At the Techarena Tech Conference in Stockholm, Sweden, executives from Google and Meta voiced strong concerns over Europe’s strict regulatory approach to artificial intelligence (AI), arguing that it is hindering innovation and economic growth.

Chris Yiu, Meta’s director of public policy, criticized the AI Act and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), describing them as regulatory frameworks that either fragment the market or impose excessive restrictions, ultimately causing delays in product launches and limiting technological progress.

“This is a profound and very human application of the technology, and it is slow to arrive in Europe because of the issues that we have around regulation,” Yiu said, holding up a pair of Meta’s AI-powered Ray-Ban Meta glasses that provide real-time speech translation and image descriptions for visually impaired users.

The glasses, which launched in other markets months earlier, were delayed in Europe due to the complex regulatory landscape surrounding AI and data privacy laws.

Meta previously warned that the unpredictable nature of the AI Act’s implementation was creating compliance challenges, while the GDPR framework had prevented the company from using Instagram and Facebook user data to train its AI models. Google DeepMind’s head of public policy, Dorothy Chou, added that the AI Act was devised before the rise of ChatGPT, highlighting the difficulty of regulating AI on a timeline that does not match the technology’s pace of development.

Chou pointed to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act as an example of a policy that fosters economic growth while providing a regulatory framework for emerging industries. She noted that, in contrast, Europe’s regulatory environment has been largely focused on imposing restrictions rather than incentivizing innovation. She argued that policymakers should strike a balance between ensuring responsible AI development and creating an environment where the industry can thrive.

Trump’s Trade War Puts Europe Under Pressure

The push for AI deregulation in Europe is not just coming from tech executives; economic analysts are also urging policymakers to rethink their approach in light of U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policies. With Trump reigniting tariff wars against major economies, including China and the European Union, experts believe that European leaders will be forced to scale back regulatory burdens to strengthen their economies.

Trump’s trade war strategy, which includes higher tariffs on European goods and manufacturing components, is expected to hurt industrial output and weaken economic growth across the bloc. Analysts note that the EU cannot afford to further slow down its tech sector with restrictive AI rules at a time when economic resilience is critical. If Europe fails to incentivize domestic innovation, it risks losing a large ground to the U.S. and China, where AI regulation is either more flexible or heavily state-driven.

Economic analysts have warned that if Trump follows through with trade barriers on European products, the EU will need to offset potential losses by boosting its own technology sector. AI-driven growth could serve as a key pillar of economic recovery, making it imperative for European policymakers to adopt a more innovation-friendly approach.

The Ukraine Crisis and Europe’s Growing Financial Burden

Beyond trade tensions, another pressing issue weighing on Europe’s economic outlook is the ongoing war in Ukraine. With Trump signaling a potential withdrawal of U.S. financial support for Ukraine, the EU is expected to step up and fill the financial gap left by Washington. This shift will place enormous fiscal pressure on European economies, forcing governments to allocate more funds toward military aid, humanitarian assistance, and post-war reconstruction efforts.

The EU has already committed tens of billions of euros in financial aid to Ukraine, but with no end in sight to the war, the cost of supporting Kyiv will continue to rise. If the U.S. drastically reduces its funding, the EU will have no choice but to shoulder a greater portion of the financial burden. To sustain this long-term commitment, European leaders will need to find ways to strengthen the economy, ensuring they have the resources to maintain aid flows without risking a domestic economic slowdown.

Economists believe that the AI sector could play a crucial role in boosting Europe’s overall economic resilience. The potential of AI-driven industries to create jobs, increase productivity, and attract foreign investment makes it an essential component of any strategy aimed at sustaining financial stability. However, the strict AI regulatory framework currently in place could prevent European businesses from capitalizing on these opportunities, putting the bloc at a disadvantage compared to global competitors.

An EU policy advisor suggested that European lawmakers will likely be forced to reconsider their stance on AI regulation, not necessarily because of pressure from corporations, but because of the broader need to keep Europe’s economy competitive and capable of handling future geopolitical challenges. While the AI Act was originally designed to mitigate potential risks associated with artificial intelligence, its restrictive nature is now viewed as a possible hindrance to economic recovery and technological leadership.

Big Tech and the Push for Softer Regulations

As economic and geopolitical factors mount, Big Tech companies have intensified their lobbying efforts to push back against Europe’s AI regulations. Google’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, recently described the EU’s General-Purpose AI (GPAI) code of practice as a step in the wrong direction, arguing that it places unrealistic compliance expectations on companies.

Meta’s newly appointed Chief Global Affairs Officer, Joel Kaplan, also criticized the AI code, calling it unworkable and technically unfeasible. He argued that some of its requirements go beyond the AI Act itself, adding another challenge for companies trying to launch AI-powered products in Europe.

The EU’s newly created AI Office, responsible for overseeing AI compliance across the region, is now facing intense pressure from both U.S. tech giants and European venture capitalists who warn that overregulation could stifle Europe’s own tech ecosystem.

Several European investors and startup founders have also expressed frustration over the regulatory compliance burden in the region. Antoine Moyroud, a partner at Lightspeed Venture Partners, said that while the U.S. government has taken steps to support AI growth, Europe has focused too much on regulation rather than fostering a competitive industry.

Moyroud noted that Europe needs to go beyond the AI Act and GDPR to create an environment where AI companies can thrive. Without a major shift in regulatory philosophy, he warned that the EU risks falling behind in the global AI race, with most of the breakthrough innovations happening in Silicon Valley and China.

Nigeria’s oil and gas sector remains plagued by stagnation, with crude oil production still struggling around the 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) mark despite repeated government assurances. Now, Udobong Ntia, the Executive Vice President of Upstream at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), has made a case for the adoption of third-party operators to unlock stranded oil assets and boost production.

Speaking at the Heirs Energies Leadership Forum 2025 – Industry Leadership Discourse, Ntia stressed that Nigeria’s inability to scale up production is due, in part, to the hoarding of undeveloped assets by oil block owners who lack both the capital and technical expertise to bring them into production. Instead of leaving these fields dormant, he suggested a model where third-party investors and operators could be brought in under an arrangement that allows the primary leaseholders to maintain oversight while relinquishing some control.

“There’s no point in holding onto an asset if you don’t have the capital, aren’t ready to produce, and are just holding onto it,” Ntia argued. “How about we bring in third-party operators? You can still be the operator, maintain oversight, and relinquish a bit of control to see these assets come alive with production.”

His remarks come at a critical time for Nigeria’s oil industry, which has seen a consistent decline in production due to theft, divestments by major oil multinationals, aging infrastructure, and security challenges. However, beyond these well-documented issues, experts say that the industry is also deeply compromised by corruption, nepotism, and political interference in the allocation of oil blocks, further hampering production.

Structural Challenges in Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Sector

At the leadership forum, Ntia identified three key challenges impeding growth in the sector:

• Contracting Delays: Bureaucratic bottlenecks and long procurement processes delay projects, leading to escalating costs and inefficiencies.
• Aging Infrastructure: Many oil production facilities have outlived their operational efficiency, resulting in lower yields and frequent disruptions.
• Security Concerns: Widespread oil theft, vandalism, and illegal bunkering in the Niger Delta continue to undermine production efforts.

While acknowledging these problems, Ntia insisted that better collaboration among industry stakeholders—including international investors and local operators—could help Nigeria scale up its crude output and meet its target of 2 million bpd by 2025.

However, many analysts remain skeptical about this goal, pointing out that the real problem runs much deeper than infrastructure or security.

Nepotism and Corruption in Oil Block Allocations: The Hidden Barrier to Growth

Beyond the operational challenges Ntia outlined, industry experts note that Nigeria’s oil and gas sector is also crippled by systemic corruption, particularly in the way oil assets are allocated.

Energy expert Kelvin Emmanuel has been vocal about the issue, describing the allocation process as riddled with favoritism, political lobbying, and nepotism rather than merit-based considerations.

“You’ll carry oil bloc and give babe because you’re lobbying to keep your job — Family and Friends Inc.,” Emmanuel said, referring to how political connections, rather than technical expertise, often determine who gets access to lucrative oil assets.

He explained that this mismanagement directly impacts production, as many of the individuals or entities that receive oil blocks lack the financial strength or technical know-how to commission Final Investment Decisions (FID) and develop the fields.

“Explains why output is not going anywhere, because the people you gave it to cannot show you a calendar for field development and production, as they have no pedigree or capital to commission FID,” Emmanuel added.

His statements underscore a longstanding problem in Nigeria’s oil sector, where oil assets are often handed out as political favors rather than allocated based on an investor’s ability to efficiently extract and produce crude oil. This practice further stalls production growth, as these block holders either sit on the assets or flip them for profit without developing them.

Emmanuel also highlighted the disconnect between Nigeria’s oil wealth and its citizens’ living conditions, pointing out that the country has all the natural resources needed to create prosperity, but corruption at the top has left Nigerians in perpetual economic hardship.

“There’s no miracle of a better life that Nigerians are praying for that God has not already done — the problem is just terrible people in powerful roles,” he remarked.

Can Nigeria Meet Its 2mbpd Target? Experts Doubt

President Bola Tinubu’s administration has repeatedly pledged to increase crude oil production from under 1.5 million bpd to over 2 million bpd by 2025, but industry analysts remain unconvinced.

It is believed that while Nigeria theoretically has the capacity to reach 2 million bpd, several key obstacles make the goal highly unrealistic:

1. Rampant Crude Oil Theft: The Nigerian oil industry loses hundreds of thousands of barrels daily to illegal bunkering and vandalism. The Niger Delta region, where much of the country’s crude is produced, remains a hotbed of militant activity and sabotage.
2. Exit of International Oil Companies (IOCs): Global energy giants such as Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron have been exiting Nigeria’s onshore assets, selling off fields, and scaling down investments due to regulatory uncertainty, insecurity, and operational risks.
3. Regulatory Bottlenecks and Inefficiency: The long delays in approving oil licenses, contracts, and environmental permits discourage investment and stall production growth.

While Ntia’s call for third-party collaboration and greater efficiency in developing idle oil assets offers a potential solution, experts say unless the deeper systemic issues—such as nepotism in oil block allocations and lack of accountability—are addressed, production will likely remain stagnant.

“Everybody will need to collaborate. Everyone should focus on what they do best,” Ntia said. “For areas where they lack the capital or resources, let those who can operate on a cost-revenue basis take on the work.”

While his suggestion could help improve efficiency, many experts argue that no amount of collaboration will fix the sector if political interference and corruption continue to dictate how oil assets are managed.

Former Nigerian military president, General Ibrahim Babangida (retd.), has once again found himself at the center of national discourse following the launch of his autobiography titled, ‘A Journey in Service.’

While the event raked in nearly N17 billion in donations from Nigeria’s business elite, it also reignited deep-seated resentment over his controversial past—particularly his role in annulling the historic June 12, 1993, presidential election.

The book launch, which took place in Abuja on Thursday, was attended by Nigeria’s wealthiest business figures, former military officers, and political leaders, all eager to contribute to the establishment of a presidential library in Babangida’s name. The staggering amounts donated underscored the strong ties between Nigeria’s business community and the country’s former leaders, even those with contentious legacies.

Nigeria’s Business Titans Open Their Wallets

Among the biggest contributors was Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, who pledged N8 billion towards the presidential library, promising N2 billion annually for the next four years. Dangote, whose business empire spans cement, sugar, and oil refining, justified the donation by crediting Babangida with creating Nigeria’s private sector in its current form.

“He was the one who really created the private sector in Nigeria. I remember how he issued about 30 banking licenses on the same day,” Dangote remarked at the event.

Another industrial magnate, Abdulsamad Rabiu, Chairman of BUA Group, donated N5 billion, praising Babangida’s impact on Nigeria’s economic structure.

“We are gathered to celebrate more than a person, a building, or an archive. We are gathered to celebrate a sanctuary of memory, a testament to the vision, complexity, and enduring legacies of one of Nigeria’s transformative leaders, General Ibrahim Babangida,” Rabiu stated.

Other high-profile donations included:

• Theophilus Danjuma (retd.) – N3 billion

• Arthur Eze – N500 million
• Senate President Godswill Akpabio – N50 million
• Mustafa Chike-Obi – N100 million
• Folorunsho Alakija and others – Unspecified amounts

The massive fundraising effort is among the largest seen for a private initiative in Nigeria, reinforcing how deeply embedded Babangida remains within the country’s business and political class.

June 12, 93: The Past That Keeps Coming Back

However, while Babangida was being celebrated in elite circles, a different conversation was raging across Nigeria. His book, which for the first time acknowledged that Chief Moshood Abiola clearly won the June 12 election, was met with outrage rather than absolution.

For decades, Babangida refused to explicitly admit Abiola’s victory. Now, in A Journey in Service, he concedes: “Upon closer examination of the original collated figures from the 110,000 polling booths nationwide, it was clear that Abiola satisfied the constitutional requirements, having obtained 8,128,720 votes against Tofa’s 5,848,247 votes and securing the mandatory one-third of votes cast in 28 states, including Abuja,” he said.

Babangida also detailed how General Sani Abacha and other military figures orchestrated the annulment behind his back and that he feared Abiola would be assassinated if allowed to take office.

“I was convinced that if he became President, he would be quickly eliminated by the same forces who pretended to be his friends. Having experienced a civil war, I was not prepared to see another,” he said.

IBB admitted that the June 23, 1993, annulment statement was issued without his authorization while he was away in Katsina and that Abacha had outmaneuvered him to take control of the country.

“It was painful to later discover that, apart from Abacha, some of my closest colleagues, including a Lieutenant General, were deeply involved in the plot to eliminate me,” he said.

Despite his attempts to frame himself as a reluctant participant, many Nigerians were unmoved.

Public Backlash: “IBB Does Not Deserve Celebration”

Following his revelations, Babangida has faced a fierce backlash, particularly from those who lived through the June 12 crisis. Many viewed his admission as too little, too late, with some arguing that he was attempting to rewrite history.

Wale Lawal, a social commentator, condemned the celebration of Babangida while justice remained elusive for victims of his regime.

“IBB—a well-known despot—is launching a book and getting billions in donations, meanwhile the Ogoni 9 (peaceful environmental activists executed 30 years ago by the regime of IBB’s defense minister, Abacha) have still not been exonerated. Nigeria is crazy,” he said.

Activist and human rights lawyer, Abdul Mahmud, recalled the deaths and political repression that followed Babangida’s decision.

He said: “People don’t understand the gravity of the crime that IBB treated lightly yesterday. Protesters were killed by the police at the bridgehead in Apongbon, Lagos, on 18 July 1993. Student leaders were rusticated—many lost their future careers. Activists were tortured and jailed.

“I was 24 when we – at CD- led the first protests against the annulment of 12 June, 1993 election that we all knew MKO won. IBB plunged our country into a needless crisis that lasted for 6 years. People died in defence of June 12. May their blood continue to haunt him!”

Others were even more scathing. Dele Farotimi, another prominent rights activist, accused Babangida of exploiting Nigeria’s lack of historical accountability.

“In a place inhabited by the conscious, IBB would not dare to show his face in public. But in the crime scene that doubles as our country, having been succeeded by even more villainous rulers, Badamasi is installed in the seat of the statesman. Tueh.”

A Celebration for Some, A Betrayal for Others

Babangida’s book launch and the billions raised paint a stark picture of Nigeria’s enduring power dynamics. To the business elite, he is a patron and benefactor who laid the foundation for their success. But to activists, he is the architect of one of Nigeria’s greatest betrayals—the man who annulled the freest and fairest election in the nation’s history.