Rights

Former prosecutor at the International Criminal Court Geoffrey Nice says that the US-Israel war on Iran was not based on imminent threat and warns that holding powerful states accountable is ‘unrealistic.’

Under the guise of preserving secularism, this law allows the exclusion of people based on their religious identity.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of Canada will begin a four-day hearing for one of the most consequential constitutional cases in the country’s recent history. At issue is Quebec’s so-called “secularism law”, known as Bill 21 – a law enacted in 2019 that prohibits certain public sector workers from wearing visible religious symbols at work.

It bars many public sector employees, including teachers, prosecutors, police officers, and judges, from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs, turbans, kippahs, and other visible expressions of faith while at work.

There is much at stake in this case that raises fundamental questions about religious freedom, equality, and the limits of state power in a constitutional democracy. In addition, another significant issue is that to get the bill passed, Quebec’s government had used the “notwithstanding clause”, a unique provision in Canadian law that allows it to override fundamental rights and freedoms. No other constitutional democracy in the world has a similar blanket override of fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Quebec government claims that the law is necessary to preserve the religious neutrality of the state. Yet Bill 21 does the opposite: by forcing some individuals to choose between their profession and their religious identity, the Quebec government is not remaining neutral – it is effectively excluding people of faith from public sector employment.

The use of this extraordinary, and until recently rarely used, constitutional mechanism has turned the spotlight on Bill 21 beyond the borders of Quebec and the debate over secularism and religious freedoms. It has become a test of how far a democratic government can go in limiting fundamental rights and freedoms.

Evidence before the courts shows that Bill 21 affects religious people of many faiths, including Jewish men who wear kippahs and Sikh men and women who wear turbans; but its impact falls particularly heavily on Muslim women who wear the hijab. For many Muslim women who wear headscarves, teaching and other public service careers have effectively been closed off.

The message of exclusion that this law sends to young people is especially troubling. Generations of young people in Quebec are being told that their full participation in public life requires abandoning visible aspects of their identity.

This is why the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association launched the constitutional challenge against Bill 21. The Supreme Court of Canada must consider the implications, and possible limitations, of allowing governments to sidestep rights protections through pre-emptive use of constitutional override powers. The court’s decision will help determine whether constitutional rights in Canada remain meaningful constraints on government power, or whether they can be suspended whenever politically convenient.

These questions extend far beyond Canada. Across Europe and elsewhere, debates about secularism have increasingly centred on restrictions targeting religious expression, often impacting Muslim women in particular.

Canada often prides itself on being a model of multicultural democracy, one that accommodates diversity. Bill 21 challenges that reputation by testing whether neutrality can coexist with policies that effectively exclude people of visible faith from public service.

True secularism does not demand the erasure of religious identity. A neutral state does not require citizens to shed visible expressions of belief in order to participate fully in public life.

The Supreme Court of Canada now has the opportunity to reaffirm these principles and clarify that constitutional rights cannot be easily set aside. At a time when countries around the world are grappling with questions of belonging, pluralism, and the rights of minorities, the Canadian court’s ruling will send an important signal about whether liberal democracies are willing to uphold their commitments to freedom and equality.

We say this is not an abstract idea, but an imperative to demonstrate that commitments to freedom and equality are more than mere words.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department filed a new lawsuit Friday against Harvard University, saying its leadership failed to address antisemitism on campus, creating grounds for the government to freeze existing grants and seek repayment for grants already paid.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, is another salvo in a protracted battle between the administration of President Trump and the elite university.

“The United States cannot and will not tolerate these failures,” the Justice Department wrote in the lawsuit. It asked the court to compel Harvard to comply with federal civil rights law and to help it “recover billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies awarded to a discriminatory institution.”

The lawsuit also asks a judge to require that Harvard call police to arrest protesters blocking parts of campus and to appoint an “independent outside monitor,” approved by the government, to ensure it complies with court orders.

Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit comes after negotiations appear to have bogged down in the months-long battle with the Trump administration that has tested the boundaries of the government’s authority over America’s universities. What began as an investigation into campus antisemitism escalated into an all-out feud as the Trump administration slashed more than $2.6 billion in research funding, ended federal contracts and attempted to block Harvard from hosting international students.

In a pair of lawsuits filed by the university, Harvard has said it’s being unfairly penalized for refusing to adopt the administration’s views. A federal judge agreed in December, reversing the funding cuts and calling the antisemitism argument a “smokescreen.”

Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, a major association of colleges and universities, accused the administration of launching a “full scale, multi-pronged” attack on Harvard. Friday’s lawsuit, he said, is just the latest attempt to pressure Harvard to agree to changes favored by the administration.

“When bullies pound on the table and don’t get they want, they pound again,” Mitchell said.

The Trump administration began investigating allegations of discrimination against Harvard’s Jewish and Israeli students less than two weeks after the president took office. The allegations focus on Harvard’s actions during and after pro-Palestinian demonstrations during the Israel-Hamas war.

Officials concluded Harvard did not adequately address concerns raised about antisemitism that drove some students to conceal their religious skullcaps and avoid classes. During protests of the war, Trump officials said, Harvard permitted students to demonstrate against Israel’s actions in the school library and allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to remain on campus for 20 days, “in violation of university policy.”

In its lawsuit Friday, the Justice Department also accused Harvard of failing to discipline staff or students who protested or tacitly endorsed the demonstrations, such as by canceling or dismissing classes that conflicted with protests.

“Harvard University has failed to protect its Jewish students from harassment and has allowed discrimination to wreak havoc on its campus,” White House press secretary Liz Huston said Friday on X. “President Trump is committed to ensuring every student can pursue their academic goals in a safe environment.”

Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and the two sides have reportedly been close to reaching an agreement on multiple occasions. Last year, the administration and the university were reportedly approaching a deal that would have required Harvard to pay $500 million to regain access to federal funding and to end the investigations. Almost a year later, Trump upped that figure to $1 billion, saying that Harvard has been “behaving very badly.”

At the same time, the administration was taking steps in a civil rights investigation that had the potential to jeopardize all of Harvard’s federal funding.

In June, the Trump administration made a formal finding that Harvard tolerated antisemitism.

In a letter sent to Harvard, a federal task force said its investigation had found the university was a “willful participant” in antisemitic harassment of Jewish students and faculty. The task force threatened to refer the case to the Justice Department to file a civil rights lawsuit “as soon as possible,” unless Harvard came into compliance.

When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements. When the government determines a resolution can’t be negotiated, it can try to sever federal funding through an administrative process or, as the Trump administration has done, by referring the case to the Justice Department through litigation.

Such an impasse has been extraordinarily rare in recent decades.

Last summer, Harvard responded that it strongly disagreed with the government’s investigative finding and was committed to fighting bias.

“Antisemitism is a serious problem and no matter the context, it is unacceptable,” the university said in a statement. “Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism in its community.”

In a letter last spring, Harvard President Alan M. Garber told government officials that the school had formed a task force to combat antisemitism, which released a detailed report of what unfolded on campus after Hamas militants stormed Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing around 1,200 people and abducting 251 others. Israel retaliated with an offensive that killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and displaced around 90% of Gaza’s population — prompting pro-Palestinian demonstrations at colleges around the country.

After the demonstrations at Harvard, Garber said the university had hired a new provost and new deans and that it had reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective.”

Since he took office, Trump has targeted elite universities he believes are overrun by left-wing ideology and antisemitism. His administration has frozen billions of dollars in research grants, which colleges have come to rely on for scientific and medical research.

Several universities have reached agreements with the White House to restore funding. Some deals have included direct payments to the government, including $200 million from Columbia University. Brown University agreed to pay $50 million toward state workforce development groups.

Balingit and Casey write for the Associated Press.

The football federation of Morocco says it welcomes the CAF Appeal Board decision to award it the 2025 AFCON title.

The Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) has commended the decision to award its country the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) title, which was stripped from Senegal.

The FRMF “welcomes the decision, which reaffirms the primacy of competition regulations and reinforces the conditions necessary for the proper conduct of international tournaments”, the federation said in a statement on Thursday.

The Confederation of African Football (CAF) had announced on Tuesday that its Appeal Board had awarded the tournament to Morocco, the defeated finalists, on January 18.

The final, which Senegal won 1-0 in extra time, was delayed for 14 minutes when the Senegalese players and staff returned to the dressing room in protest against the awarding of an injury-time penalty to Morocco in the second half.

When play eventually resumed, Moroccan striker Brahim Diaz missed the kick with Senegal going on to win the game thanks to Pape Gueye’s stunning strike.

“From the outset, following the incidents that led to the interruption of the match, the FRMF maintained a clear and consistent position: the strict application of the governing regulations. The Federation’s approach was solely guided by this principle,” the FRMF statement read.

“Following its appeal, CAF has now confirmed that the applicable regulations were not properly enforced.”

Morocco appealed to CAF to overturn the result immediately after the final, which descended into chaos during and after the protest, and led to a pitch invasion, which resulted in 18 Senegalese fans being handed prison sentences.

The initial appeal was rejected, and the Appeal Board decision came exactly two months after the final was completed.

“Throughout the process, the FRMF acted in full compliance with all relevant legal and procedural frameworks, with a constant focus on upholding its rights and preserving the integrity of the competition,” it said in the statement.

“This decision provides clarity on the applicable framework and strengthens the consistency and credibility of international competitions, particularly within African football.”

The Senegal Football Federation (FSF) immediately responded to CAF’s ruling by saying it would take its own appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Such a process could take as long as a year to reach a final decision.

Senegal’s government on Wednesday went on to allege corruption following the decision and called for an independent international investigation into the matter.

The Dodgers agreed to a deal granting Uniqlo naming rights to the field at Dodger Stadium, according to the Athletic — marking the first time in the 64-year history of the stadium that a corporate sponsorship has been attached to it.

Dodger Stadium’s name remains unchanged. The organization made it a priority to keep the name of the ballpark, which has been in place since its opening in 1962.

“[The stadium’s name] will never be for sale,” Dodgers president Stan Kasten told The Times in 2017.

Though not officially announced by the Dodgers, the name likely will be Uniqlo Field at Dodger Stadium.

With more than 1,000 stores worldwide, the Japanese-based clothing brand will hold exclusive marketing and promotional opportunities as the Dodgers’ main sponsor. The new deal will also include a new sign in center field.

Since signing Japanese two-way star Shohei Ohtani, the team has partnered with several different Japanese companies, earning $70 million in sponsorship revenue in 2024 alone, according to Forbes.

Bob Lynch, chief executive of research firm SponsorUnited, estimated that teams hosting the Dodgers generated roughly $15 million in cumulative revenue from the brands that have attached themselves to the team.

“ … A slew of brands essentially following him around across the country that are paying dollars either directly to the team or to Van Wagner, who’s selling the backstop signage,” Lynch told Forbes in 2025.

In 2022, the Dodgers partnered with global sports marketing agency Sportfive to secure premier sponsorships. Two years later, the organization announced a self-sponsorship with its ownership group, Guggenheim Baseball Management, which placed a patch on the team’s jerseys.

A United Nations fact-finding mission has concluded that “there are no indicators of structural reforms or change” to improve the human rights situation in Venezuela, despite the removal of its leader in January.

On Thursday, a member of the fact-finding mission, Maria Eloisa Quintero, delivered remarks (PDF) to the UN Human Rights Council questioning whether Venezuela’s leadership would face accountability for its record of human rights abuses.

She also pointed to ongoing abuses under the government of interim President Delcy Rodriguez, who was sworn into office on January 5.

“Civic and democratic space remains severely restricted. Civil society organizations, the few remaining independent media outlets, and political actors continue to face attacks, harassment or intimidation,” Quintero wrote in her statement.

“The prospects for full guarantees necessary for free and democratic elections remain remote.”

All told, the fact-finding mission found that at least 87 people have been detained since January.

Fourteen of them were journalists who were temporarily taken into custody while covering Rodriguez’s inauguration, and another 27 were reportedly arrested for celebrating the fall of Rodriguez’s predecessor, Nicolas Maduro.

The fact-finding mission revealed that at least 15 of the recent arrests involved children.

A violation of international law

Its report was one of the first international assessments of human rights under Rodriguez’s nascent presidency.

She took office after the United States launched a military operation in the early morning hours of January 3 to abduct Venezuela’s then-President Maduro. Previously, Rodriguez had served as Maduro’s vice president.

Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores currently remain imprisoned in New York, where they face charges of drug trafficking and weapons possession.

The US has backed Rodriguez’s ascent to the presidency. Both her government and that of US President Donald Trump have said there is no immediate plan to hold a new election in Venezuela, citing the need for stability.

Quintero emphasised that it was the view of the fact-finding mission that the US operation “violated international law”, echoing the legal consensus.

“While the Mission has reasonable grounds to believe that Nicolas Maduro is responsible for crimes against humanity committed against the civilian population, this does not justify an unlawful military intervention,” Quintero wrote.

Her remarks also pointed out that, while Maduro may be gone, the rest of his government remains.

That government has faced repeated accusations that it perpetrated violence against members of Venezuela’s political opposition and others deemed critical of the country’s socialist leadership.

“The legal instruments that have long served as a basis for political persecution remain fully in force,” Quintero said.

“State institutions that played a key role in the repression — and which have been identified in previous Mission reports — have not been reviewed or reformed.”

Human rights groups have collected thousands of reports of arbitrary detention, as well as torture and extrajudicial killings, under Maduro, who served as president from 2013 until January.

Members of Venezuela’s opposition have also called for the removal of the existing government, which they say fraudulently claimed victory in the 2024 presidential race, despite vote tallies indicating otherwise.

Limits to ‘positive’ steps

At first, Quintero said the fact-finding mission found that developments under Rodriguez “initially appeared encouraging”.

She pointed to “positive” steps like the release of political prisoners and passage of an amnesty law that would lift criminal penalties for dissidents facing certain criminal charges.

But the benefits of those steps, she said, were mitigated by irregularities. The amnesty law was narrow in scope — only addressing certain accusations, made within a specific time range — and the bill never received a full, public reading.

Meanwhile, the government has claimed to release more political prisoners than has actually been verified by local human rights groups.

Quintero added that the fact-finding mission also found that 30 officials from Venezuela’s Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigations Corps (CICPC) — part of the national police agency — were detained for failing to produce false evidence about the US’s attack on January 3.

Their family members, she indicated, also faced government retaliation. The fact-finding mission called for more changes to be made to address the continued human rights abuses.

“A far deeper and more enduring transformation is required so that the population can trust that the long years of repression and violence have truly come to an end,” Quintero wrote.

Instead, she warned that the existing “machinery” of repression is simply “mutating” to adapt to the new reality in Venezuela, post-Maduro.

Human Rights Watch says drone strikes by Haitian forces kill more than 1,200 people in and near Port-au-Prince since 2025.

Drone strikes operated by Haitian security forces and private contractors have killed at least 1,243 people and injured 738 in Haiti, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports.

Since March last year, Haitian security forces with support from Vectus Global, a United States-licensed private military firm, have carried out antigang operations using quadcopter drones strapped with explosives, often in densely populated parts of the ⁠capital, Port-au-Prince.

The report found strikes from March 1, 2025, to January 21 in West Department, where Port-au-Prince is located, have killed 17 children and 43 adults not believed to be members of any criminal groups.

“Haitian authorities should urgently rein in the security forces and private contractors working for them before more children die,” Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at HRW, said in a statement.

The nonprofit said the number of drone attacks in Port-au-Prince, which is 90 percent controlled by gangs, has “significantly increased” in recent months, with 57 reported from November to late January, almost double that of the 29 attacks reported from August through October

HRW said its researchers analysed seven videos uploaded to social media or shared directly with the group that show quadcopter drones in action and geolocated four of them to Port-au-Prince.

“The videos show the repeated use of drones equipped with explosives to attack vehicles and people, some of them armed, but none who appear to be engaged in violent acts or pose any imminent threat to life,” the group said.

‘There are innocent people’

HRW said it did not find widespread drone use among criminal groups.

One of the attacks highlighted in the report occurred on September 20 in the Simon Pele neighbourhood, an impoverished community controlled by a gang of the same name.

The drone attack killed nine people, including three children, and injured at least eight as the leader of the Simon Pele gang prepared to distribute gifts to children in the area.

HRW quoted one unnamed resident as recalling how the explosion ripped both feet off a baby.

Among those killed was a six-year-old girl whose unidentified mother was quoted as saying: “In the spaces where the gangs are, there are innocent people, people who raise their children, who follow normal paths.”

The families of those killed said the criminal group organised and controlled access to their funerals, according to Human Rights Watch.

Last month, the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti said it had no ‌indications ‌the deaths and injuries were being investigated.

HRW said there was no evidence drones were being used widely by gangs. The UN’s high commissioner for human rights said in October that the drone strikes were disproportionate and likely unlawful.

Marches on 115th anniversary of IWD place focus on issues like US-Israeli war on Iran and Donald Trump’s links with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets around the world to mark International Women’s Day, taking a stand on a number of issues including the US-Israeli war on Iran and gender-based violence.

In Spain, where the government drew the ire of the United States for refusing to allow it to use Spain’s military bases for strikes against Iran, thousands of women took to the streets of major cities to call for an end to the war.

“It is within our power to stop the war, to stop the barbarity, and to win rights,” said Yolanda Diaz, Spain’s second deputy prime minister. “We proclaim ourselves in defence of peace, in defence of the Iranian people, in defence of Iranian women.”

On the first day of the joint US-Israeli war on Iran, strikes on a primary school in the city of Minab killed 165 girls, most between the ages of seven and 12, during class hours – the deadliest single attack on civilians so far.

In France, where more than 150 demonstrations were held, 73-year-old rape survivor Gisele Pelicot led a march calling for an end to sexual violence, telling a crowd in Paris, “We won’t give up”.

Pelicot became a global symbol in the fight against sexual violence after she waived her right to anonymity during the 2024 trial of her ex-husband and dozens of strangers who raped her while she was unconscious.

Across the Atlantic, activists gathered at Zorro Ranch in the US town of Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is alleged to have sexually abused and trafficked underage girls and young women.

“The years-long cover-up and protection of Jeffrey Epstein’s allies and co-conspirators exposed a culture of impunity that tells survivors their pain is negotiable when powerful men are involved,” said Rachel O’Leary Carmona, executive director of Women’s March.

In New York, protesters gathered outside Trump Tower for a “Believe Survivors” demonstration after this week’s publication of FBI documents by the US Justice Department describing interviews with a woman who alleged President Donald Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a minor.

In Puyo, an Amazonian town in Ecuador, members of various Indigenous groups gathered to raise their voices about the degradation of the environment, and oil and gas expansion. “We want to live in a healthy environment and in harmony with the forest, so we are asking for respect and that public policies for nature are put in place,” said Ruth Penafiel, 59, from the Kichwa community in the northern Amazon.

In Brazil, Sunday’s marches channeled outrage over the alleged gang rape of a 17-year-old girl in Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana neighbourhood in January. The case gained national attention this week when four suspects handed themselves over to authorities.

In Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, police briefly detained several women’s rights activists attempting to hold a rally in defiance of a government ban on public gatherings imposed amid a surge in militant violence in the country. Aurat March, a network of women’s rights activists, condemned the crackdown, saying participants had been peacefully exercising their right to protest.

Women’s rights activists shouted slogans during a protest in Istanbul, Turkiye. In China and Russia, vendors sold flowers wrapped in pink. And in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, local workers lifted fists and umbrellas as they celebrated.

International Women’s Day, officially recognised by the United Nations in 1977, marks its 115th anniversary this year.

SELMA, Ala. — Sixty-one years after state troopers attacked civil rights marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, thousands gathered in the Alabama city this weekend amid new concerns about the future of the Voting Rights Act.

The March 7, 1965, violence that became known as “Bloody Sunday” shocked the nation and helped spur passage of the landmark legislation that dismantled barriers to voting for Black Americans in the Jim Crow South.

But this year’s anniversary celebrations — events ran all weekend, including a commemorative march across the bridge Sunday — come as the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case that could limit a provision of the Voting Rights Act that has helped ensure some congressional and local districts are drawn so minority voters have a chance to elect their candidate of choice.

“I’m concerned that all of the advances that we made for the last 61 years are going to be eradicated,” said Charles Mauldin, 78, one of the marchers who was beaten that day alongside civil rights icon John Lewis and others.

Justices are expected to rule soon on a Louisiana case regarding the role of race in drawing congressional districts. A ruling prohibiting or limiting that role could have sweeping consequences, potentially opening the door for Republican-controlled states to redistrict and roll back majority Black and Latino districts that tend to favor Democrats.

Democratic officeholders, civil rights leaders and others have descended on the Southern city to pay homage to the pivotal moment of the civil rights movement and to issue calls to action. Like the marchers 61 years ago, they must keep pressing forward, organizers said.

Former Alabama state Sen. Hank Sanders, who helped start the annual commemoration, said the 1965 events in Selma marked a turning point in the nation and helped push the United States closer to becoming a true democracy.

“The feeling is a profound fear that we will be taken back — a greater fear than at any time since 1965,” Sanders said.

U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures won election in 2024 to an Alabama district that was redrawn by the federal court. He said what happened in Selma and the subsequent passage of the Voting Rights Act were “monumental in shaping what America looks like and how America is represented in Congress.”

“I think coming to Selma is a refreshing reminder every single year that the progress that we got from the civil rights movement is not perpetual. It’s been under consistent attacks almost since we’ve gotten those rights,” said Figures, a Democrat.

In 1965, the Bloody Sunday marchers led by Lewis and Hosea Williams walked in pairs across the Selma bridge headed toward Montgomery. Mauldin, then 17, was part of the third pair behind Williams and Lewis.

At the apex of the bridge, they could see a sea of law enforcement officers, some on horseback, waiting for them. But they kept going. “Being fearful was not an option. And it wasn’t that we didn’t have fear, it’s that we chose courage over fear,” Mauldin recalled in a telephone interview.

“We were all hit. We were trampled. We were tear-gassed. And we were brutalized by the state of Alabama,” Mauldin said.

The killing of prominent Iraqi women’s rights activist Yanar Mohammed has fuelled an outpouring of grief and calls for justice, with advocates from around the world remembering Mohammed as a “courageous” voice.

Mohammed, 66, was killed earlier this week after unidentified gunmen on a motorcycle opened fire outside her home in the north of Iraq’s capital, Baghdad.

“Despite being rushed to the hospital and attempts to save her life, she succumbed to her wounds,” the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, a group that Mohammed co-founded, said in a statement shared on social media.

“We at the Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq condemn in the strongest terms this cowardly terrorist crime, which we consider a direct attack on the feminist struggle and the values of freedom and equality.”

Several international rights groups also condemned Mohammed’s killing, with Amnesty International on Wednesday decrying the deadly attack as “brutal” and “a calculated assault to stifle human rights defenders, especially those defending women’s rights”.

The organisation, which said Iraq’s Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al‑Sudani ordered an investigation into the killing, also called on the Iraqi authorities to ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.

“Yanar Mohammed … dedicated her life to defending women’s rights,” Amnesty’s Iraq researcher, Razaw Salihy, said in a statement. “The Iraqi authorities must stop this pattern of targeted attacks in their tracks, and take seriously the sustained smear campaigns designed to discredit and endanger activists.”

Mohammed was one of Iraq’s most prominent women’s rights activists, working since the early 2000s “to protect women facing gender-based violence, including domestic abuse, trafficking, and so-called ‘honour killings’”, Front Line Defenders said.

Her work included the establishment of safe houses, which sheltered hundreds of women experiencing exploitation and abuse.

In a 2022 interview with Al Jazeera, Mohammed described her organisation’s efforts to support Iraqi women who survived violence at the hands of ISIS (ISIL), which had seized control of large swathes of the country.

“Muslim-Arab women who were enslaved by ISIL and have not found a place to go back to, they are still living in the shadows of the society,” she said at the time.

“Not less than 10,000 women were the victims of ISIL attack[s], and this femicide is not really acknowledged by the international community or dealt with in a way that keeps the dignity or the respect [of], or compensates, those who were the victims.”

Years of threats

Mohammed had been the target of death threats for decades, “aimed at dissuading her from defending women’s rights”, Front Line Defenders said. “Yet she remained defiant in the face of threats from ISIS and other armed groups.”

In 2016, she was awarded the Rafto Prize “for her tireless work for women’s rights in Iraq under extremely challenging conditions”.

The Rafto Foundation, the Norway-based nonprofit group that administers the award, said it was “deeply shaken” by her killing. “We are deeply shocked by this brutal attack on one of the most courageous human rights defenders of our time,” the foundation said in a statement.

“The assassination represents not only an attack on Yanar Mohammed as a person, but also on the fundamental values she dedicated her life to defending: women’s freedom, democracy, and universal human rights.”

Other activists and human rights groups also paid tribute to Mohammed this week, with Human Rights Watch describing her as “one of Iraq’s most courageous advocates for women’s rights” for more than two decades.

“Yanar was a dear colleague and friend to so many of us in the women’s rights and feminist community, one of our icons. She spent her life standing up for women’s rights in the most dangerous environment,” said Agnes Callamard, secretary-general of Amnesty International.

“She faced constant threats, but she never stopped. And today we cry and mourn her energy, her commitment, her profound humanity, her amazing courage.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday urged the Supreme Court to limit the reach of the 2nd Amendment and deny gun rights to “habitual” users of drugs, including marijuana.

But most of the justices sounded skeptical. They questioned whether marijuana users are so dangerous they should not have firearms.

They noted too that President Trump signed a recent executive order to reclassify marijuana as lesser controlled substance.

“Why is this a test case?,” asked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Federal laws on “controlled substances” and the 2nd Amendment created a conflict between gun rights and illegal drugs, but Gorsuch said marijuana users are not seen as a particular danger to the public.

“This is an odd case to have chosen” to resolve this legal dispute, he said.

Most of the justices said they were wary of ruling broadly to decide the legal status of other addictive drugs.

At issue was a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which forbids gun possession by any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The Justice Department says about 300 people per year are charged with a crime under this provision. They include Hunter Biden, the former president’s son, who was charged and convicted of lying about his drug addiction when he applied for a handgun permit.

The case brought together civil libertarians and gun rights advocates, who said millions of Americans could face criminal charges if the government’s view is upheld.

Deputy Solicitor Gen. Sarah Harris, representing the administration, said the court should uphold the law to deny guns to habitual users of unlawful drugs.

“Congress decided it is dangerous to mix firearms with controlled substances,” she said.

But Erin Murphy, a Washington attorney, said gun owners have not been notice that having a handgun at home could lead to a criminal prosecution if they sometimes use marijuana.

She said the court should hand down a “narrow” decision that spares her client.

Ali Hemani, a Texas man, was investigated by the FBI in 2020 for his family’s suspected ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated terrorist group.

When the FBI obtained a warrant to search his home, agents found a Glock pistol and 60 grams of marijuana as well as 4.7 grams of cocaine in his mother’s room. Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with illegal gun possession because he was an unlawful drug user.

But citing the 2nd Amendment, a federal judge and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the charges on the grounds that he was not under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest.

Appealing, the Trump administration said the Supreme Court should uphold the 1968 law and deny guns to those who are “habitual users” of illegal drugs.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said this prosecution “falls well within Congress’s authority to temporarily disarm categories of dangerous persons — here, habitual drug users.”

From the nation’s founding, “habitual drunkards” could be prohibited from having guns and that historic principle supports denying guns to habitual drug users.

The American Civil Liberties Union defended Hemani said the government’s view threatens to broadly extend the reach of the criminal law.

“Like tens of millions of Americans, Ali Hemani owned a handgun for self-defense, keeping it safely secured at home. Like many of those same Americans, he also consumed marijuana a few days a week,” they said in their brief.

“According to the government, those two facts alone sufficed to make him an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance who could face criminal penalties.”

DUE to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, many Brits will find their holiday plans postponed or cancelled.

From those who are stranded in the UAE or supposed to be heading abroad, what does the conflict mean when it comes to travel insurance and your airline rights?

Well, UK travellers stranded across the globe or due to fly via the Middle East in the coming days have very different rights depending on who they booked their trip with.

Those who booked flights with a non UK or EU airline like Emirates, Etihad or Qatar and were travelling from a destination outside the UK via the Middle Eastern hubs have limited rights compared to those who are travelling with a UK or EU airline or flying directly in or out of the UK.

UK passenger rights mean airlines have a duty of care to provide you with food and drink while you are delayed as well as a way to communicate by email or phone and overnight hotels and transfers if needed. 

Under these same rights, the airline must get you to your destination as soon as is possible, even if that involves a different airline.

Read More on Travel Advice

Travel Advice

Cyprus Travel Advice Explained, including details about Israel and Hezbollah

TRAVEL ADVICE

Is it safe to travel to Mexico? Latest flight and holiday advice

However, those travelling on non UK or EU flights from elsewhere in the world to the big hub airports in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar do not get the same rights.

This could be someone travelling from Thailand back to the UK via Dubai that is now stranded in Thailand as flights have been cancelled and the airspace is closed.

Airlines in this case MUST get you to your destination as soon as possible but there is no legal right to meals, accommodation or communication.

They also must provide you with a refund if you choose not to travel but beware of this option. The minute you accept a refund, the airline has no duty of care to you and no obligation to re-route you.

You would then need to book new flights yourself, which may be significantly more expensive. Travel insurance would not cover the difference between a refunded ticket and a new booking.

Despite this, the General Civil Aviation Authority in the UAE have – in a very rare move – confirmed that the state would be covering all accommodation and hosting costs for stranded passengers.

Of course, this only applies to Brits who are stranded in the UAE, so the likes of Dubai or Abu Dhabi.

Due to its location many holidaymakers will pass through the likes of Dubai or Doha before travelling onwards during an indirect journey.

In fact more than half a million travellers head through the hubs of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha every day.

For Brits, many long-haul flights to destinations like Thailand, Australia and South Africa generally stop in these airports.

Due the ongoing conflict, the airspace has been closed, as have the airports in Dubai and Doha.

Meanwhile, Abu Dhabi is starting up very limited flights with Etihad Airways.

Tim Riley, MD of travel insurer True Traveller and chairman of the UK Travel Industry Association, which represents all the major UK insurers, has advice for impacted travellers.

He explained that while airlines have an obligation to re-route passengers, they cannot override certain situations.

Tim said: “The primary issue in the current situation is airspace closures and the inability to leave the country.

“Travel insurance cannot override government airspace restrictions or operate repatriation flights.

“Airlines have a legal obligation to re-route passengers to their final destination once services resume, whether on their own aircraft or with an alternative carrier.”

Airlines are releasing statements on imminent trips, and head here for the latest updates on flights and holidays.

Here’s where you’ll find information on Cyprus airport which was evacuated as easyJet and British Airways among 60 flights to cancel.

And for staycations, here’s the beautiful UK holiday hotspot with shipwrecks, seals and horseshoe-shaped waterfalls.

When he became Nigeria’s Inspector-General of Police (IGP) in 2023, Kayode Egbetokun vowed to fight criminality and insecurity with vim and vigour. He seemed determined to reform the police; he promised to improve officers’ welfare and make Nigeria a safer, better country for its people. As Usman Alkali stepped out of the IGP office and Kayode stepped in, Nigerians hoped he could deliver on his promise.

“I really can’t describe how I feel currently, but if I have to tell you anything, I will tell you that right now, I feel like a tiger inside of me, ready to chase away all the criminals in Nigeria. And some other times, I feel like a lion in me, ready to devour all the internal enemies of Nigeria. That’s my feeling right now,” he said during his decoration as acting IGP at the Presidential Villa in Abuja.

On Feb. 24, the reign of the 61-year-old police chief came to an end. He was forced to resign, according to local media reports. His regime appeared to have dampened the high hopes for police reform in Nigeria, leaving the new IGP, Tunji Disu, a highly decorated police chief, with a legacy of a failed policing system.

Disu is a familiar name within the police force, having held various important roles and risen through the ranks. In 2021, for instance, he succeeded Abba Kyari, a Nigerian once-upon-a-time supercop, as head of the Police Intelligence Response Team (IRT). He was an Assistant Inspector-General of Police before emerging as Nigeria’s new IGP.

Born on April 13, 1966, Tunji joined the police force in May 1992. Appointed as acting IGP at 59, he is due to retire in April this year, upon reaching the mandatory age of 60. However, in 2024, the National Assembly amended the Police Act, 2020, enabling him to serve out his full four-year term as IGP, unless the president removes him.

He had led the Rapid Response Squad (RRS) of Lagos State Police Command successfully and presented himself as a diligent supercop throughout his career. While his antecedent might have been thrilling, he’s inheriting the disturbing legacies of his predecessor, leaving him a deep forest to clear. 

To understand what lies ahead, HumAngle engaged police officers, journalists, civic leaders, and human rights advocates, who not only reflected on the legacies of the former IGP but also outlined urgent priorities for the new administration. Their insights reveal both the depth of Nigeria’s policing crisis and the expectations riding on Disu to restore trust, improve welfare, and confront systemic failures within the force.

The legacy of human rights abuses

The NPF was infamous for several unlawful activities under the former IGP’s command, including high-handedness towards journalists demanding social justice and accountability. Journalists, whistleblowers, and media practitioners across Nigeria were targeted for simply doing their jobs, creating a climate of fear that undermined press freedom. On many occasions, journalists reported being beaten or threatened during arrests and manhandled at rallies, while editors said they received threatening calls warning them against publishing sensitive stories.

Over 80 incidents of attacks against journalists and media organisations were recorded in 2025, according to a report by the Media Rights Agenda (MRA), a non-profit organisation that promotes and protects freedom of expression, media freedom, and access to information in Nigeria. The report stated that arrests and detentions were the primary tools for suppressing media freedom and freedom of expression, constituting the most common form of attack, with 38 documented cases accounting for over 44 per cent of all incidents.

“In terms of perpetrators of attacks against journalists and violations of other freedom of expression rights, the Nigeria Police Force was identified in the report as the worst offender,” the report stated.

The police, under the former IGP, were also accused of weaponising the cyber law to incarcerate journalists seeking public accountability. Sometimes instigated by influential people within and outside government, the police have used this legislation to clamp down on journalists and activists despite the recent amendment. Digital journalists were even more targeted using Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act. In 2024, the National Assembly amended sections of the law following the ECOWAS Court’s declaration that they were inconsistent with Nigeria’s obligations under Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and with best practices.

The amended Cybercrimes Act 2024 has revised Section 24 of the 2015 law, which was previously used to prosecute individuals for “insulting” or “stalking” public officials. The updated amendment provides clearer definitions of the offences, focusing on computer-based messages that are either pornographic or intentionally misleading. However, despite these changes, the police have still been using this provision to intimidate journalists.

One interesting case, among several others, involved Nurudeen Akewusola, a senior journalist with the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR). In 2024, Nurudeen’s investigation exposed how two former IGPs, among others, were implicated in a shady multimillion-naira land deal involving property originally designated for police barracks in Abuja. The police detained Nurudeen and his employer, Dayo Aiyetan, over this story, asking the reporter to reveal his sources. He refused to name his sources, upholding journalistic ethics. 

The reporter and his employer were detained by the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre (NPF-NCCC), which was purportedly probing a “case of cyberstalking and defamation of character” against the reporter and the executive director of the ICIR.

Two years later, Nurudeen told HumAngle that his experience with the police still haunts him. The incident has since made him worried about the safety of journalists and truth-seekers in Nigeria. He remembers how he was detained and mistreated when chasing any similar public interest story. 

“The incident also took a toll on those close to me. My family and loved ones were anxious and confused; calls kept coming in as people tried to understand what was happening and what might happen next. Watching them carry that fear because of my work was a heavy emotional burden,” he said.

Scores of journalists in Nigeria faced even worse attacks from police under the former IGP’s leadership.  Busola Ajibola, the deputy director of journalism at the Centre for Journalism Innovations and Development (CJID), told HumAngle that at least 40 cases of press freedom attacks were recorded under former IGP Kayode. The media civic leader said there seemed to be a culture of impunity against journalists that predated the former police chief and was more pronounced during his administration.

“We’re building an environment that lacks accountability,” she warned, noting that media oppression by the police could have grave consequences. “We’re denying the public of demanding accountability using the media. Media oppression also has impacts on the right to freedom of expression generally.”

Failed to rein in terrorist attacks

Despite his flowery promises to curb insecurity, the former IGP seemed to have failed to secure lives and property in Nigeria’s most volatile communities. Communal crises lingered for so long that they attracted global attention, and terrorism resurged with terrorists operating brazenly, especially in the northwestern region. Between 2023 and 2024, for instance, Nigeria grappled with widespread insecurity, particularly in the northwestern and north-central regions. Kidnappings for ransom surged, with rural communities and travellers along highways being frequent targets. Armed groups intensified their operations, often overwhelming security forces. The HumAngle Tracker recorded hundreds of deaths during this period, revealing the persistent inability of police institutions to contain violence.

Insurgency intensified within the northeastern region, spreading rapidly to the north-central states, including Nigeria’s capital city. Boko Haram and ISWAP factions raided villages, military bases, and convoys, leading to significant civilian casualties. This period also saw an increase in targeted killings and ambushes. 

Terrorist attacks expanded beyond the northern regions in 2025, with the South East Nigeria experiencing heightened violence linked to separatist movements and criminal gangs. Attacks on security personnel, government facilities, and civilians became more frequent. The HumAngle Tracker documented a rise in politically motivated violence, especially around election-related activities. Meanwhile, oil-producing areas in the South-South continued to experience militancy and pipeline vandalism, disrupting economic stability. By early 2026, the tracker data showed that insecurity remained entrenched, with no significant nationwide improvement.

In November 2025, however, the former IGP described how the police were fighting terrorism and armed violence in Nigeria, saying insecurity was not something that could be fought in silos. While addressing reporters at the Lagos Police Command in Ikeja,  the police chief said there must be synergy with other agencies and all communities for Nigeria to contain insecurity. He also advised Nigerians to stop spreading misinformation and falsehood about the police and other security agencies.

“When people spread falsehood against security institutions that are providing security, they are weakening the resolve of the nation,” he said. “So, let us all be committed to saying the truth about security agencies who are taking risks and providing security for the country.”  

Decentralised the Police Complaints Response Unit

At first, the former police chief introduced a policing model that appeared to prioritise public complaints. Barely four months into his role as acting IGP, he decentralised the Police Complaints Response Units (CRU) to cater to the disturbing trust deficits in the policing system. In August 2023, he ordered police commissioners to establish the state-based police complaint units. The CRU made contact information for police spokespersons available online and set up social media pages to engage with citizens nationwide. He said the purpose of decentralising the CRU was to create a conducive platform for interaction between the police and the public, particularly regarding officers’ unprofessional conduct.

“It is going to enhance police-community collaboration and build confidence with members of the public,” he said, appealing to the public to supply the police with information for transparency. “Officers who are going to man the CRU are going to be carefully selected; they are going to be officers with impeccable integrity.”

The CRU emboldened citizens to hold police officers accountable for their actions. The initiative brought several erring police officers to justice when citizens lodged complaints. However, the CRU decentralisation became defective when the police became reluctant to prosecute some officers caught in shady dealings. Journalists and civic actors who closely monitored the CRU said the initiative was promising at first, but it later flopped.

Daniel Ojukwu, a senior journalist with the Foundation for Investigative Journalism and Social Justice, said that while the former IGP must be commended for decentralising the CRU, he must also be blamed for ignoring significant citizen complaints against the police. Daniel covers police activities, seeking justice for citizens whose rights were violated by high-handed officers. The journalist also had his share of press attacks by police officers. He was arrested and detained – albeit illegally – by the force headquarters for an investigation he had conducted.

“Egbetokun did well with the CRU decentralisation, but of course, there were holes. We hope that the new IG will prioritise making the CRU work better,” he said.

HumAngle spoke with several police officers to inquire about the IGP’s general performance. Many of them believe he lost his way the moment he attained the highest position in the police force. Most of his promises, they said, were unfulfilled. Some of the officers we spoke with said he was a poor administrator who had the chance to reform the police but failed woefully. The officers begged not to be identified by name for fear of retribution.

“His administration made no sense,” one officer said bluntly. “We all thought he would be different, but our leaders are all the same.”

Setting the agenda for the new IG

On Feb. 25, President Bola Tinubu decorated Tunji Disu as the acting IGP, officially signalling a change in authority at the NPF. Interestingly, the newly decorated IGP vowed to enforce a zero-tolerance regime against corruption and human rights abuses. He told journalists after his inauguration that his leadership would ensure that police officers are well-trained to protect Nigerian citizens and engage them with utmost civility.

“I will let them (fellow policemen and women) know that the era of impunity is over,” he declared. “Most importantly, I’m going to drum it into them that we can never succeed without the cooperation of members of the public.”

His declaration seems to be a shift in tone for the police force. Beyond his heavy promises and rhetoric, Nigerians are eager to see how these promises translate into action. Civil society organisations, human rights advocates, and community leaders have long pressed for reforms that prioritise accountability, transparency, and respect for citizens. 

As Tunji steps into this role, civic actors are articulating their expectations of the new IG, underscoring the urgency of building trust between the police and the people they are sworn to protect. While some security experts believe the police seem to have neglected their counterterrorism role, other civic actors demand a safe space for journalists and activists to demand transparency in governance without being persecuted by the force. 

Busola Ajibola of CJID reiterated that, beyond flowery speeches about fighting impunity, the new IGP must take a clear stand, backed by action, against press freedom violations and investigate officers who unlawfully violate journalists’ rights.

“He should invest in re-training middle-level and low-ranking officers on human rights and press freedom,” Busola noted. “Most times when we engage with senior police officers, we realise that they appear to know the right thing, but the problem is usually the middle-level or low-ranking officers who have little knowledge of press freedom and human rights.”

Speaking about his years of experience covering the police, Daniel said it has become clear to him that the police force is highly underfunded. He asked the current IG to prioritise funding for the police. An officer who asked not to be named confirmed this, saying that a system that fails to properly finance the police automatically sets operatives against the people.

“These officers don’t even have fuel in their vehicles to run operations many times. How do you expect them to be effective?” Daniel asked. “People go to lodge complaints in police stations, they’re asked to pay.” He added that to make the CRU more effective, the police must have a speed dial number that’s responsive and easy to memorise, so citizens can contact the police quickly when they face any challenge.