TOPLINE Amazon and Google are facing a formal investigation in the U.K. over concerns they are not doing enough to protect users from fake reviews, the competition watchdog announced Friday, adding to increasing regulatory efforts around the world to compel tech companies to take more responsibility for problematic content on their platforms.



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-key-facts">KEY FACTS</h4>



The Competition and Markets Authority said it had opened an investigation to determine whether Google and Amazon had broken consumer law by failing to take sufficient steps to “protect shoppers from fake reviews.”&nbsp;



The probe follows a broader investigation into fake reviews last year that “raised specific concerns” the two companies were not doing enough to detect and remove fake or misleading reviews or to identify “suspicious patterns of behavior” among reviewers.



The CMA said it was also concerned that neither platform had done enough to discourage businesses or reviewers from posting bogus reviews and Amazon in particular had failed to prevent sellers from manipulating its product listings.&nbsp;



“Fake and misleading reviews have the potential to impact on businesses’ star ratings and how prominently companies and products are displayed to consumers, changing their whole shopping experience,” the watchdog said.&nbsp;



The companies face enforcement action should the investigation find they have broken the law, the CMA said, which could include formal commitments to deal with the issue or, should they fail to do so, court action.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



Amazon and Google did not respond immediately to&nbsp;Forbes’&nbsp;request for comment.



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-crucial-quote">CRUCIAL QUOTE</h4>



Andrea Coscelli, the CMA’s chief executive, said the watchdog’s worry is “that millions of online shoppers could be misled by reading fake reviews and then spending their money based on those recommendations.” In addition, “it’s simply not fair if some businesses can fake 5-star reviews to give their products or services the most prominence, while law-abiding businesses lose out,” Coscelli added.



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-key-background">KEY BACKGROUND</h4>



Online reviews are a powerful driver of consumer decisions, whether that be for what to buy, where to go or what to eat. Many people rely on them as a metric to determine quality and authenticity and reviews will shape what is shown to consumers. A 2015 study by the CMA&nbsp;<a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/436238/Online_reviews_and_endorsements.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">estimated</a>&nbsp;them to drive around £23 billion (around $32 billion) in spending a year in the U.K. alone. To seize upon this, an entire&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56069472" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">industry</a>&nbsp;has emerged trafficking in fake or misleading reviews. The CMA has previously&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/21/facebook-and-ebay-told-to-take-action-over-fake-reviews-cma" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">ordered</a>&nbsp;Facebook and eBay to tackle the problem after it found “troubling evidence” of a thriving marketplace for fake reviews.



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-big-number">BIG NUMBER</h4>



16,000. This is how many&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/09/facebook-removes-over-16000-groups-trading-fake-reviews" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">groups</a>&nbsp;Facebook took down earlier this year after the CMA intervened for a second time after the platform failed to honor its promise to deal with fake reviews.&nbsp;



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-contra">CONTRA</h4>



Amazon recently&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/16/amazon-blames-social-media-for-struggle-with-fake-reviews" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">blamed</a>&nbsp;social media companies for a large chunk of its fake review problem, saying they are not doing enough to remove the “bad actors” coordinating or soliciting reviews from their platforms. “While we appreciate that some social media companies have become much faster at responding, to address this problem at scale it is imperative for social media companies to invest adequately in proactive controls to detect and enforce fake reviews ahead of our reporting the issue to them,” the company said.



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-further-reading">FURTHER READING</h4>



<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/09/facebook-removes-over-16000-groups-trading-fake-reviews" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Facebook removes over 16,000 groups trading fake reviews</a>&nbsp;(Guardian)



<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/06/amazon-reviews-thousands-are-fake-heres-how-to-spot-them.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Amazon is filled with fake reviews and it’s getting harder to spot them</a> (CNBC)



By Robert Hart, Forbes Staff

In this photo illustrative Google, Amazon and Apple logos

Amazon And Google Face U.K. Investigation Into Fake Reviews

Now that they’ve left their life as full-time working Royals, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are tapping into their celebrity status to make money and bolster what they currently have.



By Dawn Chmielewski, Forbes Staff



Now that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have completed their Hollywood transition, the couple is entering an uncharted new chapter in life now that they won’t be returning as full-time working members of the British royal family. No diplomatic formalities. No government security detail. And no royal patronage.



Up until last year, Harry’s father, the Prince of Wales, covered the majority of the expenses associated with their royal duties, including staff and travel, through the Duchy of Cornwall, which&nbsp;Forbes&nbsp;estimates amounted to about $800,000 a year. The Crown paid for more than $3 million for renovations underway at Frogmore Cottage before it became their family home in the U.K. They voluntarily repaid the sum in September with a contribution to the Sovereign Grant.&nbsp;



That’s left them with the<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B7EaGS_Jpb9/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">&nbsp;progressive new life</a>&nbsp;they want but also the kind financial uncertainty—a former royal’s version of it, at least—of recent college graduates who’ve just left home to embark on the independence of adulthood. His older brother and future king, Prince William, covers expenses with help from the Duchy of Cornwall, which in the last fiscal year spent about $8 million to support the public, charitable and personal activities of Prince Charles and his immediate family.



Prince Harry spoke about his withdrawal from official Royal duties with fellow Brit James Corden on&nbsp;The Late Late Show&nbsp;yesterday—a week after Buckingham Palace released a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.royal.uk/buckingham-palace-statement-duke-and-duchess-sussex" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">statement</a>—but he took issue with Corden’s depiction of him “walking away” from the family. “It was never walking away; it was stepping back rather than stepping down,” said the Duke, saying he decided to leave to escape a relentless press. “We all know what the British press can be like and it was destroying my mental health. This is toxic. So I did what any husband, what any father, would do. I need to get my family out of here.”



His late mother, Princess Diana, who famously died in a car crash after being chased by paparazzi, made the move possible. With financial support from the Crown abruptly shut off, the relocated royals have relied largely on the estimated $10 million inheritance Harry received from his late mother’s estate. Contrary to published reports, a representative confirms he was not a beneficiary of any of the nearly $100 million (£70 million) fortune left by his great-grandmother, the Queen Mother. Meghan Markle contributed an estimated $2 million in after-tax earnings from her work in films and television shows, most notably the long-running legal drama&nbsp;Suits.&nbsp;



They bought a $14.7 million estate in Montecito, the seaside Santa Barbara, California, enclave that’s home to such Hollywood celebrities as Oprah Winfrey and Ellen DeGeneres and wife Portia de Rossi, in August 2020. They put down $5 million and now have a nearly $10 million mortgage. The Duke and Duchess also repaid the Sovereign Grant for the $3 million spent to remodel Frogmore, which remains their UK family home. That leaves Prince Harry and Meghan with a surprisingly modest nest egg of roughly $5 million—at least for now. Their estimated net worth, including the equity from their Montecito home, is roughly $10 million.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2020/09/25/the-queen-and-the-royal-family-face-44-million-shortfall-but-palace-claim-no-intention-of-asking-public-for-more-money/?sh=475a8e6c4bde">The Queen</a>&nbsp;has a net worth of $500 million, according to the last tally by&nbsp;Forbes&nbsp;in 2019, while the combined value of the British Monarch’s holdings with the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster (a real estate trust), were worth an estimated $25&nbsp;billion.



The Prince and his American wife want to dedicate their life to helping others and improving the world. “My life is always going to be about public service, and Meghan signed up to that,” Prince Harry told Corden. But they also have to pay the bills, and thanks to their global celebrity and cachet, Hollywood is only happy to capitalize, helping to cushion the financial blow.



Earlier in the week, they touted their partnership with Spotify during a livestreamed event that also featured Justin Bieber, Billie Eilish, Bruce Springsteen, Barack Obama and Ava DuVernay. The Duke and Duchess plan to produce podcasts and shows that “elevate voices that maybe aren’t being heard” exclusively for the streaming service’s 320 million monthly users around the world.



Spotify’s three-year podcasting deal with Prince Harry and Meghan could be worth as much as $15 million to $18 million, according to industry sources. It’s unknown whether the streaming music service has begun writing checks, however, since the first podcast from Archewell Audio is likely to take at least a year to develop. But when the checks arrive, it would add around $3.5 million a year to their coffers, after taxes.



The couple had begun to tentatively trod Hollywood’s red carpet long before their move to California. Prince Harry and Oprah Winfrey announced in April 2019 that they would executive produce a mental health series for Apple TV+. The series, which was caught up in the pandemic’s production delays, is an extension of the Duke’s long-standing work in this area, in which he has candidly shared details of his own experience of loss. Deal terms could not be determined.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Speaking engagements are another potential avenue for them.&nbsp;Prince Harry spoke at a private JPMorgan summit in Miami in February 2020, which reportedly fetched $1 million. Last June, they retained the New York-based Harry Walker Agency to drum up speaking engagements. It’s the same agency that represents the Obamas, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Lin-Manuel Miranda and Stacey Abrams.



Perhaps the biggest potential moneymaker for them: a lucrative five-year, $100 million contract with Netflix, signed in September 2020, to produce documentaries, docuseries, feature films, scripted shows and children’s programming. It’s unclear whether Prince Harry and Meghan received an advance on the deal, which is likely to contribute handsomely to their net worth down the road. But the streaming service recognizes its subscribers’ fascination with the British royal family. Netflix renewed&nbsp;The Crown,&nbsp;a hit drama about the reign of Queen Elizabeth II,&nbsp;for a sixth and final season last fall.&nbsp;



The Duke and Duchess of Sussex also will sit for an extended interview with Oprah Winfrey that airs at 8 p.m. EST Sunday, March 7, on CBS, where Meghan is expected to discuss such topics as “stepping into life as a royal,” a topic bound to stir unease behind the gates of Buckingham Palace, and Prince Harry will later join the two to discuss the move to the United States and his hopes for their expanding family.&nbsp;

Commonwealth Day 2020

How Much Are Prince Harry And Meghan Markle Worth? Surprisingly, Not That Much

A British citizen of Nigerian origin is providing a voice for Africa in Brussels where few are heard.
Uzo Madu left her consultancy job to launch a program called What’s in it for Africa (WIIFA) in 2015.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-4442" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/UZO-Madu-3-200x300.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="300" />
“What really spurred me to create WIIFA was that there were communication gaps when it came to talking about African interests in the EU context,” she says.
Madu says that managing the European Union (EU)-Africa relationship effectively will shape how foreign direct investments are made on the continent, the extent of trade preference for African countries to enter the EU and the protection African states may get in terms of competitiveness.
WIIFA is a useful information resource for Africans to gain a better grasp of the opportunities and challenges posed by EU policies.
“The central focus of the online program and blog is to produce an African narrative around what is occurring around the EU. Not only to feed into debates taking place in Brussels, but to inform an African audience about the policy landscape playing out in that city which can have economic and political implications for them.”
However, Madu’s rewards come with challenges.
“The biggest issue I have faced was getting the buy-in from potential interviewees. If you are not a big media outfit, people tend to approach you or react to you with a fair amount of caution.”
“Because WIIFA is still building a name for itself, it made it difficult to push the boundaries in approaching a topic, for fear of alienating a potential interlocutor or partner in the future.”
Although the project has received positive feedback, it operates without any external funding. This limits her content to one or two videos a month.
This hasn’t diminished Madu’s belief in the project.
“I am very excited about what is yet to come, which is much more in-depth policy analysis, upfront debates tackling the tough questions and events.”
Madu might be the only person who presents Africa’s concerns in the EU environment. This is one of the reasons she is becoming a recognized figure in the heart of Europe. Will WIIFA become known in Africa? Time will tell.

A Voice For Africa In The EU

&nbsp;
There was a time when what happened in Westminster mattered, when British ballot boxes set the scene for the world.
In 1900, when the Labour Party competed in its first general election as the Labour Representation Committee, the British Empire covered a quarter of the globe and the lives of 383 million people were effectively governed from London.
Labour only won two seats in that first outing but it grew rapidly and went on to form 14 governments between then and 2010, completely overshadowing the Liberals, which had challenged the Conservatives for ascendancy in the 19th century. The Liberals eventually became the Liberal Democrats after merging with the Social Democratic Party in 1988.
The British Empire is long gone and aggressive new political parties have put Britain’s two-party political system to rest. In 1950, the Conservatives and Labour won 90% of the vote, but in 2010 they garnered just 65%, according to Professor Paul Whitely of the University of Essex’s Department of Government in an article in news and analysis website, The Conversation.
The recent recession and the re-emergence of nationalism as a potent political force has left Britain with an increasingly restive population which is looking inwards and demanding that politicians do the same.
The reality being hammered home is that all politics is local, a phrase made famous by American politician Tip O’Neill in the 1930s.
Economic recovery, living standards and rising inequality, public health, employment and, importantly, immigration were being grappled with in the build up to the May 7 polls.
Helping other countries to grow and making the world a fairer place is generally far down the list, if it makes it onto the list at all.
Going into the elections, the Greens were the only party tackling international affairs with enthusiasm. Given their view that trade and economic growth must be curbed, it is a good thing for Africa that their influence is likely to be minor.
At the time of writing, it was highly likely that neither the Conservatives nor Labour would win the 326 seats needed for an outright majority and almost certain that both would fall far short of the 340 seats necessary for a ‘working majority’. This makes a minority government propped up by a deal with one or more of the smaller parties very likely. The travails faced by the coalition formed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in May 2010 makes such an arrangement less attractive. The deal left the Liberal Democrats a shadow of what it was and has weakened the Conservative Party’s claim that it was the sole driver of the economic recovery.
Growing political insularity and the likely outcome of the polls returning no clear winner means that while existing trade and foreign aid commitments will be honored, major new concessions or bigger contributions are highly unlikely.
This means that the outcome the British election will not be felt – either positively or negatively – in Africa.
But before we judge Britain too harshly for this and criticize it for not doing more, it should be borne in mind that last year Britain spent £11.4 billion – or 0.72% of GNP – on overseas aid, becoming the first major economy to meet the United Nation’s 45-year-old aid spending target, according to The Guardian.
Expecting its politicians to do more, especially when times are tough, is simply unrealistic.

Africa Far Down The List

Who was Cecil John Rhodes, the man at the center of the mayhem around South African statues? Rhodes is different things to different people; some call him evil, others say he was a hero. Whatever he was, he has caused a storm 114 years after his death.
Rhodes was a British expatriate who amassed a fortune in Africa from diamond and gold mining – the Aliko Dangote of his day. He died in Muizenberg near Cape Town, South Africa, in 1902. His corpse was transported by train to be buried in Malindidzimu in the Matopos Hills near Bulawayo, in Zimbabwe, as he wished.
More than a century later, his body and his imposing statue at the University of Cape Town (UCT) lay undisturbed.
<div id="attachment_3607" style="width: 310px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-3607" class="size-medium wp-image-3607" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/469050928-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA &#8211; APRIL 09: Students cheer as the Cecil Rhodes statue is being removed from the University of Cape Town on April 9, 2015 in Cape Town, South Africa. The statue of British colonialist Cecil John Rhodes was removed from the University of Cape Town as a result of a month long protest by students citing the statue &#8220;great symbolic power&#8221; which glorified someone &#8220;who exploited black labour and stole land from indigenous people&#8221;. (Photo by Charlie Shoemaker/Getty Images)</div>
On March 10, it all changed when Chumani Maxwele, a fourth year political science student at the university, dressed in black tights, running shoes and a pink construction helmet, for a solitary protest. Maxwele poured excrement on the statue and placed a placard: “Exhibit White Arrogance @ UCT”. That was the birth of the great statue protest of 2015 that spread across the country.
Xolela Mangcu, a professor at UCT, supported the students’ movement that became known as Rhodes Must Fall.
“When I first arrived here three years ago, I was struck how white and European the university identity was, not just in terms of number of students but the content that is being taught. Nothing in the curriculum says you are in a South African university. The whole question whether UCT can imagine itself as an African university is what I have been raising in my intervention in both my columns and the university itself. The fact is that there are five black full professors out of 200. And there’s not a single South African black woman professor. That’s how I got into this debate. But I was ignored,” says Mangcu.
The debate had legs. Around 872 kilometers from Cape Town, in the heart of the Eastern Cape province, in the city of Grahamstown, lies Rhodes University, named after the British mining magnate in 1904. Grahamstown was named after Lieutenant-Colonel John Graham who drove the Xhosa tribe off their land. There have been calls to change the names of the city and the university.
Nomalanga Mkhize, a history lecturer at Rhodes University and a newspaper columnist, says the anger over Rhodes vindicates Mahmood Mamdani, a Ugandan scholar. As head of the Centre for African Studies at UCT in 1998, he developed a new curriculum elevating African scholarship, but the university waved it away.
“No doubt, the ‘Mamdani Affair’ is now embarrassing for UCT. It has become clear that he was right and his detractors were wrong,” says Mkhize.
Not every academic agrees. Shadrack Gutto, a professor from the University of South Africa and a constitutional rights expert, says preservation of the past is critical to progress and those who want to wipe the history because it is hurting are wasting their time and are ill-informed.
“History is never made on a clean slate. If you are talking about proper history, you are talking about history of tragedies, grief, happiness, periods of prosperity and periods of decline. From that point of view, you need to preserve all of it, in order to know where you are coming from, where you want to go. I don’t agree with the destruction of symbols of the past, they need to be there, the question is how are they explained and placed. We may disagree on where you place them. But to try to wipe them out, I think it is foolish and something that defies the understanding of people,” says Gutto.
“I support the spirit of 1976 students in the current UCT students. Whether they change their names or not or they have a black vice chancellor, the fact remains, universities have not been transformed.”
Gerhard Papenfus, Chief Executive of the National Employers’ Association of South Africa, says Cecil John Rhodes the person. He says Rhodes oversaw the death of his Afrikaaner ancestors 114 years ago, in the Anglo-Boer War, but he disagrees with the statue removal.
“So, after Cecil John Rhodes’ statue has been removed, followed by the statues of perhaps King George V at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Queen Victoria in Parliament, and then Paul Kruger in Church Square in Pretoria; and perhaps after convincing Robert Mugabe to remove David Livingstones’ statue from Victoria Falls and to exhume Rhodes bones from his grave on Malindidzimu, and after every street and school has been renamed and the history have been rewritten – then what?” asks Papenfus.
A month after Maxwele’s lone protest, statues of Mahatma Ghandi; an Indian human rights champion and Paul Kruger; the Afrikaaner leader and nemesis of Rhodes, along with others were smeared with paint and broken down.
The students at UCT got their wish. At 5:37AM on April 9, management removed the Rhodes statue to the cheers of students in an atmosphere thick with revolutionary slogans.
One would have thought that the removal would settle the dust. But members of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign continued occupying Bremner Building, a main administration block, which students renamed Azania Building – the Pan-Africanist name for South Africa.
University officials served Maxwele and other students with an eviction letter and threatened to go to court. Three days later, the students left.
UCT council chairperson, Njongonkulu Ndungane, says the university will take up the transformation debate.
Zimbabwe president, Robert Mugabe, was coincidentally in a two-day state visit to South Africa during the Rhodes debate. In a press conference in Pretoria there was laughter as he quipped about the debate over statues in South Africa and a grave in Zimbabwe.
“We have his corpse and you have his statue. What do you want us to do with him? Dig him up? We cannot tell you what to do with the statue but we and my people feel we need to leave him down there.”
One can argue that the noise Rhodes made in his life hasn’t stopped.

#RhodesMustFloat

The Statue  That Moved

The FORBES AFRICA Person of the Year for 1324 could very well have been a certain flamboyantly wealthy King of Mali, says Martin Meredith, the celebrated British historian of Africa.
“The richest man, that the world has ever seen, was Mansa Musa. [He] makes a Hajj to Mecca, arrives in Cairo and literally hands out gold bars to the waiters. He wrecks the money market for ten years or more&#8230; that story of his arrival eventually finds its way to Europe&#8230; the first European map, the Catalan map of 1376, has a portrait of [him] with a caption that says, ‘this is the richest man that the world has ever known.’”
<div id="attachment_3417" style="width: 226px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-3417" class="size-medium wp-image-3417" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Martin-Meredith-216x300.jpg" alt="" width="216" height="300" />Martin Meredith</div>
His gold-dishing arrival in Cairo inspired the first Spanish expedition to the continent, hunting Musa’s gold. The expedition set out for West Africa, searching for the fabled ‘River of Gold’, but the crew got lost and all were presumed dead.
At his death, Musa was worth around $400 billion, which make’s Bill Gate’s $81.8 billion look paltry.
As his empire fell, so did Africa.
“I discovered the extraordinary parallel themes of African history, compared to what is going on now. It has always been that Africa has been this enormously wealthy continent and yet it is the poorest continent. There’s a paradox about it,” says Meredith, who examines this 5,000-year paradox in his latest release, The Fortunes of Africa.
Meredith has had two careers in Africa, far from gold bars; first as a journalist, then as a historian. After fulfilling his boyhood dream of navigating the Nile, when 21, he moved to Lusaka and became a journalist.
“The first president I ever interviewed was Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, at the age of 22. He was a sort of giant intellect. We were sitting out in the State Palace in Dar es Salaam, looking out across the sea and there was Nyerere, hoping for real intellectual debate. Instead, he was faced with a green, inexperienced reporter who wasn’t giving him any argument!”
After 15 years reporting on the continent, he left to become a research fellow at Oxford University which spawned a shelf of books.
“I am essentially a story-teller, which is what journalists are, but the stories I tell have a very large dimension,” he says.
His first book, 1979’s The Past is Another Country, was a story of a soon-to-be independent Zimbabwe. Since then, he has written on everything; from elephants to Nelson Mandela. His most successful was The State of Africa, a contemporary history.
His latest title came after a year’s research. He calls it a standard history of Africa, which picks apart the economic roots of conflict and poverty on the continent, drawing on years as a foreign correspondent.
“This extraordinary World Bank figure [says that] 40% of Africa’s private wealth [is] held outside Africa which [contrasts] with the Asian experience. They have levels of corruption which are pretty high too but what happens there is that wealth is ploughed back into businesses, they might be mafia-type organizations, but they build factories and industries so the money is ploughed back.”
On the other side of the gold coin, Africa has a penchant for vanity projects like the Pyramids of Giza right to Mobutu Sese Seko’s ruined Gbadolite Palace, which had a private concord airstrip so he could fly off shopping.
“The money in Africa is taken out by the ruling elite and the growing middle class, so it’s safe and secure and they can enjoy buying properties in Europe. London is awash with Nigerian millionaires! Corruption happens everywhere, you expect a certain level of it. Where the focus of ambition lies in making as much money as possible, regardless of the circumstances, that is when it becomes dangerous. It affects so many African countries.”
The greed-inspired accidents of history are at the root of Africa’s woes. The Spanish expedition, inspired by Mansa Musa’s riches, led to centuries of extraction of African wealth for foreign gain. Hence, the birth of the infamous resource ‘curse’.
If in the last 5,000 years of this continent, the past has become our country, then, as the old adage goes, those who do not learn, or remember, their history are condemned to repeat it.
Meredith is certain to write it.

Tag: British

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

Amazon And Google Face U.K. Investigation Into Fake Reviews

How Much Are Prince Harry And Meghan Markle Worth? Surprisingly, Not That Much

A Voice For Africa In The EU

Africa Far Down The List

The Statue That Moved

Person Of The Year For 1324