Featured

Reality Check of Australian Allegations Against China On COVID-19

Published

5 years ago

July 16, 2020

Recently, some Australian politicians and media outlets have been fabricating lies on COVID-19 of one kind or another. They have played a trick of a thief crying “stop thief” to blame China for spreading fake information.

Those preposterous allegations some U.S. politicians and media outlets fabricated to shift the blame on China for their inadequate response to COVID-19 have been proved false by media and experts.

Allegation:COVID-19 virus originated in China. On April 3, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in an interview with Radio 2GB that the virus started in China and went around the world.

Reality Check: Being the first to report the virus does not mean that China is its origin. In fact, the origin is still not identified. Source tracing is a serious scientific matter, which should be based on science and should be studied by scientists and medical experts.

Historically, places that first reported a virus were often not its origin.

Viruses are the common enemy of mankind, which may appear at any time and in any place. Epidemics are natural in origin, not man-made. The origin of a virus or epidemic is a victim, not a culprit. It is unfair and unacceptable to blame it or hold it accountable.

More and more countries found cases with earlier onset and no history of exposure to China.

According to an article published by International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, the absence of a link with China and the lack of recent foreign travel suggest that the disease was already spreading among the French population at the end of December 2019. Researchers at the Sacco University Hospital in Milan, Italy, found that the strain of the virus from an Italian patient showed genetic differences compared with the original strain isolated in China.

Two residents in California’s Santa Clara County died of novel coronavirus in early and mid-February. They had no “significant travel history” that would have exposed them to the virus. If they did not contract coronavirus through travel abroad, “that means there was community spread happening in California as early as mid-January, if not earlier than that,” according to Dr. Ashish K. Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.

Dr. Peter Forster of University of Cambridge said that the earliest genome which has been placed into the database is not necessarily the origin of the disease. A study conducted by a research team of the University of Barcelona detected the presence of the novel coronavirus in waste water samples collected in Barcelona, Spain, in March 2019.

On May 19, the 73rd World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted the resolution on COVID-19 response by consensus. China co-sponsored the WHA resolution and has always been open to joint efforts by the international science community to identify the source of the virus. The resolution strictly restricts the relevant research to identifying the zoonotic source of the virus, intermediate hosts and the route of introduction to the human population, to enhance preparedness of the international community in the future.

China supports research on a global scale led by the World Health Organization (WHO) and made by scientists and medical experts based on the principle of professionalism, integrity and constructiveness.

Allegation:COVID-19 may arise from the “wet markets” in China’s central city of Wuhan. Australia’s Prime Minister Morrison and Health Minister Greg Hunt had on several occasions alleged there was likelihood that “wet markets” in Wuhan were the places where COVID-19 was thought to have originated.

Reality Check: There are no so-called “wildlife wet markets” in China. What we have in China are farmers’ markets and live poultry and seafood markets. They sell fresh fish, meat, vegetables, seafood and other farm produce. A few of them sell live poultry. Basically, they are not different from the fish markets or fruit and vegetables markets in Western countries. Such markets exist not only in China, but also in many other countries. They form an important part of the supply chain for people’s everyday life. No international law restricts the opening or operation of such markets.

Allegation:China did not suspend outbound international flights from Wuhan when the city was put under lockdown, thus causing the spread of the virus to the world. Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton on April 16 alleged that reports relating to Chinese flights out of Wuhan during the coronavirus outbreak demonstrated the need for “a level of transparency” on the part of the Communist Party of China. Former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in his article on Financial Review that China tried to stop the spread of the virus to other parts of the country but “didn’t care that it could spread to other parts of the world.”

Reality Check: China took the most stringent measures within the shortest possible time, which has largely kept the virus within Wuhan. Statistics show that very few cases were exported from China.

China put Wuhan under a temporary lockdown starting January 23, meaning that there were no outbound commercial flights or train services from January 24 through April 8, including those from Wuhan to other Chinese cities and to foreign countries.

The Chinese government took the most comprehensive, rigorous and thorough measures in a timely fashion, and effectively broke the chain of transmission. According to a Science report, thanks to these measures, the number of infections in China was reduced by more than 700,000.

Australian Prime Minister Morrison claimed on March 20 that, around 80 percent of Australian coronavirus cases have been imported, and that the United States is the country of origin for most of the coronavirus cases in Australia.

The Australian Department of Health noted that only a very small portion of imported cases came from Northeast Asia. Data from Canada’s major provinces show that the virus was brought into the country by U.S. visitors. The French research institute Institut Pasteur found that the virus strain circulating locally in France is of unknown origin. None of the imported cases in Russia was from China. In Singapore, cases imported from China were less than one-tenth of those from other countries. The Japanese National Institute of Infectious Diseases believed that the strain confirmed in Japan since early March was not from China.

Allegation:Australian media claimed to have secret information that the coronavirus originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. On May 2, the Australian Daily Telegraph published an article by reporter Sharri Markson that disclosed a so-called 15-page intelligence document by the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance, saying that the COVID-19 virus may have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Reality Check: All available evidence shows that COVID-19 is natural in origin, not man-made.

On February 19, The Lancet published a joint statement by 27 leading medical experts from eight countries, indicating that scientists from multiple countries have published and analyzed genomes of coronavirus, and they overwhelmingly concluded that this virus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens.

On March 17, five prominent scholars from the United States, Britain and Australia pointed out on Nature Medicine that the evidence shows that coronavirus is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.

On April 21, WHO spokesperson Fadela Chaib said at a news briefing that all available evidence suggests the virus has an animal origin and is not manipulated or constructed in a lab or somewhere else.

On May 1, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Program Michael Ryan said that numerous scientists have looked at the genome sequence of this virus and they were assured that this virus is natural in origin.

The deputy director of German federal intelligence agency doubted the so-called report by the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance and asked the alliance for evidence to support the allegations that the coronavirus originated from a Chinese laboratory. However, none of the five countries’ intelligence agencies said they had released relevant reports.

The Australian government and officials also questioned the document, arguing that the so-called intelligence was only a patchwork based on media reports. An Australian source believes that the so-called secret document might be leaked to the Australian Daily Telegraph by the U.S. Embassy in Australia.

Allegation:The draft resolution of the WHA is the result of Australia’s promotion. Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said in a signed article published on The Australian on April 22, that Australia will work with countries that share the same values to set aside the WHO and initiate an independent international review into COVID-19 response. However, Payne told press later that relevant content of the WHA draft resolution drafted by the European Union was first proposed by Australia and her government had been focused to ensure the review “comprehensive, impartial, independent.” Some media outlets, such as The Australian, also worked with the Australian government, saying that Australia’s claims have been widely supported by the international community.

Reality Check: The WHA resolution is one thing, while the so-called “independent international review” previously proposed by Australia is a different kettle of fish.

The 73rd WHA adopted by consensus a resolution on COVID-19 response on May 19. On the evaluation of WHO response, the resolution decides that the evaluation should be initiated by the Director-General in consultation with member states to review experience gained and make recommendations for future work.

The relevant resolution proposes to initiate at the appropriate moment an evaluation rather than to launch an “independent international review” instantly, confirms WHO’s leading role instead of adopting another mechanism, and calls for an evaluation of experience gained and lessons learnt from the WHO-coordinated international health response, rather than an inquiry based on the presumption of guilt targeting any country.

The so-called “independent international review” proposed by Australia is purely political maneuvering under the pretext of COVID-19. Australian politicians took an exclusive attitude towards WHO when proposing the so-called “independent international review,” and the intention of conducting investigations based on the presumption of guilt against China is very obvious.

. Allegation: Chinese companies have snapped up medical protection materials in Australia.

Australian media such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian and 2GB Radio described the humanitarian action of Chinese companies and businessmen in purchasing medical supplies as a “scandal” supported by the Chinese government, saying the purchase in February by Chinese companies may have contributed to shortages of products in Australia in March when the epidemic became severe.

Reality Check: When Chinese companies purchased supplies in Australia in February, the epidemic had not yet spread and there was no shortage of medical supplies in the country.

China was at a critical stage in the fight against COVID-19 in late January and early February, and Chinese companies’ purchase of medical supplies in Australia was to help China tide over the difficulties. There is no difference from Australian companies’ purchase of medical supplies from China later, in April.

In fact, Chinese companies have stopped purchasing medical supplies in Australia since March.

Allegation: The Chinese eat bats. On some Australian media and social media platforms, there are pictures and videos of wild animal markets selling bats and pythons, vilifying the Chinese for eating bats.

Reality Check: The shooting location of the content is not China. Bats have never been part of Chinese menu. And, Wuhan’s Huanan seafood market, where cluster cases were identified in the early days of the epidemic, did not and does not sell bats.

Share on Facebook

Featured

Presidency Refutes Afenifere’s Deceitful Statement on President Bola Tinubu’s Midterm:

Published

1 day ago

June 5, 2025

The Gleamer

Chief Sunday Dare

The statement from a factional Afenifere group raises serious concerns about a penchant and deliberate attempt to find faults and trade in deceit instead of objectivity. The group has found it challenging to accept that under the Renewed Hope Agenda of President Bola Tinubu, Nigeria’s comeback story is firmly underway.

The rebellious Afenifere claims that President Bola Tinubu’s administration’s performance over the past two years has witnessed a regression in human development, economic mismanagement, and democratic backsliding.

This is a jaundiced view, echoing the view of opposition politicians, one of whom the group supported in the 2023 election.

A balanced assessment based on available data reveals a more objective and progressive picture, with significant achievements amid the challenges expected from a country like Nigeria with decades-old problems.

Beyond its confounding conclusions based on prejudice, the statement raises the following issues. With the ensuing point-by-point clarification, it will become clear that the group’s position is neither grounded in facts nor logic.

Economic Reforms and Their Impact

The factional Afenifere’s claim that Tinubu’s economic reforms, particularly the removal of fuel subsidy and the floating of the naira, have led to “unmitigated sufferings” and “economic deforms” seeks to draw attention to some of the challenges but overlooks the macroeconomic gains. The removal of the fuel subsidy, announced on May 29, 2023, saved the government over $10 billion in 2023 alone, reducing fiscal strain and redirecting funds to other sectors. Unifying the foreign exchange market and the naira’s floatation aimed to address distortions in the currency market, boosted foreign reserves to $38.1 billion by 2024 and achieved a trade surplus of N18.86 trillion for the country.

Under the Tinubu administration, Nigeria’s annual inflation rate fell to 23.71% in April 2025 from 24.23% in the prior month. Food inflation, the most significant component of the inflation basket, remained elevated but moderated to 21.26% from 21.79%

While these figures indicate stabilisation, the immediate impact on ordinary Nigerians is not lost. The government’s cash transfer programme, which provides funds to the poorest households and benefits over 5.7 million households, is a credible outreach.

However, dismissing the twin policies as “unforced errors” ignores the unsustainable nature of the previous subsidy regime and multiple exchange rate systems, which were draining public finances. A more balanced critique would acknowledge the necessity of reform while emphasising the need for better-targeted social safety nets.

As of today, the Tinubu administration has recorded over 900,000 beneficiaries of the Presidential Loan and Grant Scheme, over 600,000 beneficiaries of the Students’ Loan Scheme, NELFUND, N70,000 minimum wage, NYSC monthly stipend increase from N33,000 to N77,000, Free CNG kits distributed to thousands of commercial drivers across Nigeria with CNG buses rolled out in partnership with state governments, leading to a significant drop in transport costs. The administration also recorded over $10 Billion FX debt cleared, Federal account allocation to states growing by 60%, enabling more local development projects, N50 billion released to end the perennial ASUU strikes, and over 1,000 PHCs revitalised nationwide with an additional 5,500 undergoing upgrades.

The administration also disbursed N75 Billion in palliative funds to states and LGs for food distribution and cash transfers, over 150,000 youths are being trained in software development, tech support and data analysis under the 3 Million Technical Talent (3MTT) project, over 20,000 affordable housing units under construction under the renewed Hope cities program launched across Nigeria, N200 Billion in Loans to farmers and agro-processors. Other gains: over two million Nigerians are now connected to new digital infrastructure and community broadband hubs and public WiFi projects, 3.84% GDP growth in Q4 2024 (highest in 3 years), over $50 Billion in new FDI Commitments, Net Foreign Exchange Reserves up from $3.99 Billion (2023) to $23.11 Billion (2024), over $8 Billion in new oil and gas investments unlocked, and over $800 million realised in processing investments in solid minerals in 2024 and inflation as at April was down to 23.17%.

It is now pertinent to inquire from opposition leaders about alternative strategies they would propose in contrast to this administration’s extensive list of significant achievements currently benefiting Nigerians in real-time.

Cost of Governance and the Oronsaye Report

The assertion that the Tinubu administration has failed to implement the Oronsaye Report and instead increased governance costs is inaccurate. The Oronsaye Report, which recommends the merger or scrapping of government agencies to reduce expenditure, has not been fully implemented and has drawn criticisms; it must be noted, however, that the administration has made some efforts to improve fiscal discipline. The fiscal deficit was reduced from 5.4% of GDP in 2023 to 3.0% in 2024, and the debt service-to-revenue ratio dropped from nearly 100% in 2022 to under 40% by 2024. The government also recorded over N6 trillion in revenue in Q1 2025, partly due to removing Ways & Means financing and fuel subsidies. These steps demonstrate fiscal prudence and will eventually translate into immediate, tangible relief for citizens. The administration is working earnestly to address these optics and prioritise cost-cutting measures, including implementing the Oronsaye Report, to restore public trust.

Allegations of Prebendalism and Corruption

Afenifere’s claim that the administration favours “the privileged and connected” through corrupt palliative distribution and mega-project allocations is questionable. Reports of palliatives being mismanaged or distributed through unverified channels have no doubt surfaced, raising concerns about transparency.

The administration has taken steps against corruption, such as suspending Humanitarian Affairs Minister Betta Edu in January 2024 over alleged fund diversion, signalling some commitment to accountability. Critics may argue that more systemic action is needed, but dismissing all the efforts as propaganda overlooks these initial steps.

Without abusing Presidential powers, the administration is working on expediting action on all pending investigations and prosecution of corrupt practices. At the same time, critical agencies are collating credible evidence on ongoing corruption litigations. It must, however, be noted that in 2024, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) secured a record-breaking 4,111 convictions, marking its most successful year since its inception. They recovered over N364 billion and significant amounts in foreign currencies, including $214.5 Million, $54,318.64, and 31,265 Euros.

The EFCC achieved its single most significant asset recovery in 2025, with the final forfeiture of an Abuja estate measuring 150,500 square meters and containing 725 units of duplexes and other apartments. The EFCC concluded the final forfeiture and handed the estate to the Ministry of Housing in May 2025.

Democratic Concerns and Centralisation

Afenifere’s accusation that the Tinubu administration is pursuing a “one-party state totalitarianism” and undermining democratic institutions is unsupported and lacks merit. The claim of neutralising the legislature and judiciary is also a false alarm.

The public should note that the Supreme Court has upheld opposition victories in states like Kano, Plateau, and Abia, suggesting judicial independence. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has faced criticism for allegedly appointing individuals said to be ruling party affiliates, but no evidence confirms these appointees are card-carrying APC members.

The allegation that the Tinubu government cracks down on peaceful protesters is primarily unfounded. It is a regurgitated rhetoric deployed under previous administrations as a reflection of broader challenges in Nigeria’s democratic culture.

The issue of the State Police is more complex than the oversimplified approach of the factional Afenifere’s statement. Every administration policy is subject to security impact assessment before implementation, and there is a difference between the State Police being widely advocated and a Police State that critics may blame the Federal Government for if implemented without caution.

Security and Social Welfare

Contrary to the impression created, the administration’s security record is impressive. Over 13,500 terrorists, bandits, and insurgents have been neutralised and 7,000 arrested in the past year, though there is still some news of abductions and violent attacks. The administration’s proactive response to security-related matters has paved the way for more farmers to return to their farms, impacting food production and supply.

The administration also embarked on agricultural initiatives, including tractor procurement, fertiliser distribution, and increased mechanisation.

The government has also not relented on its Regional Development drive as the administration succeeded in establishing Development Commissions across 6 Geopolitical zones (South West, North West, North Central. North East, South East and the Niger Delta) to empower communities and accelerate developments.

Political Climate and 2027 Elections
The claims of government-sponsored conflicts within opposition parties lack concrete evidence and should be ignored.

Economic reforms are undoubtedly laying the foundation for long-term stability, with GDP growth at 4.6% in Q4 2024 and a Fitch B credit rating upgrade as evidence. Moody’s Investors Service’s latest upgrade of Nigeria’s rating from Caa1 to B3, with a Stable Outlook, indicates that the Tinubu administration is on the right path.

The government is not oblivious to some discontent and difficult times among Nigerians. There is an urgency to deliver more tangible results, which is guaranteed given the impressive performance of the administration in just two years.

Afenifere’s statement saw the cup as half empty. On the contrary, it’s half full. Under President Tinubu’s administration, some of Nigeria’s hydra-headed problems are being tackled headlong.

The administration has achieved fiscal improvements, such as reduced deficits and increased revenues, which will eventually translate into meaningful microeconomic relief for most Nigerians in the short term, even as the government moves to address these issues with greater empathy and transparency.

The administration’s demonstrable priorities are securing the nation, fixing the economy, and improving human capital development.

Responsible citizens and political leaders must work collaboratively with the administration to address the challenges and counter disinformation, as highlighted in the admonition against fake news and deceptive AI videos.

Under President Tinubu’s leadership, Nigeria is turning the corner. From stabilising the naira and curbing inflation to reducing debt burdens and

expanding access to education and health, the administration delivers bold reforms with actual results. With improved security, regional inclusion, anti-corruption measures, and institutional rebuilding, Nigeria’s comeback story is not yet complete — but it is firmly underway.

– Sunday Dare is the Special Adviser to Mr. President on Media and Public Communications.

Share on Facebook