• South Africa’s election results present 3 options for government: all are fraught with danger

    South Africa’s election results present 3 options for government: all are fraught with danger

    Philippe Burger, University of the Free State

    South Africans do not have a deep culture of coalitions. There have been a few coalitions at provincial and municipal levels but most of these were quite unstable.

    The outcome of the 2024 national election up-ended 30 years of electoral dominance by the African National Congress. The party garnered only 40.18% of the vote while the Democratic Alliance got 21.81%, the uMkhonto weSizwe Party 14.58% and the Economic Freedom Fighters 9.52%.

    That means that the country will need to learn to dance the coalition dance, a dance that under the best of conditions is fraught with partners stepping on each other’s toes.

    And all of this happens in an economy that is not in good shape. South Africa has an economy with negative per capita growth, high and rising unemployment, poverty and inequality, a government deeply in debt, and 26 million people – 42% of the population – on grants.

    One possible outcome from ongoing talks is that the African National Congress partners with the radical Economic Freedom Fighters led by Julius Malema and with former president Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party. After 30 years of promises of a better life for all, millions of people feel excluded, left in poverty, with little means to take care of themselves. Zuma and Malema have shown that they know how to capitalise on this sense of exclusion.

    The second option is that the ANC partners with the biggest opposition party, the Democratic Alliance.

    Lastly, it could opt to run a minority government.

    All three options are fraught with difficulties and dangers.

    Disillusionment on the part of former ANC members who joined the Economic Freedom Fighters and uMkhonto weSizwe makes coalition formation with the political left quite difficult. And should it succeed, the economic consequences would likely be quite negative. The Economic Freedom Fighters and the uMkhonto weSizwe Party are not business-friendly parties. A coalition with them would likely result in the alienation of investors, a further drop in economic growth and consequently a lack of job creation.

    On the political right, coalition formation between the ANC and the Democratic Alliance would be no less difficult, especially given their significant philosophical differences about the role of government and on how to overcome economic and social challenges. Even if they were to succeed in cobbling together a coalition, it would cause serious instability.

    Such instability would not be conducive for investment. Investors would prefer to stand on the sidelines and observe how such coalitions shaped up.

    The third option, of running a minority government, presents another set of challenges – in particular the prospect of a very unstable government in a permanent state of gridlock. (Examples of minority governments can be found in Canada and a number of European countries.)

    The possible partners

    A coalition between the ANC and the Economic Freedom Fighters or uMkhonto weSizwe is not as straightforward as it might look.

    Founded a decade ago, the Economic Freedom Fighters has represented alienated, excluded youth, who feel the deal struck in 1994 doesn’t benefit them.

    Malema was brilliant in mobilising large numbers of young people. Although his vote in this election waned somewhat, he still, broadly speaking, represents a cohort of younger people disillusioned with ANC policy. And these voters will not necessarily like a coalition with the very same ANC unless it brings them a demonstrable benefit. Anything less will cost the Economic Freedom Fighters support in future elections.

    In the case of Zuma, it is a little more complex. To understand his influence, we need to understand the man and the role he played in KwaZulu-Natal over almost 40 years. In the early 1990s, before the first democratic elections, he played a key role in pacifying the bloody conflict between the Inkatha Freedom Party and the ANC. And, from very humble, rural beginnings, via the anti-apartheid struggle and prison, he made it to deputy president of both the party and the country. And then President Thabo Mbeki axed him as deputy president of the country following his implication in a corruption scandal.

    But Zuma fought back. And once back, this time as president of the party and the country, he mobilised KwaZulu-Natal in support of the ANC. He remains hugely popular in the province, as the recent election results show. The uMkhonto weSizwe Party garnered 45.9% of the vote.

    His lifetime achievement was inspirational to many, because, if a man from such humble beginnings could become president, then anything was possible for everyone.

    As in the case of the Economic Freedom Fighters, it would not be so easy for the ANC to go into a coalition with uMkhonto weSizwe. They represent groups of people seriously aggrieved by the ANC. They are angry and disgruntled. If the ANC wants a coalition with these parties, it will have to offer them something that addresses their anger and disgruntlement.

    But doing that would probably result in rising government expenditure and debt levels. And if that coalition had to raise taxes to deliver on all the promises it made, investors would be likely to run away.

    Given the leftist, statist views of both the Economic Freedom Fighters and uMkhonto weSizwe, we might also see more interventionism, regulations and unwise political support to state-owned entities.

    South Africans have recently seen the private sector assisting the government in resolving the electricity, transport and harbour infrastructure bottlenecks. That would probably all come to nothing with this type of coalition.

    Financial markets would probably not look favourably on a coalition with populists.

    A coalition between the ANC and the Economic Freedom Fighters or uMkhonto weSizwe would likely be an economic disaster. Either the ANC delivers on all the promises such a coalition will entail, which will be fiscally unaffordable and economically counterproductive, or if they try to contain the fiscal cost, and therefore not deliver on their promises, the coalition will fall apart and introduce further instability.

    However, there are some clear heads in the ANC who would not like to go down this path.

    The Democratic Alliance

    A coalition with the Democratic Alliance could take two forms. One is a real coalition with the ANC and the Democratic Alliance, and possibly other smaller parties like the Inkatha Freedom Party, sharing cabinet positions.

    However, for a party like the Democratic Alliance this would hold the serious danger that if things were to go badly over the next five years, it would be seen as complicit and lose votes in the next election.

    Should the Democratic Alliance nevertheless enter such a coalition, government’s economic policy would pivot slightly more pro-market and possibly include a greater focus on frugality and efficiency in government.

    But it would be difficult and time consuming to carry out these sorts of measures with a reluctant senior partner. The resulting frustration on the part of the Democratic Alliance would then likely cause the end of the coalition.

    Such a coalition would be inherently unstable because the parties are philosophically quite far apart. Foreign policy in just one example.

    The second form of coalition between the ANC and Democratic Alliance entails the ANC running the executive branch of government and the Democratic Alliance running parliament – the so-called “supply and confidence” model. Thus, the ANC leader would be president and appoint the cabinet with ANC appointees, and the Democratic Alliance might appoint the speaker or deputy speaker, and chairs of parliamentary committees. It would presumably also include an agreement that the Democratic Alliance would support the budget and not introduce a no-confidence vote in the ANC-aligned president.

    The ANC would have to negotiate support for each piece of legislation it brought to parliament. This would result in very little being passed.

    Without an agreement to support the budget and confidence in the president, the ANC would have little incentive to support such a coalition and might prefer to form a minority government.

    Going it alone

    A minority government would be very unstable as getting anything through parliament would be almost impossible.

    If the annual budget isn’t passed, spending becomes unauthorised – a messy situation politically and economically.

    None of the options on hand would be easy. South Africans need to hang on to their seats. It’s going to be a rocky five years.

    This is an edited version of a talk delivered at a webinar hosted by the University of Free State Centre for Gender and African Studies and Institute of Race Relations on 5 June 2024. The opinions expressed in this op-ed represent those of the author and not necessarily those of the institution.The Conversation

    Philippe Burger, Dean: Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, and Professor of Economics, University of the Free State

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Join Crypto play and earn.
    Click Here


    Visit our blog often or follow us on X.

  • How Rishi Sunak tried to weaponise information only to shoot himself in the foot

    How Rishi Sunak tried to weaponise information only to shoot himself in the foot

    Matthew Flinders, University of Sheffield

    Could it be that British politics is slipping into some post-satire phase of confusion and condemnation?

    The second full week of the 2024 election campaign was definitely beyond satire – and will probably be remembered for three things.

    First and foremost, this was the week Rishi Sunak went populist. His claim that Labour’s tax plans would cost households £2,000 in tax was a form of fake news. There was never any intention to be truthful about this figure, it was merely a device for forging a simple mental association between the words “tax” and “Labour”.

    It was intended to mislead, while at the same time making it possible for Sunak to deflect any blame onto anonymous Treasury officials, whom he claimed had come up with the figures. He perhaps did not bank on them calling him out.

    When information is weaponised in this way, it is the repetition of the argument, rather than the credibility of the case, that matters.

    This was targeted manipulation of public concerns on specific topics. “Labour is lying. Labour will cost you.”

    And this is the key issue. Sunak “won” the debate only in the sense that he created a furore that revolved around “Labour+tax”. The aim was never to tell the truth: it was an attempt to tap into longstanding cultural concerns about Labour’s fiscal credibility.

    Post-event analyses, truth-checkers, counter claims, sleaze busters, bean counters and even accusations of lying risked only falling into the trap that the prime minister had sought to lay by perpetuating a debate over Labour’s tax policies.

    Boris Johnson used humour to play with the truth but this was the week that Sunak adopted a low-blow strategy.

    Misfiring in every direction

    This was the week that will also undoubtedly be remembered for the re-entry of the most populist celebrity politician the United Kingdom has ever known – Nigel Farage.

    Sunak’s shift in style is no doubt related to this development. The “Farage effect” for the prime minister appears to have been to convince him that, with the opinion polls stubbornly sticking to a large Labour lead, a large dose of populist politics was the only thing that might save the day.

    It didn’t. In weaponising information, Sunak seems to have achieved the political equivalent of a self-inflicted injury. His reputation as a prime minister appears diminished rather than bolstered. Farage’s Reform party, meanwhile, is apparently increasing in popularity to the extent that some commentators have even identified July 4 as an “extinction event” for the Conservatives.

    The truth of the matter, however, is that no one “won” the television debate. British democracy lost.

    Which brings us to the third defining moment of the week and the point at which Sunak really did pay the price for playing fast and lose with the truth – having to leave the D-day commemoration events early to conduct a TV interview about his election debate behaviour.

    Never has a self-inflicted political injury looked quite so bad. Could the leader of the Conservative party have played into Nigel Farage’s hands any better if they’d tried? Given that Farage spent much of his “emergency” announcement speech two days previously ruing lost respect for D-day, the answer is “probably not”.


    Want more election coverage from The Conversation’s academic experts? Over the coming weeks, we’ll bring you informed analysis of developments in the campaign and we’ll fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our new, weekly election newsletter, delivered every Friday throughout the campaign and beyond.


    So far, this election campaign has done nothing to shift the popular view of politics. Sunak’s screeching and shouting in the debate, plus Starmer’s refusal to provide any short, sharp, simple answers to question of policy probably served to simply confirm the public’s increasingly embedded belief that politicians are simply not to be trusted.

    The problem for British politics is that it is exactly this anti-political sentiment that persuasive populist politicians are so good at inflaming and funnelling for their own advantage.

    The 2024 general election campaign was looking decidedly dull and lifeless until Farage entered the race. He clearly recognised the advantage of highlighting this state of affairs, claiming on his first day of campaigning that he would be “gingering things up”.

    While a touch of colour might make things interesting for British politics, let’s hope it doesn’t come at the cost of what’s good for the health of British democracy.The Conversation

    Matthew Flinders, Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Join Crypto play and earn.
    Click Here


    Visit our blog often or follow us on X.

  • To marry or not to mary a baby mama – Lover boy needs advice

    Pls i need an advice I am in love with a girl she is a baby mama. But I am finding hard to battle the metal stress of her been a baby mama of a boy. Pls I need your advice to over come this. I truly love her and I want to marry her. Pls no jokes

    Join Crypto play and earn.
    Click Here


    Visit our blog often or follow us on X.

  • Snake Caught By Fisherman And Killed At The Fish Pond for Food

    Got to the pond very early this fateful day and behold!!!
    A big meat is waiting
    Caught by the net used in protection the fishes from predators… Nairaland

    Join Crypto play and earn.
    Click Here


    Visit our blog often or follow us on X.

  • AI Apex Asia 2024 Concludes with Resounding Success

    The inaugural AI Apex Asia 2024, held on June 5th, 2024, at Lazada One, Singapore, concluded with resounding success. Organised by AI Apex Asia, a newly established non-profit organisation dedicated to driving artificial intelligence (AI) advancements across the continent, the event served as a pivotal platform for fostering collaboration and showcasing Asia’s burgeoning dominance in the global AI landscape.

    Themed “The Asia Advantage,” this exclusive event brought together over a hundred esteemed guests, including leading researchers, developers, policymakers, industry leaders, and investors from across Asia. The conference provided a valuable forum for these key stakeholders to exchange ideas, explore critical challenges and opportunities in AI, and collectively chart a path for Asia’s continued leadership in this transformative technology.

    AI Apex Asia 2024 was strategically designed to foster collaboration and drive thought leadership within the AI community. The program kicked off with insightful keynotes from renowned figures such as Lee Yi Shyan, former Senior Minister of State; Prof Inderjit Singh, a former member of the Singapore Parliament; Emad Mostaque, founder of Stability AI; and Laurence Liew, Director at AI Singapore.

    The conference continued with engaging panel discussions, live demonstrations showcasing the latest AI technologies and applications, and productive networking opportunities. Attendees left feeling empowered and inspired, equipped with new insights and connections to drive the region’s ambitions in AI forward.

    Agenda Highlights

    • Inspiring Opening Remarks: Mr. Lee Yi Shyan, Chairman of Business China and OUE REIT Management Pte Ltd, and former Senior Minister of State, delivered an opening address to a room of AI researchers, developers, and entrepreneurs. He underscored Singapore’s commitment to cementing its status as a dynamic regional epicenter for AI talent and innovation, aligned with the goals of its National AI Strategy 2.0. Mr. Lee spotlighted Singapore’s competitive advantages, such as its advanced digital infrastructure, business-accommodating policies, and a well-educated workforce, positioning it as the perfect hub for cutting-edge AI enterprises. He extended a warm invitation to the global AI community to collaborate with Singapore and leverage its environment to propel their AI endeavours to new heights.
    • Insightful Keynotes: Renowned figures delivered inspiring keynote speeches on the future of AI and the landscape of the AI industry in Singapore.
      • Prof Singh’s address, titled “Asia’s Advantage: Leading the Charge in the Age of AI,” delved into the region’s exceptional capabilities in manufacturing and robotics, its dynamic developer ecosystem, and its technologically adept population. He also discussed how the integration of AI and blockchain technologies fortifies Asia’s leadership in global AI development.
      • Emad Mostaque, the founder of Stability AI, delivered a keynote on “Open-source AI by the People, for the People,” emphasising the transformative power of accessible AI technologies.
      • Laurence Liew, Director of AI Singapore, presented a policy talk on “Leveraging Singapore’s AI Capabilities for Global Influence” which highlighted the importance of a forward-thinking approach to AI adoption.
    • Engaging Panel Discussions: Experts from diverse backgrounds tackled critical themes that are shaping AI’s future.
      • A panel titled “Where Mind Meets Machine – Unlocking the Future of Robotics and Embodied AI” discussed the latest advancements in developing intelligent robots capable of interacting with the physical world. The panellists explored how to leverage the remarkable capabilities of generative AI to create general-purpose robots and apply scaling laws to drive future-embodied AI innovation. Panellists included:
        • Junbo Chen, CEO of Udeer AI
        • Xinhua Liu, Venture Partner at Gaorong Ventures
        • Lin Shao, Assistant Professor at NUS, who is also an expert in robotics and embodied AI research.
      • Another panel, “The Convergence of AI and Web3,” explored blockchain technology and Web3’s potential to revolutionise AI solution development and deployment, with speakers including:
        • Michael Heinrich, CEO of 0G Labs
        • Brian Liang, COO of aelf
        • Prof. Liu Yang, CEO of AgentLayer and Executive Director of CyberSG
        • Dr. George, Co-founder & CTO of Mind Network
        • Bell Beh, Co-Founder & CEO of BuzzAR.
      • A third panel titled “Asia AI’s Playbook: Path to Growth, Revenue, Defensibility and Capital Markets” featured insightful discussions from industry leaders on strategies for AI startups and companies to achieve sustainable growth, generate revenue, build defensible moats, and access capital markets in Asia. The panellists included:
        • Joe Yan, Operating Partner at Granite Asia
        • Danny Goh, co-founder of AI Native Foundation
        • Hao Wang, Managing Director of HongShan Capital
        • James Liu, Director of New Business and Innovation Alliance at Alibaba Cloud International.
    • Curated Networking Opportunities: The conference facilitated valuable connections and collaborations among the attendees. Dedicated networking sessions and social events provided a platform for AI professionals, academics, industry leaders, and investors to connect, share ideas, and explore potential partnerships.

    Keynote Highlights

    Prof Inderjit Singh, President of WBAF Global Startup Committee and a former member of the Singapore Parliament: “With a 50% share in global manufacturing and home to 25% of the world’s blockchain startups, along with its robust developer ecosystem geared for innovation, Asia is primed to leverage its manufacturing and software prowess to spearhead the AI revolution. Recent data from IBM’s Global AI Adoption Index 2024 reflects this trajectory, indicating Asian countries and businesses outpacing their Western counterparts in embracing and accelerating AI adoption. If we collectively unlock the potential of these current and potential strengths, we can build a shared vision of a future where Asia leads the way in shaping the course of technological progress, fostering economic growth, and improving the lives of people across our region and beyond.”

    Emad Mostaque, Founder of Stability AI: “AI needs to be fundamentally open and transparent, from the code to the data, ensuring it serves the entire society and not just a select few. By integrating these intelligent systems into our government, healthcare, and educational sectors, we create a foundation for a more equitable society. Moreover, the future of AI governance must embrace democratic processes to ensure these technologies enhance, not hinder, our communal and personal sovereignties.”

    Laurence Liew, Director of Al Singapore: “A proactive approach to AI development is crucial for empowering startups and SMBs in Singapore. As government programmes and institutions nurture the growth of AI companies, it’s essential that they also enable these companies to retain their intellectual rights. This approach ensures that startups and SMBs can harness AI effectively and collaboratively. By the end of next year, we anticipate that most SMBs in Singapore will be utilising AI to significantly enhance their productivity and capabilities in everyday business operations.”

    A Pivotal Moment for AI in Asia

    AI Apex Asia 2024 emerged as a landmark gathering, underscoring Asia’s strategic importance in the global AI dialogue and setting a precedent for future regional collaborations and conferences. Looking ahead, AI Apex Asia is committed to maintaining this momentum, staying at the forefront of facilitating crucial conversations and innovations, and cementing Asia’s position as a leader in AI technology. This inaugural event was just the beginning of what promises to be an exciting journey towards a more interconnected and technologically advanced future—a future where members can shape the development of AI not only in Asia but worldwide.

    Join Crypto play and earn.
    Click Here


    Visit our blog often or follow us on X.

  • Are Covid vaccines silent killers?

    Covid vaccines could be partly to blame for the rise in excess deaths since the pandemic, scientists have suggested.

    Researchers from The Netherlands analysed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020, with the trend continuing despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures.

    They said the “unprecedented” figures “raised serious concerns” and called on governments to fully investigate the underlying causes, including possible vaccine harms.

    Writing in the BMJ Public Health, the authors from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, said: “Although Covid-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the Covid-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well.

    “Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”

    They added: “During the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every Covid-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and Covid-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same morale should apply.”

    Join Crypto play and earn.
    Click Here


    Visit our blog often or follow us on X.

  • Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer’s election debate

    Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer’s election debate: an audience asking for a way out of hopelessness and getting nothing in response

    Stephen Coleman, University of Leeds

    Two questions are commonly asked after televised election debates have taken place. The first is “who won?” This is the favourite question of journalists, pollsters and spin doctors. It is rooted in a conception of politics as battle, all the more exciting when there are metaphorical blood stains left on the TV studio wall.

    “Who won” evaluations focus on knockout blows, smart, pithy, memorable one-liners, gaffes and flash-poll verdicts. Behind the question is an assumption that a one-hour televised exchange of views might rewrite the electoral odds. Excitable party activists run around the press room during and immediately after the debate claiming that their leader stole the show. In truth, most studies of televised leaders’ debates around the world have reported that they rarely change viewers’ settled preferences.

    A second question concerns the democratic value of the debates. Did viewers become better informed about the political choices before them? This question relates to how successfully the key issues were set out and addressed in the debate and whether the principles and policies separating the parties – as well as the qualities and defects of would-be future national leaders – were made apparent during the course of broadcast.

    The second question relates to the effects of the debate upon civic awareness and behaviour. During and after watching, are audience members galvanised to share their opinions with others, whether in their immediate circles or online networks, and are they subsequently motivated to take a further part in the election, including voting?


    Want more election coverage from The Conversation’s academic experts? Over the coming weeks, we’ll bring you informed analysis of developments in the campaign and we’ll fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our new, weekly election newsletter, delivered every Friday throughout the campaign and beyond.


    In most general elections since the 1970s between a quarter and a third of the electorate have not cast a vote. Asked why, many say that they don’t understand the issues; that politicians never address them; or that they simply can’t make up their minds.

    Even among those who do vote, a significant number pay very little attention to the details of the six-week election campaign. If televised debates can offer that substantial segment of the population a focal moment to make a confident choice – and my research studies following previous UK debates suggest that they do – then they are performing a useful democratic function.

    But for democracy to work well, people need to know not only what they are being offered by the competing parties, but whether they can trust that what is on offer can be delivered. In the absence of such trust, far from helping voters to make an informed choice, election debates focus minds on the question of whether any of the parties or leaders can make a real difference.

    An audience asking for more

    In the debate between Labour’s Keir Starmer and the Conservatives’ Rishi Sunak, there were two potential prime ministers on the platform, but I was struck by a third, dominating voice – that of the studio audience – which in many respects did better than either of the politicians in reflecting the mood of the population at large. All of the questions posed by audience members expressed a sense of political frustration and disillusionment.

    The first question came from a woman who was clearly suffering from the punishing effects of the cost of living crisis. “I don’t think you understand what it’s like for people like me”, she told the leaders. This sense of politicians being out of touch continued through every single question.

    The second and third questions were about the “broken” national health service and under-resourced schools. A questioner asked why he should trust either of the leaders on immigration. Another questioner accused both leaders of being duplicitous about climate change. There was reference to a think-tank’s observation that both main parties were involved in a “conspiracy of silence” about the need for major cuts to public services by the next government.

    This was not an exceptional group of disgruntled voters, but a vivid reflection of a national mood of anxiety and distrust that is the backdrop to this election.

    Sunak, Starmer and an audience looking for a reason to vote.

    As I watched, I found myself wanting the would-be prime ministers to address this common feeling of political hopelessness. Starmer spoke of “turning a page” by voting Labour, but what exactly does that metaphor mean? Sunak talked about having “a plan”, but that sounded more like a spreadsheet than a source of inspiration.

    Missing from the debate was any sense of a future that might begin to dissipate what has become a deep and lingering experience of social insecurity. The competitive energy expended by each of the debating politicians in warning voters about the danger of supporting the other resulted in an overall impression that not very much can be done.

    Most voters are not looking for help with deciding who not to support. What they are looking for are good reasons to vote for something that will make their lives better. It was hard to discern any of those good reasons in this first debate. There are several more televised leaders’ debates to come before polling day. If the political leaders want to avoid a low turnout, they’re going to need to revise their scripts.The Conversation

    Stephen Coleman, Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Join Crypto play and earn.
    Click Here


    Visit our blog often or follow us on X.

  • Dismembered Body Of Missing Girls Found Near Home Of Man They Met On SM

    A gruesome discovery has been made in Abia State, Nigeria, as a decomposing body was found near the residence of Andrew Amaechi Ochekwo, the man who had been hosting two friends, Celine and Afiba, who have been missing since April 27, 2024.

    According to Nigerian activist Harrison Gwamnishu, the body was found with its head, hands, and legs not visible, wrapped in a curtain similar to those found in Andrew’s home. Andrew had been killed while trying to escape from arrest.

    Gwamnishu confirmed the discovery and appealed for assistance in ascertaining whether the body belongs to either of the missing women. He assured that any information received would be kept confidential and urged the public to come forward with any useful information.

    The search for Celine and Afiba continues, and the authorities are working to determine the identity of the discovered body.

    As seen on social media, WhatsApp messages have emerged allegedly revealing that Celine and Afiba had charged Andrew 1 million naira to keep him company for the weekend.

    Join Crypto play and earn.
    Click Here


    Visit our blog often or follow us on X.

  • Footballer launches His Own Hydration Drink Called Mas+

    I wanted a drink that had the ingredients I need and amazing flavor. No compromise on quality ingredients. So I went to work on a drink of my own
    To achieve my goals, I learned that hydration plays a very important role. I have always had in mind to improve. I’ve always been about improvement, and wanted to find a drink with both amazing taste and the right ingredients
    .” – Messi

    But many drinks that are good for you taste bad. Many flavored drinks have high levels of unhealthy ingredients, so people who drink them consume more sugar, calories, artificial ingredients, and even caffeine than they realize. You shouldn’t have to choose between better ingredients and better taste.” -Messi

    Más+ is a drink I have wanted for a long time, one I want to share with my family, friends, and the next generation. I believe everyone, not just elite athletes, deserves Positive Hydration: amazing taste, with natural flavors, no artificial sweeteners or colors. No caffeine. No compromise on quality ingredients. Más+ was created to inspire everyone to enjoy more music, laughter, friends, family, to get more out of life.” – Messi

    That’s why I named it Más+. It means “more” in Spanish. The + stands for even more positivity. Because in every part of my life, I always think and act positively.”- Messi

    I wanted a drink to inspire everyone to feel like a champion in every part of life.” – Messi

    To achieve my goals, I first had to learn the importance of health and hydration, I spent time searching but I just couldn’t find one with both amazing taste and the right ingredients. So I went to work on a drink of my own. One with more of the flavors I love and a balanced blend of electrolytes, a drink I feel is better for my family and friends.”- Messi

    The flavours are:

    Orange d’Or
    – Miami Punch
    – Berry Copa Crush
    – Limón Lime League

    Join Crypto play and earn.
    Click Here


    Visit our blog often or follow us on X.