Home Blog Page 260

Understanding Nigeria’s twin crises of democracy and demography

By Adaobi Obiabunmuo, Ph.D

The most important things in a democracy involve counting. Among these three stand out: people, votes, and jobs. These are essential for ensuring that the government is accountable, grounded in popular legitimacy, and takes the well-being of all seriously. Nigeria has been notoriously unreliable in undertaking all three. Unsurprisingly, the country’s democracy suffers a debilitating credibility crisis. It is useful to examine why.

Take jobs, for instance. With the introduction of the revised methodology in April 2023 by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) in its Nigeria Labour Force Survey, the unemployment rate experienced a sharp decline, dropping from 33.3% in the fourth quarter of 2020 to 4.1% in the first quarter of 2023. Since then, the figure has fluctuated—5.0% in the third quarter of 2023, 5.3% in the first quarter of 2024, and 4.3% in the second quarter of 2024.

The reactions from consumers of the report, such as the government, citizens, and other stakeholders, have shown remarkable divergence of opinion. For the government, the figures were proof that it was making progress on jobs. Statistician-General of the Federation, Semiu Adeniran, asserted that the new methodology used by the NBS, which classifies those engaged in part-time work as employed, is consistent with the standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and “should have happened much earlier.” On behalf of organized labour, the Nigerian Labour Congress has described the new numbers “as fiction, stressing that it contradicts reality.” For other stakeholders, the concern is that the government may de-prioritise efforts to tackle unemployment based on these optimistic figures. This highlights the importance of accurate and reliable data, without which a country may either fail to plan effectively or end up planning blindly.

Census figures underpin the task of planning for the provision of public goods, but no one knows how many people there are in Nigeria. The last effort to count Nigerians was in the 2006 census, which resulted in a count of 140,003,542. For planning purposes, we can use this figure and apply the annual population growth rate of 3.2% to arrive at a projected population; or we can rely on an estimated population of over 200 million, a figure produced by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA).

Successive governments have tried to account for the population of Nigeria through census, but the exercise has been plagued with lack of financial accountability, interference by political actors, alleged manipulation, and inflation of figures. This crisis is as old as the first post-independence census in 1962 that recorded a population of 45.26 million (Northern region 22.01million, while Western and Eastern regions had 23.25 million) but was cancelled as a result of alleged inflation of figures.

In 2006, during the administration of President Obasanjo, the National Population Commission (NPopC) deployed the geographical positioning System (GPS), satellite imagery and Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and in a census which gave us a population of 140,003,542. Nigeria has not conducted a national census since then. However, there have been attempts to update population data through other means like the mop-up exercise, although the commission does not usually make the outcome of this periodic exercise public.

This raises the question of transparency on the part of the NPopC and of the nexus between demography and democracy. How is the government able to plan or allocate resources effectively without credible demographic data? In turn, this raises questions about the resources at the disposal of the data generating institutions in terms of the human and material assets at their disposal as well as the intangible asset of institutional independence. Implicit in these questions is the lingering suspicion of the politicization of data because politicians always indulge in a calculus of political gain from the manipulation of data. When looked closely, there is power, influence and wealth at the center of the equation, but where does this leave the citizens?

Counting methods may differ depending on who is conducting the count and not just with jobs data. During a press conference in 2019 to mark World Population Day, the then Director-General of the National Population Commission (NPC), a body established, among other things, to undertake the enumeration of Nigeria’s population, Dr. Ghaji Bello, reacted to an earlier report by the UNFPA, which projected the nation’s population at 201 million. According to Dr. Bello, Nigeria’s population was 198 million, adding that “the difference between the UNFPA figure and ours is a question of assumptions.”

In his pioneering work book, Planning Without Facts, Wolfgang Stolper, asserts that ‘one cannot make policy without politics and that politics quite naturally has priority.’ So, what is our priority in Nigeria?

Just as citizens are unclear about the country’s true population, data from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the body established by the 1999 Constitution to manage elections into various political offices, is also contested. According to INEC, the 2003 election had the highest voter participation since Nigeria’s return to democracy, with a 69% turnout, meaning 42 million out of 60.8 million registered voters cast their ballots. This was higher than in 1999, when 30.2 million out of 57.9 million registered voters voted. In 2007, the turnout dropped to 57.5%, with 35.3 million voters out of 61.5 million registered. In 2011, 39.4 million votes were cast out of 73.5 million registered voters. By 2015, the numbers declined further to 29.4 million votes out of 67.4 million registered voters. In 2019, although registered voters increased to 84,004,084, only 28.6 million voted. Then in 2023, the register stood at 93,469,008, and 87,209,007 people collected their Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs), yet only 25,286,616 turned out to vote.

Serious questions arise from this data. Despite the massive voter sensitization and mobilization efforts by INEC, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), citizens, and other stakeholders, the last general election officially recorded only 28.6% voter turnout. Is this a clear case of voter apathy, unreliable data, or should the integrity of the voter register be interrogated?

Just like the 2023 election where INEC claimed that the introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) would be the game-changer, NPopC also claimed that the 2023 census will be Nigeria first digital headcount and would change how census is conducted in Nigeria. The Commission had planned a digital census in 2023, utilizing mobile handheld devices, Geographic Information System (GIS), geo-spatial imagery, and electronic forms hosted on Personal Digital Assistant devices. However, the outcome of this effort is not publicly available. Two years later, the NPC Chairman, Nasir Isa Kwarra, in a meeting at the State House on 24 February 2025 with President Tinubu and other stakeholders, discloses that it had acquired 760,000 tablets which it stored with the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Unwittingly, Chairman Nasir Kwarra may have disclosed the dysfunction that ails Nigeria’s ecosystem. It costs a lot of money to acquire 760,000 tablets. The process of procurement for that alone could be guaranteed to make many people rich. As gadgets and digital hardware become increasingly part of the infrastructure of data and demographics in Nigeria, their procurement may be more important than their effective deployment in a country in which contracts mean personal wealth and data has never been seriously governed in public policy making.

To change this, the country may need to address three things. First, politicians as well as the institutions created for that purpose, have to take data seriously. Second, it will be essential to take the procurement imperative out of the work of the data institutions. Third, to achieve this, those institutions must be endowed with financial and functional independence. Without the last measure, NPopC may continue in a cycle of habitual motion without movement, while the INEC and NBS will continue to gratify fantasy and fiction at the expense of fealty to facts.

Dr. Obiabunmuo, is Programmes Manager at the Progressive Impact Organisation for Community Development, PRIMORG

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

Taraba State Signs Prohibition Against Human Trafficking Bill into Law: AAF applauds landmark victory for human rights

Press Release

In a historic move, the Executive Governor of Taraba State, His Excellency Dr. Agbu Kefas, has signed into law the Prohibition Against Human Trafficking Bill, reaffirming the state’s commitment to protect vulnerable populations and uphold human rights.

The Adinya Arise Foundation (AAF), a leading civil society organization and Anchor of the USAID Palladium SCALE Counter Trafficking in Persons Commission Cluster project, has welcomed this development as a landmark achievement, especially given that the SCALE project funding was halted following USAID’s closure of the program.

Despite the unexpected termination of donor funding, AAF sustained implementation of CTIP interventions through self-funding as part of its broader sustainability strategy. These efforts have culminated in the Assent of Bill a legislative milestone promised by the state government during the USAID SCALE Closeout Summit held on September 25, 2024.

“Nothing is as heartwarming as seeing your efforts come to fruition,” said Mabel Adinya Ade, Executive Director of Adinya Arise Foundation. “We commend His Excellency, Dr. Agbu Kefas, for keeping his promise and demonstrating that the protection of human dignity remains a top priority of his administration.

“Our gratitude also goes to the Taraba State House of Assembly for their unanimous support and legislative courage.”

The enactment of the PAHT Bill immediately strengthens the legal framework needed to prosecute traffickers, protect survivors, and prevent future trafficking, particularly among women, girls, and vulnerable populations.

In a related breakthrough, the Taraba State Ministry of Women Affairs recently rescued young girls who had been trafficked to Guinea and forced into sex slavery an early indication of the state’s renewed determination to take concrete action against human trafficking.

AAF extends appreciation to the Honourable Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice, Commissioner of Information and Reorientation, and the Commissioner for Women Affairs and many other stakeholders, for their leadership, advocacy, and strong coordination that helped bring this victory to reality.

As Taraba State celebrates this moment, Adinya Arise Foundation AAF and all Cluster Members (ECJP, NUJ, GERI, OSA Foundation and JDPC) calls on sister states Benue and Oyo to accelerate the passage and signing of their respective CTIP Bills. The momentum is now, and no child, woman, or man should be left unprotected.

Media Desk,
Adinya Arise Foundation (AAF)
8 Eket Close, Area 8, Garki, Abuja FCT, Nigeria
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +234(0)8036145535

Full List: Moneme, Badejo-Okusanya, Osun AG, Nasarawa SSG, 53 others to be sworn in 29 September as Senior Advocates of Nigeria

The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) has approved the elevation of 57 legal practitioners to the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

Those elevated include the Secretary to the government of Nasarawa State, Shuaib Magaji Labaran, Osun State Attorney General, Oluwole Tolulope Jimi-Bada and two female legal practitioners — the Chairman of the NBA 2024 Annual General Conference Planning Committee, Mrs Oyinkan Badejo-Okusanya and Mrs Chinyere Ekene Moneme.

Also elevated to the prestigious rank are David Ogenyi Ogebe, son of retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice James Ogebe, Professor Chima Josephat Ubanyionwu, amonst others.

The list obtained on Thursday comprised 56 advocates and one from academia.

According to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court and Secretary of the LPPC, Mr Kabir Eniola Akanbi, the list was approved by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, at LPPC’s 169th Plenary Session held on Thursday.

“The rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria is conferred as a mark of professional excellence upon legal practitioners who have demonstrated exceptional distinction either as advocates in the courts or as academics contributing significantly to the development of legal scholarship.

“During the session, the Committee also considered three (3) petitions submitted against certain applicants. Upon thorough review, each petition was found to be lacking in merit and was accordingly dismissed.

“In accordance with the directives of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN), all shortlisted prospective Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) conferees are required to attend and successfully complete the Pre-Swearing-In Induction Programme”, Akanbi said.

According to the LPPC secretary, participation in the induction programme is a mandatory prerequisite for the formal conferment of the SAN rank.

Meanwhile, the conferees have been warned in line with Paragraph 25(1) of the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Guidelines and the provisions of Rule 393 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2023, from publishing advertisements, congratulatory messages, or goodwill notices related to their nomination or conferment.

“Any breach of these provisions may attract sanctions for violations of statutory or ethical rules as expressly stated”, Akanbi said.

Meanwhile, the Swearing-In Ceremony for the 57 successful applicants is scheduled to be held on Monday, September 29, 2025.

Below is the list of the new SANs in order of seniority.

WWE legend, Hulk Hogan dies at 71

Wrestling legend Hulk Hogan has died aged 71.

The WWE icon passed away early Thursday morning after medics were dispatched to his Clearwater, Florida home, per TMZ. Operators said it was regarding a cardiac arrest.

Police cars and EMTs were parked outside Hogan’s home, with the reality star carried onto a stretcher and into an ambulance.

The shock death comes just weeks after his wife Sky, denied rumours he was on his deathbed in a coma – and claimed his heart was ‘strong’ after he underwent a routine neck surgery.

His representative said in a statement last month: ‘He’s had problems with his back for years, but there’s no emergency.’

Hogan had previously opened up about undergoing ’25 surgeries in the past decade.’ 

Speaking on Jake Paul’s IMPAULSIVE podcast last year, he said: ‘Ten of them were back surgeries. I’ve had both knees and hips replaced, shoulders — everything.’

DailyMail.com has contacted representatives for Hulk Hogan for comment. 

Fans were left concerned for Hogan when he appeared as a special guest on Fox & Friends at the start of May while sporting a worrying new look.

Renowned for his deep tan, the WWE great’s skin looked particularly weathered on air, while his usual white beard appeared to be dyed black despite his goatee and hair being left white – making for a strange contrast.

One viewer wrote online: ‘Tell Hulk Hogan his face is dirty, clean that soot off.’

Another said: ‘Does anyone believe this is Hulk Hogan?’

A third added: ‘Hulk Hogan giving off Wooly Willy vibes this am on Fox & Friends.’

Source: Daily Mirror

Do condoms really contain harmful chemicals?

By Fatimah Quadri

viral video shared on Facebook claims that condoms contain over 100 toxic chemicals harmful to women’s reproductive health. The FactCheckHub investigated the claim.

The video, posted by Facebook user Lolo Crystal Chinelo, shows a woman reacting to a speaker who claims that a 2014 Danish study found condoms contain over 100 toxic chemicals, including hormone disruptors and carcinogens.

In the clip, the original speaker referenced a 2014 study, alleging that condoms contain toxic substances such as hormone disruptors and carcinogens.

She claimed that frequent use could expose women to harmful chemicals with potential risks to their reproductive health.

Part of the audio transcribed reads:

You use condoms, and you think it’s safe, but what if it’s slowly poisoning your body? A 2014 Danish study found over 100 toxic ingredients in condoms. Hormone disruptors, carcinogens, and spermicides that can damage the uterine wall. Each condom contains about 1.5 millilitres of lubricant. If a woman is intimate 300 times a year, she’s putting in her uterus over half a litre of this toxin into her body every single year…”

Since the inception of the video, it has garnered an attraction of over 9,000 likes, 2,100 reposts, and 371 comments.

The claim was also found here and here 

Due to the sensitive nature of the claim, The FactCheckHub decided to examine the veracity of the claim.

Screenshot of the Video from Facebook
Screenshot of the Video from Facebook

What’s in a Condom?

Most condoms are made from latex, polyurethane, or polyisoprene. They often include added lubricants, flavourings, and colours. These extra ingredients, while designed for comfort, may sometimes include substances that cause irritation or allergic reactions.

Some products may be toxic

A 2024 report by The Guardian UK and Reuters cited a study that found that several popular brands of condoms and lubricants contained PFAS (Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances), also known as “forever chemicals.” PFAS are knownto be reproductive toxicants and endocrine disruptors, and they have been linked to health issues such as low birth weight, reduced sperm counts, pregnancy-induced hypertension, infertility, and shorter duration of breastfeeding.

The study conducted by Mamavation, a consumer advocacy blog, in collaboration with environmental health researchers, highlighted that some condom brands and intimate products tested positive for PFAS levels beyond safe thresholds.

In addition, a 2001 study published in a health journal, Science Direct, identified the presence of N-nitrosamines, classified as potent carcinogens, in rubber products including condoms, baby bottle teats, and balloons. European regulations currently limit the release of these compounds due to their cancer-causing potential.

That study also found that about 0.6 nanogram of nitrosamines may migrate into the vaginal mucous membranes during sexual intercourse, estimating that lifelong exposure through 1,500 condom uses could result in the absorption of up to 0.9 micrograms of these substances.

Another study published by the National Institute of Health noted latex allergies and other additives, such as dimethylsiliconium, colourants, and flavourings which did not provide evidence of widespread toxicity or carcinogenic risk.

The study concluded that more data were needed to assess the cytotoxic impact of non-spermicidal lubricants and other compounds but did not suggest that condoms were inherently unsafe when used as directed.

Official guidance on condom safety

Regulators such as NAFDAC, the World Health Organisation (WHO), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintain that condoms are safe when manufactured and used according to established safety standards.

WHO publishes guidelines on male latex condom quality, ensuring limits on harmful additives like nitrosamines. It also notes that spermicidal lubricated condoms should no longer be promoted as it is ineffective in preventing HIV. However, it recommends using a nonoxynol-9 lubricated condom over no condom at all.

FDA mandates rigorous pre‑market testing for biocompatibility, shelf life, and latex integrity before approving condoms for use.

In Nigeria, NAFDAC enforces strict regulations on the registration, labeling, and post-market surveillance of condoms. While the agency has previously issued alerts about unregistered condom brands circulating in the market, it has not raised safety concerns about any NAFDAC-approved brands.

No evidence supporting viral claim

Further findings showed that the specific “2014 Danish study” cited in the viral video could not be found during a review of available academic literature.

Instead, a 2015 Danish study reviewed by The FactCheckHub discussed the use of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections among Danish Youths aged 15-29 living in Denmark.

Another Danish National Youth Study (DNYS), conducted in 2014 explored various aspects of health behaviours among young people, including sexual behaviour, but did not focus specifically on condom toxicity. The DNYS, a national survey, gathered data on a range of topics, including alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use

The speaker in the viral clip was identified as Ayesha Depala, who is the owner of a fashion brand specialising in women’s clothing in the UAE and is also the co-founder of DiviNom Healing, the video was posted on this platform.

When our researcher contacted her via email requesting a link or evidence for the cited study, she responded with a document titled 100 Potentially Harmful Chemicals Found in Condoms and Related Products”, purportedly from the Institute for Toxicology & Consumer Safety Studies, dated May 2025.

Screenshot of the document from the email response
Screenshot of the document from the email response

The document included a methodology section and a list of 100 chemicals, but no verifiable links or references were provided nor names of researchers.

When the document’s title and the name of the Institute for Toxicology & Consumer Safety Studies were used in a keyword search, they did not lead to any official publication or website belonging to the institute. Instead, the search results pointed to the earlier-cited study conducted by Mamavation, which had been reported by Reuters and The Guardian.

Are condoms safe?

Condoms do not contain harmful toxins in amounts considered dangerous to human health when used as intended. While trace levels of substances like nitrosamines or PFAS may be present in some products, these are strictly regulatedto ensure safety.

According to the WHO, “Condoms, when used correctly and consistently, are safe and highly effective in preventing transmission of most sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, and unplanned pregnancies. Condoms are safe, inexpensive and widely available.”

To ensure their effectiveness and safety, WHO also notes that “condoms need to follow ISO standards and WHO/UNFPA specifications.”

Credit: ICIR

How Nigeria’s immigration seized, and released Senator Natasha’s passport at Abuja airport

Officers of the Nigeria Immigration Service at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, on Thursday morning, caused a momentary travel scare as they seized the passport of suspended Kogi Central lawmaker, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, on her way to board a British Airways flight to London.

Eyewitnesses at the airport said the Senator arrived at the international terminal of the airport with her husband, Chief Emmanuel Uduaghan, only to be stopped by immigration officials who flagged her as a “national security risk.”

The incident occurred in the early hours of July 24, 2025, just before boarding commenced for the London-bound flight.

Travellers reported that Senator Natasha remained calm and composed throughout the ordeal, insisting that the officers had no legal authority to seize her passport.

“The court never authorised this. You have no right to hold my passport,” she was overheard telling the officers, while urging them to allow her to proceed.

No official explanation was provided to the Senator at the time of the seizure, further fueling suspicions of political interference.

Her husband, Chief Uduaghan was seen making a series of urgent phone calls as the delay dragged on.

Minutes later, the senator’s passport was returned without any formal explanation, allowing her to swiftly proceed through immigration and board her flight just in time.

The incident sparked murmurs among travellers with observers describing the situation as an unnecessary embarrassment and a potential abuse of institutional power.

Neither the Nigeria Immigration Service nor the office of the Senate President has issued a statement on the matter.

French media giant gets full control of DStv, GOtv after acquiring MultiChoice in $3bn deal

A French media conglomerate Canal+ has officially acquired full ownership of MultiChoice Group, the parent company of DStv and GOtv, in a landmark $3 billion (approx. 55 billion rand) deal. The acquisition, which gives Canal+ the remaining 55% stake it did not previously own, was approved by South Africa’s Competition Tribunal on Wednesday, July 23.

The approval comes after months of intense negotiations and regulatory reviews, and paves the way for the deal to be finalized by October 8, 2025. While the Tribunal gave the green light, it imposed several public interest conditions to protect local content and maintain South Africa’s media sovereignty.

For Canal+, the deal represents a major strategic expansion into Africa’s booming media and entertainment market. Already operating in 25 African countries with over eight million subscribers, Canal+ is now positioned to significantly scale up its presence, targeting 50 to 100 million subscribers across the continent in the coming years.

MultiChoice, Africa’s largest pay-TV broadcaster, brings more than 14.5 million subscribers in 50 sub-Saharan African countries, as well as flagship platforms like DStv and GOtv. The company is also home to premium content brands such as SuperSport, making it an attractive acquisition for the French media powerhouse.

Describing the deal as transformative, Canal+ CEO Maxime Saada said: “The combined group will benefit from enhanced scale, greater exposure to high-growth markets and the ability to deliver meaningful synergies.”

One of the key benefits of the merger is the integration of Canal+’s French-language content with MultiChoice’s dominant English and Portuguese offerings—creating a multilingual media powerhouse capable of serving diverse African audiences.

Beyond strategic value, the acquisition is also a timely boost for MultiChoice. The deal is expected to inject fresh capital into the South African broadcaster, enabling deeper investment in local content production, technology upgrades, and digital innovation.

As part of the Competition Tribunal’s conditional approval, Canal+ has committed to spend approximately 26 billion rand over the next three years on initiatives aligned with South Africa’s public interest objectives. These include retaining MultiChoice’s headquarters in South Africa, maintaining investment in local content and sports broadcasting, and supporting local content creators.

In a joint statement, both companies reaffirmed their commitment to the South African media ecosystem: “We will maintain funding for South African general entertainment and sports content, providing local content creators with a strong foundation for future success.”

Canal+ began its takeover bid in 2023 with a mandatory buyout offer of 125 rand per share, valuing MultiChoice at around $3 billion. With full ownership now secured, the French media giant is poised to redefine Africa’s pay-TV industry, tapping into its vast potential and shifting the competitive.

Click on the link below to join our WhatsApp Channel. https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaL4J8rIt5rxOV1Ckl2B

US Court of Appeals blocks Trump’s order on birthright citizenship

A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order curtailing automatic birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.

The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked the first time an appeals court has assessed the legality of Trump’s order since the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of lower court judges to enjoin that and other federal policies on a nationwide basis.

The Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling in litigation over Trump’s birthright citizenship order limited the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directed lower courts that had blocked the Republican president’s policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders.

But the ruling contained exceptions allowing courts to potentially still block it nationally again. That has already allowed a judge in New Hampshire to once again halt Trump’s order from taking effect by issuing an injunction in a nationwide class action of children who would be denied citizenship under the policy.

The 9th Circuit’s majority in Wednesday’s ruling said the Democratic-led states that had sued to block the policy – Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon – likewise still were entitled to a nationwide injunction as a more narrow order would not provide them “complete relief.”

“The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement.

The Trump administration could either ask a wider panel of 9th Circuit judges to hear the case or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which is expected to have the final word in the litigation.

“We look forward to being vindicated on appeal,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. In a statement, she said the 9th Circuit misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment in reaching its decision.

DAY ONE ORDER

Trump signed the order on January 20, his first day back in office, as part of his hardline approach toward immigration.

Trump’s order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.

It was swiftly challenged in court by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

The Constitution’s 14th Amendment citizenship clause states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The first judge to block Trump’s directive was Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, who called it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The 9th Circuit’s ruling upheld his decision.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for Wednesday’s majority, said Coughenour rightly concluded that Trump’s executive order violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States.

Gould said a geographically limited injunction would harm the four states by forcing them to overhaul their government benefits programs to account for how people denied citizenship under Trump’s order might move into them.

“It is impossible to avoid this harm absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States,” Gould wrote.

His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins, a fellow appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton.

U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying in his view the Democratic-led states lacked standing to challenge Trump’s order, as he warned of the risks of “judicial overreach.”

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Jamie Freed and Lincoln Feast.)

Click on the link below to join our WhatsApp Channel. https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaL4J8rIt5rxOV1Ckl2B

Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron sue podcaster Owens for claiming French first lady was born a man who groomed her allegedly gay husband

Conspiracy-spewing podcaster Candace Owens was slapped with a defamation lawsuit Wednesday by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, for claiming that the first lady was born a male who groomed her allegedly gay husband.

The Paris power couple accused Owens of pushing a conspiracy theory that Mrs. Macron “was born a man, stole another person’s identity, and transitioned to become Brigitte,” according to the 200-page complaint filed in Delaware.

Owens’ claims are similar to those made in France by two women whom Brigitte Macron sued in 2021. That case was initially ruled in the French first lady’s favor but has been overturned on appeal. She has now taken the case to France’s highest appeals court.

Owens

Brigitte Macron, 72, was a 39-year-old school teacher when she became the future French leader’s educator — when he was 15 — in 1993. The pair have been married for nearly two decades after getting hitched in 2007.

In January, Owens — who has stirred controversy for spouting antisemitic conspiracy theories — ran an eight-part podcast series that obsessed over their May-December romance, according to the complaint.

“I believe that Emmanuel Macron is a homosexual man that was groomed from his youth,” Owens said in one of the episodes.

“I believe the individual who groomed him is now his wife. I believe that his wife was born Jean‑Michel Trogneux and transitioned in his early 30s, and I believe that the entire state is colluding to protect that secret.”

“And like I said, I would stake my entire professional career on all of those points.”

The lawsuit also cited statements made by Owens on her podcast that claimed “Mrs. Macron and President Macron are blood relatives committing incest” and that “President Macron was chosen to be the president of France as part of the CIA‑operated MKUltra program or a similar mind‑control program.”

MKUltra was a covert, illegal CIA program that conducted extensive human experiments to research mind control, interrogation methods and psychological manipulation. The agency closed down the program in 1973.

Another statement cited in the lawsuit quotes Owens as saying that the Macrons “are committing forgery, fraud, and abuses of power to conceal these secrets.”

Owens also used social media to accuse President Macron of violating the law.

She posted on X: “Emmanuel Macron married a man. Which was illegal at the time that he did it.”

“This is a desperate public relations strategy,” Owens said on her podcast on Wednesday — her first reaction to the lawsuit.

“A few weeks ago, Brigitte lost her defamation case against two journalists [in France]… “

In 2021, the French first lady sued two women for libel in France after they spread claims on social media and YouTube that she was born a man.

A lower French court found the two women liable for defamation and awarded damages to Brigitte Macron and her brother in 2023.

Earlier this month, the Paris Appeals Court overturned the decision, accepting a “good faith” defense and ruling the statements not actionable, which nullified the damages award.

Brigitte Macron and her brother have appealed to the Court of Cassation, France’s highest appellate court, where the case remains pending.

Owens said she was looking forward to the lawsuit. “On behalf of the entire world, I will see you in court,” she said on her podcast on Wednesday.

“I find this to be irresistible and delicious,” the influencer said. “The discovery alone will be out of this world. We would be required to depose Donald Trump.” 

Owens has claimed that President Trump personally called her and requested that she stop alleging that Brigitte Macron was transgender.

“We do not comment on the President’s private conversations that may or may not have occurred,” a White House official told The Post.

Owens is no stranger to controversy. She has repeatedly courted outrage with antisemitic remarks minimizing Hitler’s ambitions as well as defending Kanye West’s tweets.

She has also amplified a grab bag of conspiracy theories such as questioning the moon landing and promoting COVID‑19 vaccine misinformation.

Credit: New York Post

International Court of Justice says countries can sue each other over climate change

Governments and climate campaigners went to the Hague on Wednesday to hear the court's opinion

In a decision that could lead to a major shift in the flagrant release of greenhouse gases, a landmark decision by a top UN court has paved the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases.

But the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands, on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult.

And although the ruling is non-binding, legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences.

It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about the lack of global progress in tackling the problem.

The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brainchild of a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change, who came up with the idea in 2019.

One of those students, Siosiua Veikune from Tonga, was in the Hague to hear the decision.

“I’m lost for words. This is so exciting. There’s a ton of emotions rushing through us. This is a win we take proudly back home to our communities,” he told BBC News.

“Tonight I’ll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through – our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally.

“This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard.”

The ICJ is considered the world’s highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week, including in national courts outside of the ICJ.

Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming.

Many poorer countries had backed the case out of frustration, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing problem.

But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed.

On Wednesday the court rejected that argument.

Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement.

He added that broader international law applies, which means that countries which are not signed up to the Paris Agreement – or want to leave, like the US – are still required to protect the environment, including the climate system.

The court’s opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year.

“The ruling is a watershed legal moment,” said Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

“With today’s authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy for climate harm, including through compensation,” she added.

A spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said it was “taking time” to look at the opinion before commenting in detail, but added:

“Tackling climate change is and will remain an urgent UK and global priority. Our position remains that this is best achieved through international commitment to the UN’s existing climate treaties and mechanisms.”

The court ruled that developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure.

It added that where it is not possible to restore part of a country then its government may want to seek compensation.

This could be for a specific extreme weather event if it can be proved that climate change caused it, but the Judge said this would need to be determined on a case by case basis.

“This is a huge win for climate vulnerable states. It’s a huge win for Vanuatu, which led this case and is going to change the face of climate advocacy,” said barrister Jennifer Robinson at Doughty Street Chambers, who represented Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands.

The case’s unlikely origins

It is not clear how much an individual country could have to pay in damages if any claim was successful.

But previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change – or $16 million per hour.

During the evidence sessions in December, the court heard from dozens of Pacific Islanders who have been displaced as a result of rising sea level, caused by climate change.

The Marshall Islands highlighted that the costs for their island to adapt to climate change are $9 billion.

“That is $9 billion the Marshall Islands does not have. Climate change is a problem they have not caused, but they are forced to consider relocating their capital,” said Ms Robinson.

Getty Images People gather near a banyan tree toppled by Cyclone Pam in 2015 on December 05, 2019 in Tanna, Vanuatu. 25 percent of Vanuatu’s 276,000 citizens lost their homes when Cyclone Pam, a category 5 storm, devastated the South Pacific archipelago of 83 islands while wiping out two-thirds of its GDP.
A cyclone in 2015 in Vanuatu destroyed 276,000 homes and wiped out two-thirds of its GDP

As well as compensation, the court also ruled that governments were responsible for the climate impact of companies operating in their countries.

It said specifically that subsidising the fossil fuel industry or approving new oil and gas licenses could be in breach of a country’s obligations.

Developing countries are already exploring bringing new cases seeking compensation for historic contributions to climate change against richer, high emitting nations citing the ICJ opinion, according to lawyers the BBC spoke to.

If a country wants to bring a case back to the ICJ to make a ruling on compensation then it can only do so against countries which have agreed to its jurisdiction, which includes the likes of the UK, but not US or China.

But a case can be brought in any court globally, whether that be domestic or international, citing the ICJ opinion, explained Joie Chowdhury from CIEL.

So instead a country may choose to take their case not to the ICJ but a court where those countries are bound e.g. federal courts in the US.

But the question remains whether the ICJ opinion will be respected.

“[The ICJ] is an institution that is subject to geopolitics – and it relies on states adhering to its judgements, it doesn’t have a police force,” said Harj Narulla, a climate barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, which also represented the Solomon Islands.

When asked about the decision, a White House spokesperson told BBC News:

“As always, President Trump and the entire Administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans.”

Click on the link below to join our WhatsApp Channel. https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaL4J8rIt5rxOV1Ckl2B

TIPS