Doubt cast over veracity of disputed messages between ‘sex pest' Mbenenge and accuser
X/@OCJ_RSA
Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once.
Start your FREE trial now Show Comments ()
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
World Bank's IFC ramps up investment amid global uncertainty
While the world economy faces instability from US President Donald Trump's threats of a global trade war, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) is dramatically ramping up its investment activities. The Washington-based IFC -- the World Bank's private sector arm -- mobilizes private capital and provides financing to support businesses across emerging economies. Though not widely known outside development circles, the organization plays a crucial role in creating jobs and supporting growth in less developed regions. "The world economy has been going through a bit of a turbulent time, but what I must say is that even though there is turbulence... we are seeing a lot of interest in investing in emerging countries," Makhtar Diop, the IFC's managing director, told AFP. This optimism is backed by concrete numbers. In the fiscal year ending June 30, preliminary data shows that the IFC committed over $71 billion -- nearly double its commitment from just three years ago and a significant jump from last year's record of $56 billion. The investment spans the globe, with more than $20 billion flowing to Latin America, $17 billion to Asia, and $15.4 billion to Africa. The dramatic increase stems from a deliberate strategic shift. Diop, an economist and former Senegalese finance minister, explained that the IFC has focused on becoming "simpler, more agile, and delegating decision-making to our teams that are in the field." This approach abandons the over-centralized structure that previously "was slowing down our ability to respond and seize new opportunities." The timing is significant. As Western economies pull back from direct aid to developing countries -- constrained by mounting debts, rising defense budgets, and increasingly inward-looking politics -- the IFC has accelerated. "It's totally understandable that they have fewer resources to make available in the form of grants to developing countries," Diop acknowledges. However, he emphasized that World Bank funding for the world's poorest countries remains fully replenished, calling it "the most efficient and best way to support countries." The IFC's expanding role within the World Bank Group is evident. Today, its funding nearly matches the support the bank provides directly to governments, making it an equal partner in development efforts. - Dubai to Africa - The organization is also attracting new types of investors. Many co-financing partners now come from regions that traditionally haven't invested outside their home areas. The IFC's largest renewable energy investment in Africa, for example, was completed with a Dubai-based company. These investors trust the IFC not only for its market knowledge but also for the risk-mitigation tools it offers, Diop said. In Africa particularly, the IFC pursues a strategy of identifying and supporting "national champions" -- successful local companies that need help to become more competitive and globally integrated. A significant portion of the IFC's mandate involves sustainability projects, an area where Diop decries debates with false choices between economic development and the environment, especially in electricity projects that form an important part of the agency's portfolio. "It happens that today, you don't have to make that trade-off because the sustainable solutions are often the cheaper ones, and that's the beauty of what we are seeing," he said. While fossil fuel generation remains part of the energy mix to ensure grid stability, the economics increasingly favor clean alternatives. Behind all these investments lies an urgent demographic reality: 1.2 billion young people will reach working age in developing countries over the next decade. For the World Bank, creating employment for this massive cohort is paramount. "The first question of any leader you meet from the developing world is how can you help to create jobs for young people?" Diop observed. Beyond infrastructure development that stimulates broader economic activity, Diop identifies tourism, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture as the most promising sectors for job creation. These industries can offer the scale and growth potential needed to absorb the coming wave of young workers entering the global economy. arp/st
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Trump administration scores win as Supreme Court approves deportations to third countries
The Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a key immigration win, clearing the way for the deportation of eight migrants from Djibouti to South Sudan, a country not listed in their original removal orders. In a short, unsigned opinion, the justices granted the administration's request to "clarify" a prior ruling, confirming that their June 23 stay of a lower court injunction also blocked a follow-up remedial order issued May 21. That remedial order had required the government to give the migrants notice and a chance to raise claims under the Convention Against Torture before being sent to a third COURT SIDES AGAINST MIGRANT IN DEPORTATION CASE "The motion for clarification is granted," the court wrote. "The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable". The decision gives the Trump administration a green light to move forward with third-country deportations under its executive order, even to destinations not previously clarified in court-approved removal documents. Earlier, a district judge had found the government violated its April injunction by failing to provide a "meaningful opportunity" for six of the migrants to make their case against removal. The Supreme Court stayed that injunction in June, and Thursday's clarification makes clear the lower court's follow-up order can't stand either. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented sharply, accusing the court of enabling deportations that could lead to torture or death. "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial. Respectfully, I dissent," Sotomayor wrote. "The Government seeks to nullify [basic rights] by deporting noncitizens to potentially dangerous countries without notice or the opportunity to assert a fear of torture." The ruling strengthens the Trump administration's hand as it enforces its third-country deportation policy. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X regarding the ruling, writing, "This is another incredible victory for America. Thank you to the Supreme Court for ruling on the side of law and order, and affirming the executive authority of the President." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP"Today's decision makes clear it is district court judges who are defying Supreme Court orders, not the Trump administration," David Warrington, White House Counsel wrote in an email to Fox News Digital. "This decision is a clear rebuke of such judicial overreach."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the decision a "win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people" and said the men would "be in South Sudan" by Friday. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called "third countries" where they have no ties to be given a chance to tell officials that they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The justices on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that their June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." The court said that Murphy should now "cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order." The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. "The Supreme Court's ruling rewards the government for violating the injunction and delaying implementation of the remedy the district court ordered," said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs. "Eight men are now at imminent risk of deportation to perilous and unsafe conditions in South Sudan," Realmuto said. Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from Thursday's decision. "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the decision on Thursday. "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed," Kagan wrote. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The judge's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order "remains in full force and effect." Calling that ruling by the judge a "lawless act of defiance," the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. 'CLEAR REBUKE' Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. "Today's decision makes clear it is district court judges who are defying Supreme Court orders, not the Trump administration. This decision is a clear rebuke of such judicial overreach," White House David Warrington said on Thursday. After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures." The Justice Department said in a filing that the United States has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the migrants at issue will not be subject to torture. The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
