Blaze  is for instant cross border payments. It’s a peer to peer payments app that uses USDC to make payments fast, and cheap, between any two people anywhere in the world. Simply, Blaze is the world’s first payments app for modern nomads which enables you to pay anyone for nearly free, across multiple currencies, in a fast, fun and easy way.

Tekedia Capital welcomes Blaze to our portfolio, and we’re super excited for the promise to scale Blaze from Mexico/USA to Africa to Asia and beyond. Wouldn’t it be great to eliminate remittance and cross-border fees? You got it.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and senior Hamas official Mohammed Deif, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity concerning the October 7 attacks and their aftermath.

The ICC alleges that Netanyahu bears criminal responsibility for war crimes, including “starvation as a method of warfare” and “crimes against humanity” such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. These charges stem from the Israeli government’s military operations in Gaza, which have drawn global condemnation for their humanitarian impact.

Gallant, who served as defense minister during key periods of the conflict, faces similar accusations for actions under his command.

The court’s statement emphasized that these alleged crimes took place in territories under Israeli occupation—Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank—over which the ICC claims jurisdiction. This assertion is based on Palestine’s formal acceptance of the court’s authority in 2015. Israel, however, has rejected the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that it is not a member state and labeling the court’s actions as biased.

The ICC also issued a warrant for Mohammed Deif, a senior Hamas official and alleged mastermind of the October 7 attacks. The court accuses Deif of overseeing widespread atrocities, including murder, torture, sexual violence, and hostage-taking. These acts, the ICC claims, were part of a systematic attack against Israeli civilians.

Israel previously announced Deif’s death in a September airstrike, but Hamas has neither confirmed nor denied this. The ICC’s move to target Deif underscores its broader aim of addressing crimes committed by both state and non-state actors in the conflict.

Political Reactions

Israel’s leadership has vehemently rejected the ICC’s actions. Netanyahu’s office dismissed the warrants as “absurd and anti-Semitic,” asserting that Israel’s military operations were a just response to Hamas’s October 7 assault, which the statement described as “the largest massacre against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.”

“[Netanyahu] will not yield to pressure, will not back down, and will not retreat until all the goals of the war set by Israel at the start of the campaign are achieved,” the statement said.

President Isaac Herzog and other officials echoed these sentiments, accusing the ICC of undermining justice and siding with Israel’s adversaries.

He said in a statement on X that “the outrageous decision at the ICC has turned universal justice into a universal laughing stock. It makes a mockery of the sacrifice of all those who fight for justice.”

Far-right figures, such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, called for increased settlement expansion and annexation of occupied territories in response.

Hamas’s Reaction

Hamas welcomed the warrants against Israeli officials, calling them a historic step toward justice for Palestinians.

“This… represents a significant historical precedent. It rectifies a longstanding course of historical injustice against our people and the suspicious negligence of the horrific violations they have endured over 76 years of fascist occupation,” it said, calling for all nations to cooperate in bringing the Israeli leaders to justice and “take immediate action to halt the genocide” in Gaza.

However, it remained silent on the charges against Deif, reflecting the group’s focus on framing itself as the victim of Israeli aggression. Earlier in May, the group had condemned the ICC prosecutor’s decision to seek warrants against its leaders, describing it as an attempt to “equate victims with aggressors.”

U.S. Opposes Move

The United States has consistently opposed ICC investigations into Israel, citing concerns over jurisdiction and fairness. President Joe Biden described the ICC’s actions as “outrageous,” reiterating the U.S. stance that there is no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas.

“And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas,” he said in a statement in May. “We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

Congressional leaders, including incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have threatened sanctions against the ICC if it proceeds with the warrants.

“If Majority Leader Schumer does not act, the Senate Republican majority will stand with our key ally Israel and make this – and other supportive legislation – a top priority in the next Congress,” he wrote in a post on X.

South Africa’s role in bringing the case to the ICC has also drawn attention. Analysts speculate that Pretoria could face diplomatic backlash from allies like the U.S., which has historically sought to shield Israel from international legal scrutiny.

Implications for Netanyahu and Israel

The warrants have immediate and long-term consequences. Netanyahu and Gallant now face potential arrest if they travel to any of the 124 ICC member states legally obligated to enforce the court’s decisions. This could significantly restrict their diplomatic engagements and Israel’s international standing.

Legal experts suggest that the ICC’s actions could also impact Israel’s military partnerships, as third-party states might reconsider cooperation with an army implicated in alleged war crimes.

The ICC’s actions mark a rare instance of international legal scrutiny in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has seen decades of violence and diplomatic stalemates. The court’s decision to pursue cases against both Israeli leaders and Hamas officials reflects an attempt to address the conflict comprehensively. However, critics argue that the ICC’s lack of enforcement mechanisms undermines its effectiveness.

Previous ICC arrest warrants, such as those issued against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and Russian President Vladimir Putin, have highlighted the challenges of implementing international justice. Many leaders avoid ICC member states to evade arrest, reducing the practical impact of such warrants.

While the ICC’s warrants are unlikely to lead to immediate arrests, they represent a significant symbolic victory for advocates of accountability in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The move could also galvanize international debates on the role of global institutions in addressing protracted crises.

For now, political analysts believe the warrants deepen existing divides, with Israel doubling down on its policies and Hamas using the ICC’s actions as a propaganda tool. As geopolitical players weigh their responses, the ICC’s actions may reshape the legal and political landscape of one of the world’s most enduring conflicts.

The Nigerian Senate has approved President Bola Tinubu’s request for a fresh N1.77 trillion ($2.2 billion) external loan to partially finance the country’s N9.7 trillion budget deficit for the 2024 fiscal year.

This approval, reached through a voice vote, followed the presentation of a report by the Senate Committee on Local and Foreign Debts, chaired by Senator Wammako Magatarkada (APC, Sokoto North).

Details of the Loan Request

In a letter submitted to the National Assembly on November 14, Tinubu outlined the necessity of the loan as part of his administration’s 2024 appropriation strategy. The requested amount, equivalent to $2.209 billion, will be sourced from external creditors.

However, the decision has sparked widespread criticism due to Nigeria’s escalating debt burden and the stark disparity in exchange rates used to present the loan figures.

The loan is calculated at an exchange rate of N800 per dollar, significantly lower than the official rate of N1,687 per dollar as recorded in the Nigerian Autonomous Foreign Exchange Market (NAFEM). Many argue that this discrepancy is deceptive, with the true loan value exceeding the presented amount when recalculated using market rates.

“What makes this particular loan proposal even more concerning is that it is benchmarked at the exchange rate of 1 USD to N800, whereas the current exchange rate from the Central Bank of Nigeria stands at over N1,600 to 1 USD,” former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, lamented.

It has been noted that the true cost of this loan when adjusted to actual market rates, could potentially exceed N3.6 trillion.

Rising Debt Servicing Costs

Nigeria’s debt servicing obligations have been on an upward trajectory, placing immense pressure on public finances. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) recently reported a staggering $3.58 billion spent on servicing foreign debts in the first nine months of 2024, a 39.77% increase from the $2.56 billion recorded during the same period in 2023.

The CBN’s breakdown of debt servicing payments reveals dramatic spikes in 2024 compared to the previous year. In May, for instance, payments surged by 286.52% to $854.37 million, the highest monthly expenditure this year, compared to $221.05 million in May 2023. Similarly, January saw a 398.89% increase, with $560.52 million paid compared to $112.35 million in 2023.

While certain months, such as July and August, showed slight declines in payments, the overall trend points to rising costs, exacerbated by fluctuating exchange rates and Nigeria’s heavy reliance on foreign loans to bridge budget deficits.

The approval has been met with skepticism and backlash from various quarters. Critics highlight the already strained fiscal space, noting that the government is struggling to meet its existing debt obligations. Some argue that the new loan will further inflate the country’s debt servicing burden, crowding out critical investments in infrastructure and social programs.

“Nigeria is sinking further into debt, and the National Assembly has become an accomplice once more. Tinubu had, in July this year, boasted that the FIRS and Customs under his watch had collected all-time high revenues to finance the Budget. Why, then, are they still borrowing? There is something they are not telling Nigerians, even as they are being crushed by a combination of their failed trial-and-error policies and loan rackets,” Atiku said.

Sustaining the Growing Debt

Nigeria’s debt sustainability is increasingly in question, with over 90% of government revenue now allocated to debt servicing, according to the Debt Management Office (DMO). The new borrowing could exacerbate this trend, limiting the government’s ability to finance critical sectors such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

Furthermore, the increasing reliance on external loans, coupled with exchange rate volatility, raises concerns about potential sovereign default risks.

“I feel a sense of personal agony seeing that just a few years after the administration of President Obasanjo took our country out of foreign indebtedness, we are today back at the top spot in the same conundrum,” Atiku added.

Analysts have warned that Nigeria’s economic stability could be jeopardized if urgent reforms are not implemented to boost revenue generation and cut wasteful spending.

A Growing Fiscal Deficit

The approved loan is part of a broader effort to address Nigeria’s N9.7 trillion budget deficit for 2024, itself a reflection of structural imbalances in the country’s fiscal policies. Experts emphasize the need for comprehensive economic reforms to tackle issues such as subsidy removal, overdependence on oil revenues, and inefficiencies in tax collection.

They warn that without urgent measures to enhance fiscal transparency and implement robust economic reforms, Nigeria’s financial sustainability remains precarious, with potential long-term consequences for its economy and citizens.