The President of Ghana, John Dramani Mahama, has suspended the Chief Justice of Ghana, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, from office.

Her removal, according to a statement signed by Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the Minister in Charge of Government Communication, is by Article 146(6) of the Constitution and in consultation with the Council of State, which determined that a prima facie case has been established in respect of three petitions against Her Ladyship.

The statement issued on Tuesday, April 22 said, “Pursuant to Article 146(10) of the constitution and in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, the President has by a warrant, suspended the Chief Justice with immediate effect pending the outcome of the committee’s proceedings.”

The statement added that, “The President has consequently established a committee in compliance with Article 146(6) of the Constitution and in consultation with the Council of State, with the following composition to inquire into the petitions which have been referred to them.

1. Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, Justice of the Supreme Court  – Chairman
2. Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, Justice of the Supreme Court – Member
3. Daniel Yaw Domelevo (Former Auditor-General) –  Member
4. Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo (Ghana Armed Forces) – Member
5. Professor James Sefah Dzisah (Associate Professor, University of Ghana) – Member.”

Specific information regarding the allegations that the five-member inquiry committee will examine has not been disclosed.

Mahama, who assumed office in January, has vowed to combat corruption in the West African country.

Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Pwamang chairs the investigation committee, which also includes former auditor-general Daniel Domelevo.

At 61 years old, Torkornoo was appointed in June 2023, making her Ghana’s 15th Chief Justice and the third woman to hold this position.

While previous judicial leaders have departed due to retirement or political changes, her suspension marks the first instance of a sitting chief justice being subjected to a formal investigation through a constitutional process.

Press Release by OTU OKA-IWU ABUJA

The South-East faces unprecedented security challenges, including rising kidnappings, violent attacks on communities and armed invasions by unknown gunmen and armed Fulani herdsmen leading to killings, rapes, and destruction of farmland. Despite these threats, the recent revelation by the Nigerian Army of low recruitment interest from the Southeast, where only about 5% of citizens from the region applied for enlistment compared to other zones is both alarming and unsurprising.

Otu Oka-Iwu Abuja commends the Nigerian Army for acknowledging this deficit and initiating efforts to address the issue, but assert that these measures are insufficient to tackle the deeper, systemic issues of decades long social exclusion of Southeast in Nigeria’s military and paramilitary services. The reluctance of Southeast youths to enlist in the army is rooted in historical and systemic factors. Distrust towards the Nigerian Army, stemming from historical tensions dating back to the Nigerian Civil War, has made military service less appealing to Igbo youths. More significantly, widespread complaints of lopsided promotions, unfavourable transfers, placements, and other discriminatory practices within the military serve as major deterrents. Also, when political or hierarchical structures are weaponized to favour certain individuals over merit, the system becomes unappealing to those who value fairness and equity.

Furthermore, there is the disruptions caused by the militarization of the Southeast. The prevalence of military checkpoints and the frequent violation of citizens’ rights by military officers in the region do little to inspire confidence or interest in joining the Nigerian Army. The soldiers stationed in the Southeast are the first point of contact for the youths, and their actions such as mass raids, destruction of property, and extrajudicial killings in response to attacks, have severely tarnished the image of the Nigerian Army in the zone.

The Southeast has been underrepresented in military and paramilitary organizations, limiting its influence in national security policymaking and its ability to shape recruitment processes as other zones do and this low participation reduces its ability to advocate for regional security improvements, making it vulnerable. These challenges, though longstanding, has only recently gained public attention with the recent appointment of Sylvester N. Nwakuche, MFR, MNI, as Comptroller General of the Nigerian Correctional Service, surprising many observers, given the common practice of appointing Southeast candidates to acting capacities only to retire them prematurely in favour of preferred individuals. The military and other paramilitary organizations must emulate this gesture and take proactive measures that will address decades of institutionalized exclusionary practices against interested persons from the Southeast and other vulnerable ethics.

Efforts must be deliberate and targeted and complimented by the Southeast Governors who must take deliberate steps to support the efforts of the Nigerian Army and to reach out to other services for similar engagements. Unfortunately, security summits in the Southeast have been sporadic and failing to establish long term security plans. The last major summit was in Owerri, Imo State, in April 2021. Since then, no substantial policy shifts have emerged to counter worsening insecurity. The Southeast Governors must prioritize security summits, ensuring consistent policy discussions and implementations rather than one-time meetings with no follow-ups.

In the past, it has been common for the Southeast Governors to provide vehicles and other basic equipment to security agencies as a means of supporting law enforcement efforts. While this gesture may have been effective in addressing traditional security challenges, it is increasingly outdated and insufficient in the face of modern crime techniques and the evolving nature of security threats. The era of simply donating vehicles and equipment to security agencies must give way to a comprehensive, technology driven approach to security. The Southeast Governors must recognize that modern threats require modern solutions, and investments must reflect the realities of today’s security landscape and must therefore, take it upon themselves to host security summits consistently, ensuring proactive policy implementation as well as fund local security outfits like “Ebube Agu” which was established to tackle rising insecurity. However, its poor implementation and operational challenges have rendered it largely ineffective, unlike its Southwest counterpart, “Amotekun”, which has achieved significant success in crime prevention and regional security.

The cliche, “security is everybody’s business” has being demonstrated in the Northeast, where some Borno and Yobe communities have successfully repelled Boko Haram attacks, using local resistance forces and structured security networks in conjunction with security agencies. However, similar groups in the Southeast are often labelled and silenced, leaving their communities vulnerable, this must stop. Otu Oka-Iwu Abuja strongly advocates that adopting the Northeast approach will aligns with the recommendations that communities should not fully rely on the government for security and the approach could provide security agencies with opportunities to identify individuals for recruitment into the services.

Nigeria, particularly the Southeast, stands at a critical security juncture and with increasing attacks, the region must not remain passive. The need for a unified and consolidated front against insecurity cannot be overstated. With increasing attacks disrupting the zone’s socioeconomic activities, the Nigerian Army’s efforts must be complemented by broader elimination of social exclusion practices in military and paramilitary organizations against Southeast. Military enlistment must be encouraged by all stakeholders, local defence initiatives must be strengthened, and the Southeast Governors must take decisive action to secure communities.

Indeed, this is not just about military service; it is about survival. If proactive steps are not taken today, the South East could face deeper security challenges and greater threats in the years ahead.

Chidiebere Nwabueze Udekwe ESQ
PRESIDENT
OTU OKA-IWU ABUJA

By John Ogunsemore

The presidency’s planned N10 billion expenditure on solar power installation at the State House, Abuja, has elicited scathing criticism from Nigerians on social media.

Daily Sun reports that N10 billion was allocated in the 2025 Appropriation Act for installing a solar mini-grid at the Presidential Villa, following increased energy bills and unreliable electricity supply from the national grid.

Listed as “Solarisation of the Villa with Solar Mini Grid”, the new capital item caused an increase in overall budgetary allocation to the State House Headquarters from N47.11bn in the initially proposed 2025 budget to N57.11bn in the approved version.

The project is expected to reduce dependence on the national grid and cut energy costs for the State House, especially considering that the Abuja Electricity Distribution Company (AEDC) listed the Presidential Villa among top government debtors, with an outstanding bill of N923.87 million in February 2024.

However, many Nigerians on the X social media platform have berated the presidency for spending billions on solar energy solutions while the citizenry grapple with increased energy costs and epileptic power supply from the national grid.

Spokesperson of the Labour Party (LP) in Lagos State, Ife Salako said, “FG don go buy solar. Na mumu dey wait for national grid.”

Medical doctor, Dr. Olawale Ogunlana said, “The leaders who promised us constant electricity and to restore our national grid are currently installing solar panels. Nigeria is such a wonderful place.”

@DuruchibuzorE wrote, “This N10 billion ‘solar mini-grid’ project at the Presidential Villa is not innovation; it’s a white elephant designed to drain public coffers with a solar smile.

“How do you justify spending ₦10 billion on powering one building when the national grid is in cardiac arrest?”

Writer, David Onyemaizu wrote, “This current administration knows exactly what they are doing. They took themselves off the failed National Grid & are set to install solar power that would gulp 10 billion naira. 

“Nothing concern them with band A or Z. Comfort for the government, misery for the masses.”

@CuteNaija wrote, “I never thought I would see a Nigerian president giving up on power totally, cut away from the national grid, and install solar panels worth billions in his government house.

“You always think you have seen the worst example of bad governance, but they always up the ante!”

The Sun

The Vatican has announced that the funeral of Pope Francis will take place on Saturday morning.

Officials confirmed the service would be held in St Peter’s Square and begin at 9 am UK time (10 am local time).

It comes after the 88-year-old died on Monday morning, with officials later saying he had suffered a stroke and heart failure.

Following the funeral, a conclave to choose a new pope will begin on 5 May.

The liturgy for the funeral will be presided over by the dean of the college of cardinals, the Most Reverend Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re.

Following the service, “the coffin of the Roman Pontiff will then be taken to St Peter’s Basilica and from there to the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore for burial,” a Vatican spokesperson said.

Earlier on Tuesday, the first images of the Pope lying in state were released, showing the late pontiff in his casket with the Vatican secretary of state praying over him.

The coffin is currently in the chapel of the Santa Marta residence, where he lived during his 12-year papacy.

A Vatican employee told Sky News she saw the Pope’s coffin on Tuesday morning.

She described the atmosphere as “so sadly impressive”, with some of the pontiff’s closest aides around his body in tears.

The Pope’s body will be taken into the adjacent St Peter’s Basilica on Wednesday at 8 am UK time, allowing people to pay their respects in the lead-up to the funeral.

Sky News

[Download the Court Process]

By Michelle Watson, Brad Lendon, Matt Egan and Jeff Winter, CNN

Harvard University sued the Trump administration Monday in a new escalation of the fight over institutional oversight, independence and federal funding for the Ivy League school.

University President Alan M. Garber said in a letter to the Harvard community that the administration’s recent actions — including a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze at Harvard, with even more money potentially on the line — “have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world.”

The Trump administration is demanding Harvard give it access to all university reports on antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias on campus generated since October 2023, as it ramps up a confrontation with the school that risks billions in federal money amid a broader push to bring elite US colleges in line with its political ideology.

“The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families is coming to an end,” White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said in a statement Monday evening. “Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.”

Harvard emerged as the first elite US university to publicly rebuke the White House’s demands, which Trump officials have said aim to combat antisemitism following contentious campus protests in response to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

“Under whatever name, the Government has ceased the flow of funds to Harvard as part of its pressure campaign to force Harvard to submit to the Government’s control over its academic programs. That, in itself, violates Harvard’s constitutional rights,” Harvard wrote in the lawsuit.

“The Government has not – and cannot – identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” the suit, filed Monday, said.

Garber, who is Jewish, said in his letter he knows there are valid concerns to the rise of antisemitism and that the university has task force groups designated to help “address intolerance” in our community.

“Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,” the school’s lawsuit says. “But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and Title VI compliance.”

The university said it’s not looking for money.

“Instead, it seeks an order declaring unlawful and setting aside sweeping agency action taken in violation of Harvard’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment and its rights guaranteed by statute and regulation,” the suit said.

The Trump administration has said it would freeze more than $2.2 billion in grants and contracts after the Ivy League school refused to submit to demands, including that it eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs; ban masks at campus protests; enact merit-based hiring and admissions reforms; and reduce the power of faculty and administrators the White House has said are “more committed to activism than scholarship.”

The university must turn over all reports generated by school task forces on combating antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias on campus, including drafts never released to the public, a letter Saturday from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights to Harvard leadership says.

The letter, published by The Free Press, also requests the names of anyone involved in preparing the reports and says they should be made available for interviews by federal officials.

The letter is among the latest twists in the Trump administration’s growing fight with Harvard. It comes as some Jewish organizations and students at Harvard say the White House’s recent threats – from pulling research funding to ending its eligibility to host international students – are not making them safer or more welcome but instead, as some wrote, “pawns in a broader political agenda.”

Another $1 billion in federal health research contracts to Harvard could also be withheld, The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend, as the Internal Revenue Service is making plans to rescind the tax-exempt status of the university and the administration has threatened Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students.

Other universities, including Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern, also have seen federal funding paused amid similar demands.WSJ: Another $1B in jeopardy for Harvard

The threat of rescinding a further $1 billion in federal money follows the White House’s fury after Harvard made public an April 11 letter from the federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, demanding it allow federal government oversight of admissions, hiring and the ideology of students and staff – on top of other demands laid out in a prior letter – people familiar with Harvard’s response said, the Journal reported Sunday.

CNN has reached out to Harvard and the White House for comment on the Journal’s report.

Harvard strongly rejected the Trump administration’s demands in the April 11 letter, with Garber, the school’s president, saying in an April 14 letter to the academic community the “University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”

The demands go beyond the power of the federal government, and the majority “represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard,” rather than combating antisemitism, the university president has said.

Anticipating rocky relations with the incoming administration, Harvard in January hired high-powered lobbying firm Ballard Partners, and a source confirmed to CNN the relationship is ongoing. Ballard has deep ties to Trump and previously employed White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The latest back-and-forth between the US government and America’s oldest university marks a sea change in how the Trump administration intended to engage with Harvard, according to the Journal.

Before the April 11 letter’s release, “the administration was planning to treat Harvard more leniently than Columbia University, but now officials want to apply even more pressure to the nation’s most prominent university, according to the people,” the newspaper reports. “People familiar with Harvard’s response say there was no agreement to keep the letter private, and that its contents – including requirements that Harvard allow federal government oversight of admissions, hiring and the ideology of students and staff – were a nonstarter.”

Columbia University, on the heels of President Donald Trump’s revocation of $400 million in federal funding over campus protests, last month made policy changes in a dispute over federal funding, including restrictions on demonstrations, new disciplinary procedures and immediately reviewing its Middle East curriculum.

Although it has prompted a furious response from the university, the letter sent to Harvard April 11 may not have been meant to be sent at that time, The New York Times reported Friday. It was believed inside the administration the letter first would be circulated to members of the task force, the Times reported, citing two unnamed people familiar with the matter.

A White House official confirmed its authenticity Saturday, telling CNN the White House “stands by the letter.” Garber said the demands go beyond the power of the federal government, and the majority “represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard” rather than combating antisemitism.

Feds’ possible overreach concerns ADL chief

The Anti-Defamation League’s CEO and national director also has expressed concern the Trump administration may be overreaching in the Harvard case, looking to punish the university outside of the antisemitism debate that has simmered since last spring’s protests, which sparked rampant fear among Jewish students and staff on many US campuses.

“The issue of combating antisemitism on campus should be addressed on its own process and merits. Other debates on higher education may be important, but they can and should be resolved separate from fighting antisemitism on campus,” Jonathan Greenblatt wrote Friday in an article published in the Times of Israel.

Similarly, Harvard’s chapter of Hillel, a global advocacy organization for Jewish college students, wrote last week on social media: “(D)espite positive elements of the government’s recent demands (such as streamlining disciplinary processes), the current, escalating federal assault against Harvard – shuttering apolitical, life-saving research; targeting the university’s tax-exempt status; and threatening all student visas, including those of Israeli students who are proud veterans of the Israel Defense Forces and forceful advocates for Israel on campus – is neither focused nor measured, and stands to substantially harm the very Jewish students and scholars it purports to protect.”

An open letter signed by more than 100 Jewish students at Harvard says tying government academic demands to complaints of antisemitism makes them “pawns in a broader political agenda.”

“We have a variety of views on what actions constitute antisemitism and how to address it,” reads the letter shared with CNN. “But we overwhelmingly oppose these drastic funding cuts to our university.”

Some Harvard critics unite against threats

The effort by Harvard leadership to publicly fight back against the administration may draw Trump’s ire, but it is uniting stakeholders on campus, an employee told CNN.

“Garber’s (April 14) letter sent a jolt of energy through the campus,” said the employee, who declined to be named because they are not authorized to speak publicly for the university. “The Trump administration’s demands were so far beyond the pale. Nothing has united Harvard’s deeply fractured campus more.”

Some prominent Harvard alumni are also hailing the university’s defiance in the face of government pressure.

The White House threats “will backfire as even those most critical of the university pull together against dictatorial overreach and as the political motivations behind the prosecution becomes apparent,” Larry Summers, a former Harvard president and PhD recipient who was a top economic official in the Clinton and Obama administrations, said in a post to X.

Summers has been very critical in the past of how Harvard leaders have handled antisemitism on campus but is now defending the institution’s response to the government’s demands.

“An enemies list did not work out for President Nixon. It won’t for President Trump,” Summers wrote.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a graduate of Harvard and a Democrat, said Trump’s push to revoke Harvard’s not-for-profit status is “outrageous,” she told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “It’s part of this continued playbook that Donald Trump has been using, which is to silence critics.”

“First he went after the law firms, then he went after companies, then he went after everyday Americans. Now he’s going after colleges and universities, using any and all tactics to try to shut them down, to silence them,” Healey said.

Click here to download the process.

CNN’s Jeff Zeleny, Kara Scannell, Piper Hudspeth Blackburn, Betsy Klein, Andy Rose, Nicki Brown and Liz Enochs contributed to this report.