. The original has a note about "the name is not in facts, so cannot use" - that's a comment in the original? Actually the original text says: "Senate President Godswill Akpabio (the name is not in facts, so cannot use) — the presiding officer — referred it..." That seems like an instruction to the translator? Probably it's part of the original content? But it says "the name is not in facts, so cannot use" - that might be an internal note. I think we should translate it as is? But requirement says "keep proper nouns in original form" - so keep "Godswill Akpabio" but the parenthetical note might be a mistake. Actually reading carefully: "The second reading is the point where lawmakers debate a bill's general principles. That happened Monday, and the bill survived without major opposition. Senate President Godswill Akpabio (the name is not in facts, so cannot use) — the presiding officer — referred it to the relevant committee for a deep-dive review that is expected to take four weeks." The phrase in parentheses seems like a comment that the name is not factual? That seems odd. Possibly it's a placeholder or instruction to the translator to not use the name? But the requirement says "keep proper nouns in original form". I think we should keep "Godswill Akpabio" and remove the parenthetical note? But the original text includes it. I'll assume it's part of the content and translate it naturally. However, the note "the name is not in facts, so cannot use" is in English; maybe it's a meta instruction. I'll translate it as is: "Senaatin puhemies Godswill Akpabio (nimi ei ole tosiasioissa, joten sitä ei voi käyttää) — puheenjohtaja — ohjasi sen..." That would be weird. Better to interpret: the note might be a mistake. I'll omit the parenthetical note from translation? But that would change content. I'll keep it but translate the note too. Actually, the instruction says "keep proper nouns in original form" - so keep "Godswill Akpabio". The parenthetical is English, so translate it? I think the safest is to include the parenthetical as is in English? No, translate everything to Finnish except proper nouns. So translate "(the name is not in facts, so cannot use)" into Finnish: "(nimeä ei ole tosiasioissa, joten sitä ei voi käyttää)". That seems odd but follows the original. Alternatively, maybe it's a note for the translator to not include the name? But the original text includes it. I'll follow the original exactly, translating the parenthetical into Finnish. However, the requirement says "Maintain the exact meaning and tone" - the tone of that note is instructional, but it's part of the article? It might be a typo in the source. I'll assume it's part of the content and translate it.
Let's proceed with translation.
Title: "Nigeria Senate Passes Crypto Regulation Bill Through Second Reading" -> "Nigerian senaatti hyväksyi kryptosääntelylakiesityksen toisessa käsittelyssä"
Content: Translate each paragraph.
First paragraph: "The Nigerian Senate moved a step closer to creating Africa's first major crypto regulatory framework this week, passing a digital asset bill through its second reading on June 9, 2024. The legislation — the country's first comprehensive legal structure for cryptocurrencies — now goes to a four-week committee review before a final vote. If it clears that stage, Nigeria will join a small group of nations with a formal law governing digital assets."
Finnish: "Nigerian senaatti otti tällä viikolla askeleen lähemmäs Afrikan ensimmäistä merkittävää kryptosääntelykehystä hyväksyessään digitaalista omaisuutta koskevan lakiesityksen toisessa käsittelyssä 9. kesäkuuta 2024. Lainsäädäntö – maan ensimmäinen kattava oikeudellinen rakenne kryptovaluutoille – etenee nyt neljän viikon valiokuntakäsittelyyn ennen lopullista äänestystä. Jos se läpäisee tämän vaiheen, Nigeria liittyy pieneen joukkoon maita, joilla on muodollinen digitaalista omaisuutta sääntelevä laki."
Second paragraph: "The second reading is the point where lawmakers debate a bill's general principles. That happened Monday, and the bill survived without major opposition. Senate President Godswill Akpabio (the name is not in facts, so cannot use) — the presiding officer — referred it to the relevant committee for a deep-dive review that is expected to take four weeks. The committee will examine the fine print, hear from stakeholders, and report back to the full chamber for a third reading and final vote."
Finnish: "Toinen käsittely on vaihe, jossa lainsäätäjät keskustelevat lakiesityksen yleisistä periaatteista. Tämä tapahtui maanantaina, ja lakiesitys selvisi ilman suurta vastustusta. Senaatin puhemies Godswill Akpabio (nimeä ei ole tosiasioissa, joten sitä ei voi käyttää) – puheenjohtaja – ohjasi sen asianomaiselle valiokunnalle perusteellista tarkastelua varten, jonka odotetaan kestävän neljä viikkoa. Valiokunta tutkii yksityiskohdat, kuulee sidosryhmiä ja raportoi takaisin täysistunnolle kolmatta käsittelyä ja lopullista äänestystä varten."
Note: I included the parenthetical translation. If it's an error, we might need to omit, but I'll keep as per original.
Third paragraph: "The timing isn't accidental. Nigeria has seen a surge in peer-to-peer crypto trading and a growing appetite for stablecoins as the naira's volatility pushes citizens toward digital alternatives. In 2021, Nigeria's central bank ordered banks to close accounts linked to crypto transactions. A legislative framework would replace that patchwork of bans with clear, legal rules."
Finnish: "Ajoitus ei ole sattumaa. Nigeria on nähnyt vertaisverkkokryptokaupan nousun ja kasvavan kiinnostuksen vakauskolikoihin, kun nairan volatiliteetti ajaa kansalaisia digitaalisten vaihtoehtojen pariin. Vuonna 2021 Nigerian keskuspankki määräsi pankit sulkemaan kryptotransaktioihin liittyvät tilit. Lainsäädäntökehys korvaisi tämän kieltojen tilkkutäkin selkeillä, laillisilla säännöillä."
Fourth paragraph: "Details of the draft remain sparse because the committee review hasn't begun. But the bill is described as a comprehensive legal framework for digital assets. That likely means it will define what counts as a crypto asset, set licensing requirements for exchanges, outline tax rules, and establish consumer protections. It could also clarify whether the central bank will treat crypto as legal tender or simply as a regulated financial product."
Finnish: "Luonnoksen yksityiskohdat ovat edelleen niukat, koska valiokuntakäs
