Feature/OPED
US Senate Impeachment Trial of Trump and Nigeria’s Legislative Conduct: An Assessment
By Omoshola Deji
In Athens, 510 BC, Cleisthenes instituted democracy to foster greater: accountability of institutions and leaders to citizens and the law. Today, the tenet is being flouted with impunity, especially in developing nations, where most of the heads of parliament are puppets of the president. Nigeria tops the list. While her legislature is failing in oversight and overlooking misconducts, that of the United States (US) prosecuted President Donald Trump and almost removed him from office.
This piece evaluates the two countries legislative conduct, based on the proceedings of Trump’s impeachment trial.
Process and History of US and Nigerian President Impeachment
Article II, section 4 of the US Constitution empowers Congress – comprising the House of Representatives and Senate – to remove the president from office for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours.
The House and Senate gets to remove the president in two separate trials. First, the House would deliberate and approve the articles of impeachment through a simple majority vote. The second trial occurs in the Senate, where conviction on any of the articles requires a two-third majority vote, which if gotten, results in the president’s removal from office. Trump’s impeachment succeeded in the House, but failed in the Senate, denoting he remains president.
Only three presidents have been impeached throughout US over 230-year-old democracy. First, Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for violating the Tenure of Office Act. Then, Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 for perjury, obstruction of justice and having an inappropriate relationship with White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. Lastly, Donald Trump was impeached December 2019. Each of the three – Johnson, Clinton and Trump – escaped removal from office through Senate’s acquittal.
Impeaching Nigeria’s president is a difficult, almost an impossible task. The lengthy, extremely cumbersome process is contained in Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution. No Nigerian president has been impeached, despite their gross incompetence and serial abuse of power.
Allegations against Trump and the Buhari Comparison
Trump’s impeachment trial was a straight confrontation between the ruling Republican, and opposition Democratic Party. The president was tried on two articles of impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The abuse of power bothers on alleged solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 US presidential election. Trump allegedly withheld $391 million aid to Ukraine; upon which he secretly pressurized President Volodymyr Zelensky (of Ukraine) to start investigating former US vice-president Joe Biden for corruption. Trump only released the aid to Ukraine after a whistle-blower complaint.
Biden was ex-president Barrack Obama’s deputy and currently one of the Democratic Party’s presidential aspirants. Trump wants Biden and son, Hunter, investigated for alleged corrupt practices during the Obama presidency’s (2009-2017) aid supply to Ukraine. The US president allegedly pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Biden, despite being aware that the US Prosecutor General had cleared him and his son of corruption in May 2019.
To ensure Biden is investigated, Trump allegedly refused to allow Zelensky visit the White House at a time Ukraine urgently needs the meeting to send fears to its aggressors, particularly Russia, that it has US backing. The Democrats insisted Trump undermined US interests by his action, and must be removed for conditioning congressionally mandated aid on ‘quid pro quo’ – meaning ‘favour for favour.’
Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari is an adherent of ‘quid pro quo.’ His declaration that the Northern region, which gave him 95 percent votes would be favoured than the Southeast that gave him 5 percent is ‘quid pro quo’ – conditioning governance favouritism on votes; favour for favour. Presidents are expected to govern with equity and fairness, but Buhari promised sectionalism and delivered as pledged. The proscription of IPOB, while killer herdsmen are operating unchecked, apparently because they’re among the 95 percent is a dangerous ‘quid pro quo’ adherence that can lead Nigeria into another civil war.
Aside Trump’s hold on aid, the second article of impeachment – obstruction of Congress – bothers on the president’s deliberate blockage of formal legislative inquiries. Trump allegedly instructed all government officials to ignore House subpoenas for testimonies and documents. He ensured no piece of paper or email was turned over to the House. Certainly, Trump would have done worse if he’s a Nigerian.
If Trump was a Nigerian president, he would have ordered the police to lay siege on US House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi’s residence as President Buhari repeatedly did to former Senate President Bukola Saraki. Pelosi would have been distracted with false asset declaration charges till she’s acquitted by the Supreme Court. The Dino Melaye’s in her camp would have been hounded and arraigned on several trumped-up charges. If Trump was a Nigerian president, masked, heavily-armed State Security Service (SSS) operatives would have obstructed the legislators from entering the chambers to carry out impeachment.
The Democrats’ resolve to impeach Trump was perhaps comeuppance, but certainly an insult to Nigerians. The same legislators rebuking Trump supported Obama’s interference in Nigeria’s 2015 presidential election. The poll, as Obama desired, resulted in the first-in-history defeat of then incumbent president, Goodluck Jonathan. It is at best surprising, and at worst annoying that the same Democrats who backed Obama’s action on Nigeria are scolding Trump for trying to aid his win through foreign interference. How miserable for them to live with their own nemesis?
Unlike the US, foreign interference in Nigerian elections attracts no legislative criticism, let alone impeachment. Nigerian legislators took no action when two state governors from Niger Republic crossed into Nigeria to join Buhari’s 2019 re-election campaign in Kano State.
The abuse of power charges against Trump can’t fly for impeachment in Nigeria. Successive presidents have committed greater offenses without reprimand. Ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo spent heavily on electricity provision without result and ordered the Odi massacre. The legislature never summoned him. President Buhari has more than once repressed free speech, disobeyed court orders and spent without legislative approval. Yet, the Senate has never cautioned him. Indeed, what the US lawmakers see as ‘abuse of office’ is what their Nigerian counterpart rank as ‘executive grace.’
US often punishes, but Nigeria rewards wrongdoing. The former’s first citizen, arguably the strongest man in the world, was made to face a tough trial for abuse of office. His record is tainted even though he’s acquitted. Nigeria works the other way round. In the 8th Senate, suspended Senator Ovie Omo-Agege allegedly invaded plenary with thugs, who took away the mace right before the cameras. Rather than prosecute him to serve as a deterrent, the ruling party rewarded him with the exalted position of deputy-senate president in the subsequent, current 9th Senate. Omo-Agege is currently leading the same chamber he once allegedly desecrated. Such can’t occur in the US.
Trial Debate: Democrat vs. Republican
The US senate impeachment trial of Trump was a pure intellectual, thrilling and rigorous debate. The House Managers, comprising mainly the Democrats, argued that Trump deserves to be sacked for obstructing Congress investigation; promoting foreign interference in US election; and withholding economic, diplomatic and military aid to a strategic US ally (Ukraine) in need.
Defending the allegation, Trump’s defense team, comprising the Republicans, contended that the Democrats were trying to upturn Trump’s mandate in order to prevent him from contesting the next election. They argued that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine because 1) he wanted a burden sharing agreement with Europe; and 2) he was unsure of its efficient use, due to the high level of corruption in Ukraine.
Opposing the submission, the Democrats argued that Trump showed no interest in Ukraine’s corruption before Biden announced his presidential ambition. The Republicans disagreed, and accused the Democrat caucus of using impeachment to shield Biden from corruption investigation. They insisted Biden has a case to answer over his actions on Ukraine when he was vice-president.
Contesting the obstruction of Congress article, Trump’s team argued that the president has the power to assert immunity on his top aides, and he did so against Congress to protect the sensitive operations of government from getting to the public.
Citing former presidents that have used such privilege, the Republicans argued that the Democrat-sponsored articles of impeachment was wholly based on presumptions, assumptions and unsupported conclusions. The Democrats, however, refused to back down; they insisted they had a “mountain of evidence” to prove Trump was guilty.
To support their arguments, both the House Managers and Trump’s defense team went deep into the archives; they went as far as referencing what happened in 1796, during the administration of the first US President, George Washington.
Several Supreme Court judgments, dating back to 1893 were cited. Both parties showed resourcefulness as they used historical, legal and rational arguments to establish their case. Their knowledge of history, politics and law was astounding.
Sadly, majority of Nigerian legislators lack such proficiency. Their contributions to motions are often based on partisan, personal interests and their arguments are often shallow, uninformative and irrational. While watching the trial, I couldn’t help but crave for power to order Nigerian legislators into the US Senate to learn functional legislative practice.
Plenary Session: Nigeria-US Comparison
Both the US House and Senate displayed exceptional commitment to public involvement. Many nations won’t permit the live airing of a sensitive issue such as the impeachment trial of a president. But the US stands out. Every minute of the trial was aired live to the local and global population. Nigerian House and Senate are not doing badly in this regard. Most of their sessions are aired live, including the election of principal officers. However, as being done in the US, the Nigerian legislature needs to make public the details of her income, constituency projects and budgetary allocations.
US senators are more open than their Nigerian counterparts. They boldly reveal their planned vote and the reasons for their decision. Many disclosed that they would vote on the impeachment based on personal conviction and desired legacy. Nigerian senators understandably can’t be that outspoken out of the fear of being hounded. This doesn’t, however, rob off the fact majority of them vote ‘aye’ or ‘nay’ based on financial gain, ethnic and religious sentiments, party instruction, and ‘quid pro quo.’
Public interest is not always primary to politicians, including the US senators. Most of the Republican senators were more interested in acquitting Trump than ensuring a fair trial. They denied the public access to crucial information by voting against the admission of additional witnesses and documents.
Voting in favour of the motion would have made the Senate evaluate the leaked indicting videos and testimonies of crucial anti-Trump witnesses such as John Bolton, the ex-national security adviser. Without a doubt, Nigerian progressive senators would have done same to save Buhari.
The US legislators conduct at plenary and commitment to national service need to be emulated by the Nigerian Senate. The US Senate leaders and the Chief Justice, John Roberts coordinated the sessions impartially.
They, unlike their Nigerian counterpart, acted neutral, even though they too (as humans) have their own viewpoints and desires. They set rules that would make everyone listen and participate such as prohibiting the use of phones.
Rather than deploy speech interjection, shout-match and walk-out as commonly done in Nigerian chambers, the US legislators acted responsibly. No one spoke without being recognized and they yielded back time promptly. More than once, they sat for about 12 hours on the impeachment and everyone stayed on strong. If the impeachment trial took place in Nigeria, the senate president would have hurriedly adjourn sitting or ‘dabaru’ the process in favour of his party. Moreover, the senators, many of whom are old and lazy, would have yelled for adjournment or slept off.
End Note
Trump’s acquittal by the US senate sets a bad precedence for succeeding presidents to solicit foreign interference in US election and obstruct the investigation of Congress. Conversely, conviction would have opened the door for future sharply partisan, malicious impeachments.
Both the United States and Nigeria need more executive-legislature synergy. The frosty relationship between Trump and Pelosi has worsened over the impeachment trial. They must be reconciled for the benefit of the American people. It’s difficult, but not impossible to have intergovernmental synergy and a vibrant legislature under the Buhari administration. Perhaps Senate President Ahmed Lawan and House Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila need to attend classes on ‘how to function without being a puppet.’
US democracy is not perfect, but Nigeria has a lot to learn from it. The latter must adopt the former’s positive deeds and embrace attitudinal change.
One may blame the large efficiency gap between US and Nigeria’s democracy on the year of adoption. US democracy is over 230 years old, while Nigeria’s current democratic experiment is only 20 years old. But then, if Nigeria’s systemic failure is anything to go by, it will take us over a thousand years to achieve the progress US made in 230 years. The reason is not far-fetch. US has what Nigeria lacks: transparency, accountability and leadership commitment to growth and development.
Omoshola Deji is a political and public affairs analyst. He wrote in via mo******@***oo.com
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are purely of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the position of Business Post Nigeria on the subject matter.
Feature/OPED
Nigeria’s Olodo Uprising: An Assault on Critical Thinking
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?
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
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
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn


