatility and price fluctuations.

At the same time, there is high liquidity in the market, which means that currency pairs can easily be bought and sold without hassle. Highly liquid instruments that are traded regularly include: EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/USD, and gold (XAU/USD).

As a retail trader, knowing when to enter and exit the market is important. As easy as it is to make profits from price fluctuations, it is also very easy to lose money if the market moves against you. This is why it is important to set stop losses and take profits. This helps manage your trading capital.

Major Differences Between Stocks and Forex

While investing in stocks and forex can yield great capital gains, there are lots of ways in which they differ.

As a beginner, stock trading provides opportunities for long-term investments, ensuring slow but consistent returns for wealth building. But if you are looking for an active, short-term style of investment, then forex trading is for you, as it allows you to enter and exit the market within a shorter time frame.

Which is Better in 2026?

Choosing an asset to invest in all boils down to personal preference. At the same time, if you are not averse to risk, nor opposed to asset diversification, then it’s okay to invest in both.

For beginner investors in 2026, stock trading is easier to understand and get into, especially because of mutual funds, index funds and ETFs. With those funds, you don’t have to be an expert to start investing. You can just buy a fund that suits your needs and hold it over a long period of time.

If you are an investor who enjoys technical analysis, highly volatile and liquid markets, as well as trading under short time frames, then forex trading is the right pick for you.

Conclusion

You do not need to put all your eggs in one basket. There are investors who invest in both stocks and forex simultaneously. When starting out, you can start investing in stocks while learning forex. Take calculated risks and do not invest above your means. Diversify your investments and remember, when starting out, you should prioritise acquiring knowledge over profits.

Onah Ishioma Adaeze is a finance writer who is passionate about simplifying complex concepts into easily digestible pieces. Her hobbies are reading and watching anime

Feature/OPED

Building 234 Solutions: A Response to Everyday Workforce Challenges

Published

4 days ago

25/06/2026

Business Post Contributor

By Owoloye Emmanuel

Every business starts with a problem. For us, that problem was hiding in plain sight.

Across organisations, we kept seeing HR professionals, payroll teams, and business leaders spend significant time navigating processes that should be simpler. Employee records sat across multiple systems, payroll processes required manual intervention, and routine workforce tasks often became more complicated than they needed to be.

As businesses grow, workforce operations naturally become more complex. Yet many organisations still rely on disconnected tools and workflows that create unnecessary friction for both employers and employees.

The consequence is more than operational inefficiency. HR teams spend valuable time managing systems instead of supporting people. Business leaders struggle to access timely workforce insights, while employees experience delays in processes that should be seamless.

These weren’t isolated challenges. They were recurring realities across workplaces, regardless of industry or size.

That observation led us to a simple question: what if workforce management could be easier?

What if HR, payroll, and workforce operations could work together within a single, connected experience?

That question became the foundation for 234 Solutions.

We are building 234 Solutions with a clear belief that workplace technology should reduce complexity, not add to it. Our goal is to help organisations spend less time navigating processes and more time focusing on productivity, growth, and people.

As we prepare for launch, our focus remains simple: building practical solutions for real workplace challenges and helping organisations create better experiences for the people who power them every day.

Owoloye Emmanuel is the founder of 234 Solutions