In engineering, there is what they call a fudge factor (“a figure included in a calculation to account for some unquantified but significant phenomenon or to ensure a desired result”). And the factors are bad things across many domains of designs. It turns out that the financial engineering in the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) had many fudge factors.

Yes, I wrote here that many things the CBN was doing did not make sense. And it was surprising because it was largely the same team which stabilized the Naira around 2013 to early 2015. So, how could they have lost the exchange rate gravitational pull which was pulling Naira down?

Now, it seems that we have an answer: in the financial engineering of the Nigerian economy and the apex bank, the leaders introduced many fudge factors: “The report, titled ‘Report of the Special Investigation on CBN and Related Entities (Chargeable offences)’, delivered to President Tinubu on December 9, has exposed a labyrinth of financial misconduct allegedly perpetrated during the tenure of former CBN Governor, Godwin Emefiele.”

Those were part of the things which did not allow the Naira and the economy to balance. The pain here was the desired result was to destroy the economy of Nigeria and using those fudge factors, they executed the mission.

Good People, this is still early as Emefiele and the CBN did not operate alone. As I have said, the Nigerian economy does not obey the economic “laws” of Adam Smith and AO Lawal (he wrote a great secondary school economics textbook), and the reason that remains the case is that in our finance-first economy, we have many fudge factors structured to destroy Nigeria, by those tasked to lead and manage.

Comment on Feed

Comment: Ndubuisi Ekekwe You were a banker and now financial expert. We both worked in Diamond Bank. I cannot remember a time when an audit report was submitted to the management in respect of a person, team or business unit without the input of the entity concerned. How many of the personalities involved in this matter were invited for interrogation before a verdict was passed? How competent is the investigator in this matter? What was the basis for this investigation?

While not holding forth for the previous managers of the CBN (all government institutions in Nigeria are collectively a basket case) the fact, in my view, that the report did not give the people being interrogated/investigated the opportunity to defend themselves makes it incomplete.

As you have rightly pointed out, Nigeria economy does not respect even the simplest rule of economics and that is only because the mangers made it so. So far, the management of the Nigeria economy, nay the whole of its affairs, has been nothing short of brigandage.

My Response: unfortunately, there is no history of Nigeria and its central bank operating the way the private sector works. In EFCC, they arrest the person and then ask the person to give them the info to destroy the person. For this one though, the simple thing is always to refuse via a press release. Nigeria does not have a history of asking the accused for response because this is a political theater. Those accused can respond because that is how Nigeria operates, unfortunately.

Alleged Financial Mismanagement Rocks Nigeria’s Central Bank as Investigator’s Report Exposes High-Level Fraud

In a groundbreaking decision, the UK’s Supreme Court delivered a verdict reiterating the non-recognition of AI algorithms as inventors, marking a pivotal moment in patent law. The case revolved around US computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s pursuit of patent registration for inventions attributed to his AI creation, DABUS.

Thaler’s endeavor to secure patent rights for DABUS-generated innovations, such as a novel food container and a flashing light beacon devised in 2019, faced initial rejection from the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO). The IPO’s stance rested on the premise that patents could only be attributed to human individuals or corporate entities, not AI systems.

The recent Supreme Court ruling unequivocally upheld the denial of Thaler’s appeal. Judge David Kitchin emphasized that while the case didn’t delve into the patentability of AI-generated technical advancements; patents inherently demand a “natural person” as the inventor for enforcement purposes.

He said “technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable,” but patents can only be assigned to human creators, and the inventor must be a “natural person” for a patent to be effectively enforced.

This ruling aligns with a precedent set by the US Supreme Court, reinforcing that AI lacks the legal status to be recognized as an inventor. Intellectual property expert Rajvinder Jagdev underscored similar decisions across European courts and Australia, all underscoring the fundamental principle that inventors must be human individuals.

Thaler’s legal representatives voiced apprehensions about the ruling’s adverse effects on industry growth and AI integration. Conversely, the Supreme Court acknowledged the existing inadequacies of patent laws in safeguarding AI “inventions.” An IPO spokesperson embraced the ruling, saying it clarifies the current state of patenting related to “artificial intelligence machines.”

However, the decision prompts pertinent inquiries into the adaptation of patent systems to accommodate AI-generated creations. Giles Parsons, an IP lawyer, deemed the Supreme Court’s decision as “unsurprising” and anticipated minimal immediate impact on the patent framework. Parsons reiterated that AI algorithms remain classified as tools, not independent agents, within legal contexts.

The IPO emphasized the ongoing necessity for discussions on reshaping patent systems and intellectual property frameworks to effectively navigate the complexities arising from AI-generated innovations. It acknowledged that the current paradigm might not comprehensively address the multifaceted nature of AI-based inventions.

The ruling underscores the many issues facing the evolving AI industry – ranging from its perceived threat to civilization to the need for regulation. From the UK to the US, the authorities are still grappling with the exigencies of AI, making efforts to create unique rules for the industry complicated.