TikTok, the wildly popular social media app owned by Chinese tech firm ByteDance, finds itself at a critical juncture in its fight to remain operational in the United States.

Facing the prospect of a nationwide ban under the newly enacted Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, TikTok is pursuing two avenues for survival: a legal appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and an apparent outreach to President-elect Donald Trump, who has had a complicated history with the platform.

The legislation, signed into law earlier this year, effectively gives TikTok an ultimatum to divest its Chinese ownership or be banned by January 19, 2025. Under the law, Apple and Google would also be required to remove TikTok from their app stores, effectively cutting off the platform’s 150 million U.S.-based users. This two-pronged pressure has forced TikTok to explore both legal and political strategies to avert a shutdown.

The Supreme Court Appeal

TikTok’s first course of action is a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the law. In its filing, TikTok’s legal team called the legislation an “unprecedented speech restriction” that would shutter one of America’s most vibrant platforms for political discourse, artistic expression, and commerce.

“The Act will shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration,” TikTok’s lawyers wrote. They also argued that the law violates the First Amendment, urging the Court to subject it to the strictest constitutional scrutiny.

TikTok highlighted the platform’s significant role in fostering free speech and economic opportunity in the U.S.

“Small businesses relying on TikTok could lose over $1 billion in revenue in just one month, while creators face nearly $300 million in lost earnings,” the company said in a statement posted on its X account.

The issue is remarkable, not only for TikTok but also for the broader tech industry, as the Supreme Court’s decision could set a precedent for how the U.S. government regulates foreign-owned platforms.

Turning to Donald Trump

On the same day it filed its Supreme Court appeal, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew met with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. The meeting suggests that TikTok is also pursuing a political strategy to survive the looming ban.

Trump’s relationship with TikTok has been anything but straightforward. During his first term as president, Trump aggressively pushed for TikTok’s ban, citing national security concerns tied to its Chinese ownership. However, those efforts were thwarted by federal courts.

In a surprising U-turn during his recent presidential campaign, Trump came out against the legislation now threatening TikTok, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden. Trump’s opposition has been linked to his increased popularity among younger voters, many of whom are avid TikTok users.

When asked about the app on Monday, Trump struck a more conciliatory tone. “We’ll take a look at TikTok,” he told reporters, adding, “You know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” citing his strong electoral performance among young voters.

This pivot marks a significant shift for the President-elect, and TikTok’s overture to Trump could be an attempt to capitalize on this newfound goodwill. Trump’s return to the White House could provide TikTok with a potential ally—or at least a reprieve from its immediate legal challenges.

The Crossroads of Tech, Politics, and National Security

TikTok’s twin strategies, seeking relief through the Supreme Court while simultaneously courting Trump, underscore the precarious position the company finds itself in.

The legislation that now threatens TikTok’s survival has been justified by its proponents on national security grounds. Lawmakers have expressed concerns that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, could be compelled to share sensitive U.S. user data with the Chinese government, a charge TikTok has repeatedly denied.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently upheld the law, dismissing TikTok’s arguments about its compliance with U.S. data security laws. The ruling left TikTok with only two viable paths forward: convincing the Supreme Court to block the legislation or persuading Trump to intervene politically once he assumes office.

The Economic Impact

The potential ban isn’t just a legal and political issue, it’s also an economic one. The app has become a major platform for small businesses, independent creators, and artists, generating significant revenue and opportunities across the U.S.

A ban could have devastating consequences. For small businesses, TikTok is a vital marketing tool, offering direct access to millions of consumers. Content creators, many of whom rely on the app for their livelihood, stand to lose a significant source of income.

Against this backdrop, TikTok’s fight is more than a struggle for its own survival, it’s believed to be a case that could redefine the boundaries of free speech, economic opportunity, and national security in the digital age.

With its Supreme Court appeal pending and Trump’s stance yet to solidify, TikTok has set the stage for a high-stakes showdown that will likely shape the future of tech regulation and U.S.-China relations.

The Enugu State Government has taken a significant step in modernizing land administration by launching the Enugu State Geographic Information System (ENGIS).

The digital platform promises to simplify land title applications, offering a seamless process that can be completed entirely online within 48 hours.

Governor Peter Mbah, in a statement shared on his official X account, described ENGIS as a landmark achievement. The governor noted that the platform would eliminate long-standing issues such as land grabbing, double allocations, unauthorized constructions, and revenue diversion.

He emphasized that the initiative would restore public trust in land management processes while promoting ease of doing business.

“With ENGIS, we are putting an end to the era of land grabbing, double allocations, unauthorized constructions, and revenue diversion. This is not just a win for government – it is a major victory for Ndi Enugu, as trust and transparency now define our land processes,” Mbah stated.

He further highlighted the platform’s convenience, explaining that it allows residents to process land titles, conduct searches, and access results entirely from their homes.

The governor also pointed to ENGIS as a tool to attract investors, enhance efficiency, and drive economic growth. The platform is expected to significantly boost Enugu’s revenue base while aligning with broader federal initiatives like the National Land Digital System (NLDS), by digitizing decades-old land records.

The NLDS seeks to unlock $300 billion in economic potential by improving land registration and formalizing land transactions. Housing Minister Arc. Musa Dangiwa recently noted that efforts to modernize land administration could significantly boost investor confidence, reduce fraud, and enhance clarity in land ownership nationwide.

1978 Land Use Act, A Bigger Issue

While the ENGIS initiative has been lauded for its potential to enhance transparency and efficiency, experts contend that Nigeria’s real estate sector faces deeper structural challenges rooted in the 1978 Land Use Act.

It has been argued that digitalization alone cannot address the systemic issues hindering Nigeria’s real estate sector. The 1978 Land Use Act, which centralizes land ownership under state governors, is said to be the most significant impediment to growth in the sector.

The Land Use Act was enacted to regulate land use and ownership across Nigeria, vesting all land in a state, except those vested in the Federal Government or its agencies, under the control of its governor. While the Act sought to streamline land administration, it has introduced bureaucratic bottlenecks and inefficiencies that continue to stifle real estate development.

One of the primary issues is the centralization of land ownership. Under the Act, landowners receive certificates of occupancy (C of O) rather than outright ownership, leaving them with leasehold rights that create insecurity and discourage long-term investment. Additionally, the requirement for the governor’s consent for all land transactions significantly increases the time and cost of acquiring land titles.

Experts also point to the discretionary powers granted to governors as a source of corruption and inefficiency. Land allocations often lack transparency, making the process uncertain and unappealing to investors. This situation is compounded by high transaction costs, which deter small and medium-scale developers from pursuing real estate projects.

The implications of the Land Use Act extend beyond bureaucratic inefficiencies. It has stymied efforts to address Nigeria’s housing deficit by driving up costs and delaying developments. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in the real estate sector has also been limited, as investors remain wary of uncertainties surrounding land rights.

The ENGIS Solution

While ENGIS cannot solve the structural challenges posed by the Land Use Act, it offers a promising solution to some of the inefficiencies in land administration. Its introduction is expected to improve transparency and enhance investor confidence in Enugu’s real estate sector.

However, experts maintain that meaningful progress in Nigeria’s real estate sector requires a repeal or significant amendment of the 1978 Land Use Act. They argue that decentralizing land management, granting full ownership rights to individuals and businesses, and simplifying transaction processes are essential steps to unlocking the sector’s potential.

Although Mbah’s commitment to modernizing land administration is commendable, the journey toward a fully functional and equitable land management system in Nigeria is said to depend on bold policy decisions at the federal level.

Comment: “It’s time for African entrepreneurs to start to figure things out and to stop sitting on the fence waiting for the government to provide solutions. Governments can support later but the momentum and direction must first come from African entrepreneurs.”

My Response:  I will respond by classifying entrepreneurs into two categories – typical entrepreneurs and pioneering entrepreneurs. Typical entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs  we meet daily, and they are common, and run in thousands in economies. Pioneering entrepreneurs are generation-shaping entrepreneurs who transform economies and nations.

Africa has many typical entrepreneurs and those entrepreneurs need platforms to operate. Economic platforms are built by governments and entrepreneurs build companies on them. The platforms include road, clean water, security, postal systems, and amenities which enable companies to grow and thrive. Some countries invest to build those platforms, even at losses, providing ecosystems for their typical entrepreneurs to do their things. 

For example, the US postal service has not recorded profit in two decades, and the US Amtrak rail system has not made a profit since 1971, and America has not shut them down. What is happening is that the postal service and other platforms are foundational platforms which enable businesses to thrive in America. 

But there are also moments when the governments cannot build platforms by themselves. What they then do, is to transfer their rights as governments to pioneering entrepreneurs. When America promulgated the eminent domain ordinance, it helped  railway tycoons like Vanderbilt to build a platform for commerce. In other words, those pioneering entrepreneurs receive special benefits to solve platform-level problems in societies.

When you read about Mellon, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and other men who built America, you will notice that the government assisted in many ways because those men were building platforms. When Bezos started Amazon, a pioneering ecommerce platform, America did not require Amazon to collect sales tax, thereby making Amazon products cheaper than the ones sold in physical stores. Without those benefits, Amazon will not be where it is today.

So, the comment has it both ways: Africa needs pioneering entrepreneurs even as the typical entrepreneurs need platforms to operate.  And someone must build those platforms because they must exist before the typical entrepreneurs can create companies on top of them.

Note this: Across human histories, from the UK to America, companies rise before nations can build strong institutions. In other words, if you expect Nigeria to have the best public institutions before great companies, you would keep waiting. Typically, what happens is that nations have great companies, and then use the taxes paid by those companies to build better public institutions. My thesis is that Nigeria cannot have solid public institutions, from great schools to good public institutions, until Nigeria has created category-leading private companies that would provide resources to build those institutions.”

You can then ask: why must it be that way? It is what it is. What the US Congress did for Amazon would be seen as cronyism in Nigeria, but sometimes, those things are done to seed new platforms.

My summary: it is either your government builds those platforms or it gives goodies to the pioneers to build the platforms, because the platforms must be built for any nation to experience development and prosperity.