We agree with Kader et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ja030701 ) to the extent that longitudinal axis was flipped, by mistake, in Figure 5a of Younas et al. (2020, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ja027981 ). However, claiming that this leads to wrong interpretation of main finding of the work is not true. This only affects one sentence in the Result section of Younas et al. (2020, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ja027981 ). Moreover, the claimed corrected figure of Kader et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ja030701 ) still has a scaling error which may lead to wrong interpretation of GUVI data. For setting a benchmark for future studies, we propose that either scaling should not be done, or it must be the same for all the considered days. Moreover, Kader et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ja030701 ) showed that by taking mean of data points leads to different results, which is possible however it cannot be considered as an error in our work. If they believe that their method gives better explanation, they should publish it as an independent article. The statement of Kader et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ja030701 ) about the error in our TEC data is also exaggerated. The article by Bolaji et al. (2021, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ja029068 ) provided more insight about latitudinal variations in two sectors and used different GPS stations. Obviously, it is not possible to put all data sets in one study. Hence, stating that Bolaji et al. (2021, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ja029068 ) found errors in our TEC results is a misleading statement. Although Kader et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ja030701 ) also pointed out an error in Bolaji et al. (2021, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ja029068 ), however in their title they only comment about Y20.