News
U.S. Supreme Court to hear argument on Biden immigration enforcement policy
U.S. Supreme Court to hear argument on Biden immigration enforcement policy
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is set to consider whether President Joe Biden’s administration can implement guidelines challenged by two conservative-leaning states of shifting immigration enforcement toward public safety threats.
This the court said in a case testing executive branch power to set enforcement priorities.
The justices will hear the administration’s bid to overturn a judge’s ruling in favor of Texas and Louisiana that vacated U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidelines narrowing the scope of those who can be targeted by immigration agents for arrest and deportation.
The Democratic president’s policy departed from the hard-line approach of his Republican predecessor, Donald Trump, who sought to broaden the range of immigrants subject to arrest and removal.
Biden campaigned on a more humane approach to immigration but has been faced with large numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
The guidelines, announced by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in September 2021, prioritised apprehending and deporting non-U.S. citizens who pose a threat to national security, public safety or border security.
In a memo, Mayorkas called the guidelines necessary because his department lacks the resources to apprehend and seek the removal of every one of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.
Mayorkas cited the longstanding practice of government officials exercising discretion to decide who should be subject to deportation and said that a majority of immigrants subject to deportation “have been contributing members of our communities for years.’’
Biden’s administration, saying fewer detentions and deportations have encouraged more illegal border crossings.
The top Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, earlier called on Mayorkas to step down and said the House may try to impeach him when Republicans formally take control of the chamber in January.
Republican state attorneys general in Texas and Louisiana sued to block the guidelines after Republican-led legal challenges successfully thwarted other Biden administration attempts to ease enforcement.
Their lawsuit, filed in Texas, argued that the guidelines ran counter to provisions in immigration laws that makes it mandatory to detain non-U.S. citizens who have been convicted of certain crimes or have final orders of removal.
U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee, ruled in favor of the challengers, finding that while immigration agents could on a case-by-case basis act with discretion the administration’s guidelines were a generalised policy that contravened the detention mandate set out by Congress.
“Whatever the outer limits of its authority, the executive branch does not have the authority to change the law,’’ Tipton wrote.
After the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in July declined to put that ruling on hold, Biden’s administration turned to the Supreme Court.
The justices on a 5-4 vote declined to stay Tipton’s ruling, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. The justices did not provide reasons for their disagreement.
Biden’s administration has told the Supreme Court that Texas and Louisiana lack the proper legal standing to challenge the guidelines because the states had not suffered any direct harm as a result of the policy.
The states countered that they would be harmed by having to spend more money on law enforcement and social services as a result of an increase in non-U.S. citizens present within their borders due to the guidelines.
The administration also told the justices that the guidelines do not violate federal immigration law and that the mandatory language of those statutes does not supersede the longstanding principle of law enforcement discretion.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
News
VP Shettima Attends High-Level Meeting On Africa’s Health Security Sovereignty
VP Shettima Attends High-Level Meeting On Africa’s Health Security Sovereignty
By: Our Reporter
Shortly after his bilateral discussions with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, Vice President Kashim Shettima moved on to a high-level meeting on Building Africa’s Health Security Sovereignty on the sidelines of the African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
The session, organized by Africa CDC and fully supported by the Nigerian government, convenes African leaders and health policymakers to chart the path toward strengthening the continent’s health emergency preparedness, response systems, and pharmaceutical independence.

Joining the Vice President at the meeting are key Nigerian officials including the Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Prof. Muhammad Ali Pate, and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Amb. Yussuf Tuggar.
Other African health ministers in attendance include Dr. Ibrahim Sy of Senegal, Madalisto Baloyi of Malawi, and Dr. Mekdes Daba of Ethiopia.
VP Shettima Attends High-Level Meeting On Africa’s Health Security Sovereignty
News
ISWAP suspected in Baga abduction of five civilians
ISWAP suspected in Baga abduction of five civilians
By: Zagazola Makama
Five civilians were abducted on Feb. 12, 2026, by suspected Boko Haram/ISWAP terrorists in Doro Baga, Kukawa Local Government Area, Borno State, the Police Command reported.
Sources disclosed that the victims, Alhaji Sani Boyi, Bullama Dan Umaru, Baba Inusa, Abubakar Jan Boris, and Mallam Shaibu, were taken while purchasing fresh fish at a local market around 7:00 a.m.
The troops of Sector 3 Operation HADIN KAI, Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF)/hunters immediately responded to the incident.
Relevant intelligence has been gathered, and search and rescue operations are ongoing to secure the release of the victims.
ISWAP suspected in Baga abduction of five civilians
News
Is Russia Immune to Media Scrutiny in Africa?
Is Russia Immune to Media Scrutiny in Africa?
•Press freedom, sovereignty and Africa’s refusal to be silence
By Oumarou Sanou
A dangerous precedent is emerging across Africa’s diplomatic and media landscape: the public targeting of individual journalists by foreign missions for simply asking difficult questions. The recent pattern of responses from the Russian Embassy in Nigeria toward African journalists and media platforms raises deeper concerns, not only about geopolitics but also about press freedom, sovereignty, and the dignity of African voices.
Bullying a single African journalist through official diplomatic channels is not merely a disagreement; it is an intolerable affront to free expression. Journalism exists to question power, whether domestic or foreign. When embassies shift from presenting facts to publicly discrediting individuals, the implication is clear: criticism will be punished personally rather than debated professionally. Today it is one journalist; tomorrow it could be an entire media ecosystem.
In recent months, respected outlets, including Premium Times, THISDAY, The Guardian Nigeria, and Leadership Newspaper, have faced unusually harsh diplomatic rebukes after publishing critical analyses. Prominent commentators such as Azu Ishiekwene and Richard Akinnola, as well as Oumarou Sanou, have also been singled out. Instead of counter-evidence, the response has often been personal accusations and insinuations of hidden sponsors. That approach undermines constructive dialogue and erodes trust in diplomatic engagement.
Let us be clear: journalists are human and can make mistakes. Professional reporting welcomes correction. If the facts are incorrect, present evidence, make the data open, and allow readers to judge. Insults, calumny and attempts to destroy professional reputations are not rebuttals; they are attempts to silence scrutiny. No foreign government should expect immunity from questioning on African soil.
Africa’s position in the evolving global order must remain principled and independent. Africans are not invested in the confrontation between Russia and the West; it is not our war. A genuine Pan-African perspective demands equal scrutiny of all external powers. If tomorrow credible evidence emerges that Britain, France, America, China or any other actor is recruiting Africans into foreign conflicts under deceptive pretence, the same criticism must apply. The principle is simple: African lives are not expendable tools in geopolitical struggles.

Reports of African nationals—including Nigerians—fighting and dying thousands of miles away in foreign wars raise serious ethical and security questions. Whether through informal networks, deceptive job offers, or shadow recruitment channels, African citizens are being drawn into conflicts that do not belong to them. Journalists who expose these risks are not attacking any nation; they are protecting their fellow Africans from exploitation and preventable tragedy.
Kenya’s recent stance offers a compelling example. Kenyan authorities publicly condemned the recruitment of their citizens into foreign conflicts and moved to close illegal agencies while seeking diplomatic explanations. That response signals a broader African awakening: governments must prioritise the safety and dignity of their citizens over the sensitivities of powerful partners. Nigeria and other African states would do well to adopt similar vigilance.
Beyond individual cases lies a deeper philosophical question. Neocolonialism today is not defined by flags or territorial control but by influence, dependency and narrative domination. Great powers—East or West—sometimes behave as though African voices must align with their geopolitical agendas. This assumption is unacceptable. Africans have their own interests, challenges and aspirations. We are not puppets in anyone’s strategic theatre.
Respect in diplomacy must be reciprocal. If a foreign embassy publicly attacked a journalist by name inside Moscow, Paris or Washington, would it be considered acceptable conduct? Sovereignty demands mutual respect, not selective outrage. African countries deserve the same diplomatic courtesy that global powers expect at home.
At the same time, African journalism must remain grounded in professionalism and evidence. Responsible reporting strengthens credibility and protects the integrity of public discourse. But professionalism cannot thrive in an atmosphere of intimidation. When journalists are targeted individually, the chilling effect extends far beyond the targeted individual; it discourages others from investigating sensitive issues of public concern.
The response from Africa’s media community must therefore be collective. Silence in the face of intimidation risks normalising it. Journalists, editors and civil society organisations should stand together to defend the right to ask difficult questions without fear of diplomatic retaliation. Protecting a single journalist ultimately concerns protecting the profession and safeguarding the democratic space.
Africa’s future in a multipolar world will depend on its ability to engage all partners while remaining fiercely independent. That independence begins with intellectual sovereignty: the freedom to question everyone and align with no external agenda. Whether criticism targets Russia, Western nations or any other power, the standard must remain consistent: facts over propaganda, dialogue over intimidation, and mutual respect over coercion.
No nation is above scrutiny. No African journalist should be silenced for doing the work that democracy demands.
Oumarou Sanou is a social critic, Pan-African observer and researcher focusing on governance, security, and political transitions in the Sahel. He writes on geopolitics, regional stability, and African leadership dynamics. Contact: sanououmarou386@gmail.com
Is Russia Immune to Media Scrutiny in Africa?
-
News2 years agoRoger Federer’s Shock as DNA Results Reveal Myla and Charlene Are Not His Biological Children
-
Opinions4 years agoTHE PLIGHT OF FARIDA
-
News10 months agoFAILED COUP IN BURKINA FASO: HOW TRAORÉ NARROWLY ESCAPED ASSASSINATION PLOT AMID FOREIGN INTERFERENCE CLAIMS
-
News2 years agoEYN: Rev. Billi, Distortion of History, and The Living Tamarind Tree
-
Opinions4 years agoPOLICE CHARGE ROOMS, A MINTING PRESS
-
ACADEMICS2 years agoA History of Biu” (2015) and The Lingering Bura-Pabir Question (1)
-
Columns2 years agoArmy University Biu: There is certain interest, but certainly not from Borno.
-
Opinions2 years agoTinubu,Shettima: The epidemic of economic, insecurity in Nigeria
