profile/5683FB_IMG_16533107021641748.jpg

News_Naija

Chinese, Nigerian Face Trial For Illegal Wildlife Possession

The Nigeria Customs Service has arraigned a Chinese national, Zheng Chao Hong (also known as Zheng Gaopeng), and a Nigerian woman, Amaka Marcus, over illegal possession of 7,200 kilogrammes of pangolin scales. The duo were brought before Justice Yellim Bogoro of the Federal High Court, in Lagos on a three-count charge bordering on conspiracy, unlawful possession, and illegal dealing in pangolin scales, a specimen of endangered wildlife species. The scales were reportedly concealed in 179 sacks. According to the prosecution team, led by Michel Osong and Mrs. Vivian Aigbadon, the offence was committed on August 8, 2024, at Iperu-Remo in Ogun State and Ikeja in Lagos State. They alleged that both defendants also attempted to sell the seized pangolin scales. Osong told the court that the actions of the defendants violated Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap. C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, as well as Section 7(3) of the National Environmental (Protection of Endangered Species in International Trade) Regulations, 2011. And punishable under Section 7(4) of the same law. Zheng and Marcus pleaded not guilty to all charges. Following their not-guilty plea, their lawyers, A. O. Fashugba and Ernest Ukpai, applied for bail on their behalf, requesting that the court grant bail in liberal terms. But the prosecution opposed the bail applications. After listening to the submissions, counsel Justice Bogoro granted bail to the defendants in the sum of N5m, with two sureties each in like sum. He ordered that one of the sureties must be a Chinese national, while the other must own landed property within the court’s jurisdiction. The judge also ordered that both sureties must submit an affidavit of means and two passport photographs, and that the prosecutor must verify the land documents. Consequently, Justice Bogoro adjourned the trial to July 14, 2025.

dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

Trans Women Arent Legally Women: What The UK Supreme Court Ruling Means

The ruling concluded a long-running dispute between feminist advocacy groups and the Scottish government. The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” refer to a “biological woman and biological sex” under UK equality laws, bringing a long-running court battle between feminist groups and the government of Scotland to an end. Wednesday’s ruling is expected to have far-reaching consequences for policies on whether and how spaces and services reserved for women should be extended to include “trans women” – those born male who have transitioned socially or medically or who identify as women – such as changing rooms, domestic violence shelters and medical services. Although the case originally began in Scotland, the court’s interpretation of the law will be effective across the UK, including in England and Wales. Reactions towards the ruling have been mixed: Feminist advocacy groups involved in the legal case have voiced satisfaction, while trans groups and some members of the Scottish government expressed disappointment and fear about future discrimination. Here’s what we know about the Supreme Court’s ruling and how the case started: The legal dispute began in March 2018 when the Scottish Parliament passed an act stating that 50 percent of non-executive members of the boards of Scottish public bodies must be women. The act, which is known as Holyrood’s Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, was supposed to ensure better representation for women in public bodies. A sticking point in the policy, however, was the definition of “woman”. The act itself said that “women” included transgender women who held gender recognition certificates (GRCs) –  that is, trans women who have legally transitioned and are certified by the government as having changed their gender. A feminist group, For Women Scotland (FWS), challenged the new law and launched a petition against it in 2018. The group argued that the Scottish parliament had wrongfully defined “woman” and that the law had failed to use legal definitions as set out in the UK Equality Act of 2010. That Act prohibits discrimination based on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership (in cases of employment), pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. However, the UK Equality Act 2010 does allow for separate or single-sex services to be provided when this is reasonably necessary, such as for reasons of privacy, decency or preventing trauma. A Scottish court dismissed the first case brought by FWS in 2022, concluding that the Scottish legislation did not necessarily redefine “woman” by including transgender women. The judge ruled that women were “not limited to biological or birth sex”. FWS launched an unsuccessful appeal in 2023. The case was then heard at the Scottish Court of Session several times as the group sought to clarify how to correctly interpret the term “woman” as enshrined in the Equality Act. In March 2024, the advocacy group, backed by other feminist organisations and lesbian groups, appealed to the Supreme Court. The group was also supported by Harry Potter author and women’s rights campaigner JK Rowling, who reportedly donated 70,000 pounds ($92,000) to a crowdfunding campaign by FWS. On Wednesday, five judges ruled unanimously that the term “woman” in the existing UK Equality Act should be interpreted as only people born biologically female, and that trans women, even those with GRCs, should be excluded from that definition. The ruling further clarified, therefore, that trans women can be excluded from certain single-sex spaces and groups designated for women, such as changing rooms, homeless and domestic violence shelters, swimming areas and medical or counselling services. “Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ … and, thus, the protected characteristic of sex, in an incoherent way,” Justice Patrick Hodge said while summarising the case. “It would create heterogeneous groupings.” The court added that the ruling was not a “triumph” of one side over the other, and emphasised that transgender people are still protected from discrimination under UK law. However, some protections, the judges clarified, should only apply to biological females and not transgender women. Until now, trans women with GRCs could be counted as women for the purpose of all-women shortlists for political parties or to fill quotas for women on boards or within organisations. This will no longer be the case. In the 20 years since the Gender Recognition Act was passed in the UK, nearly 8,500 GRCs have been issued. The Gender Recognition Panel received 1,397 applications for GRCs in 2023-2024 – a record number. Of those, 1,088 were granted. This was triple the number of applications in 2020-2021, after which the application fee dropped from 140 to 5 pounds ($180 to $7). The ruling provides some clarification on an issue that has proved polarising not only in the UK but also in the United States. Debates have raged in both countries, as well as in other Western nations, on whether certain women’s rights, services or spaces should be extended to trans women. US President Donald Trump is facing legal challenges for signing orders to define sex as only male or female. Trump has also tried to ban transgender people from entering the military and block trans people from participating in sports teams that do not align with their biological sex. It’s unclear how the ruling could affect sport in the UK, but trans women may now be restricted, if not excluded, from women’s categories. There’s no nationwide rule on how different sport organisations should include transgender people. Presently, the English Football Association allows trans women to compete in the women category if their testosterone levels are below five nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months. Women typically have 2.5 nanomoles per litre. On the other hand, British Cycling bans trans women from women’s competitions altogether. Rules regarding how domestic violence centres run may also be reassessed. In 2021, RISE, a shelter for women in Brighton, lost 5 million pounds ($6.2m) in local government funding after an assessment found that it did not provide services to trans women. The organisation said it was forced to close its refuge services for women, but was able to continue providing services like therapy. Groups like FWS argue that biological sex cannot be changed and that the rights of transgender people should not come at the expense of women. Allowing trans women to be included in the definition of women would reduce protection for people born female, they argue. Previously, FWS director Triba Budge argued that the Scottish Act at the root of the legal case could be interpreted to mean that public boards could legally consist of “50 percent men and 50 percent men with certificates” – referring to trans women holding GRCs – therefore excluding biological women altogether. On the other hand, trans rights groups say they require the same protections as women. The ruling on Wednesday excludes transgender people from sex discrimination protections and conflicts with human rights laws, they argue. The Supreme Court’s decision would also undermine protections for trans people covered in the UK’s 2004 Gender Recognition Act, opponents said. The law allows trans people to obtain a GRC and update the sex recorded on their birth certificate accordingly, but trans groups say that recognition could now be undermined. Some believe the ruling will lead to more attacks on trans people. Rights and hate monitoring groups note that the average trans person is more likely than others to face discrimination and physical, sexual, or verbal harassment. Stop Hate UK, which monitors attacks on minority groups in the country, reports that the UK police recorded 2,630 hate crimes against transgender people in 2021. The group said that was a 16 percent increase from the previous year and that it was likely an undercount, as most trans people do not feel safe enough to report attacks. FWS and other feminist groups that joined the organisation in the final Supreme Court case celebrated outside the court on Wednesday after the ruling was pronounced. Supporters chanted “Women’s rights are human rights” and popped bottles of wine in celebration. “Everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it,” Susan Smith, who co-directs FWS, told The Associated Press news agency. “It’s common sense, basic common sense, and the fact that we have been down a rabbit hole where people have tried to deny science and to deny reality, and hopefully this will now see us back to reality.” “We are delighted,” Sex Matters, another group involved in the court case, said in a statement on Wednesday. “The court has given us the right answer: The protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork,” the statement read. On the other hand, trans advocacy groups voiced disappointment. “We are really shocked by today’s Supreme Court decision, which reverses 20 years of understanding on how the law recognises trans men and women with Gender Recognition Certificates,” Scottish Trans said in a statement. The group also accused the court of hearing only from organisations on one side of the debate, and not from trans people. “We think their judgement reflects the fact that trans people’s voices were missing,” the statement read. Maggie Chapman, a legislator of Scotland’s Green Party which has been at the forefront of championing trans rights, said the ruling was “deeply concerning” for human rights and “a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society”. “Trans people have been cynically targeted and demonised by politicians and large parts of the media for far too long. This has contributed to attacks on longstanding rights and attempts to erase their existence altogether,” Chapman added. Meanwhile, the Scottish government said it would accept the ruling. The Scottish Government accepts today’s Supreme Court judgement. The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions. — John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) April 16, 2025 In a statement posted on X, Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney said the law provided clarity and would be followed. “We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions,” Swinney said. The UK government said the law would clarify issues of service provision in hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs, although in what ways exactly is not yet clear. “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” a spokesperson said. It is expected that government institutions across the UK will begin to make changes in line with the ruling. One example of the ruling’s potential effect is the case of a Scottish health organisation which is being sued by a nurse it suspended over her objection to a trans woman using a female changing room. The organisation, NHS Fife, said it had noted the judgement. “We will now take time to carefully consider the judgement and its implications,” a spokesperson said. British Transport Police has already updated a controversial search policy from September 2024 that allowed transgender detainees with a GRC to be searched by officers of their acquired gender. That has now changed, spokesperson Daisy Collingwood told Al Jazeera. “We have advised our officers that any same-sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee,” Collingwood said. “We are in the process of reviewing the implications of the ruling and will consider any necessary updates to our policies and practices in line with the law and national guidance.” Meanwhile, legal experts say the ruling showed equality legislation might need to be urgently updated to ensure trans people are protected. Follow Al Jazeera English:...

profile/5683FB_IMG_16533107021641748.jpg

News_Naija

Our Men Rejected N1m Bribe From Suspected Car Thieves Police

The Katsina State Police Command has arrested two suspected car thieves, rejected a N1m bribe, and recovered a suspected stolen motor vehicle. This is contained in a statement by the Command Public Relations Officer, DSP Abubakar Sadiq and made available to newsmen on Wednesday in Katsina. According to him, “On April 11th, 2025, at about 1500 hrs, while on a routine patrol along Birnin Kuka village, Mashi LGA, Katsina State, officers attached to attached to Border Patrol Zone 4, Katsina, flagged down a Toyota Corolla LE, green colour, driven by one Mubarak Kabir, m, age 26, and Adamu Hashim, m, age 27, all of Kurna quarters, Fagge LGA, Kano State. “During the preliminary investigation, it was revealed that the said vehicle was reportedly stolen from FCT Abuja. “The suspects then offered a bribe of N1m cash to the patrol team to evade justice, which the officers sternly rejected. The suspects are in custody. “Furthermore, the suspected stolen motor vehicle, cash sum of N1m, three mobile phones, one power bank and a bunch of keys were recovered from the suspects as exhibits. “Investigations are ongoing to unravel the extent of the suspect’s involvement in criminal activities. Further developments will be communicated as the investigation proceeds,” the statement said. The Commissioner of Police, Katsina State Command, CP Bello Shehu, commended the officers’ commitment to upholding the law and exhibiting a high level of integrity. He reaffirmed the command’s commitment and dedication towards protecting the lives and property of the citizens of Katsina State while maintaining a high level of integrity and respect for human rights.

profile/5683FB_IMG_16533107021641748.jpg

News_Naija

Secret Filling Station Sparks Tension In Ogun Community

Residents of Praise Hill Estate and its environs in the Arepo area of Obafemi Owode Local Government Area, Ogun State, have raised concerns over the ongoing construction of what they fear is a petrol filling station in a densely populated residential area. The said project is located between Praise Hill Estate and a branch of the Foursquare Gospel Church. PUNCH Metro correspondent, who was at the site, observed that the premises were locked though a closer view revealed at least seven workers inside the compound, along with a food vendor. A security guard at the construction site denied it was a fuel station project when approached by PUNCH Metro correspondent. A large pit, filled with red sand, stood out within the site, which residents believe conceals six large fuel tanks and underground piping, allegedly buried at night to avoid public scrutiny. A senior pastor of the Foursquare Gospel Church, Rev. Kola Owolabi, confirmed hearing disturbing reports from community members. “Sometime in the last two weeks, someone called me and asked if I was aware that a filling station was being built there. “I wasn’t aware, so I asked my assistant to check. Later, I found out that Praise Hill Estate had received a letter from the property owner asking them to move their gate to allow access for a ‘commercial development’, he said. Owolabi added, “They bring in materials at night. Even the big tanks were moved in secretly. They didn’t put up any project board because they knew people would raise questions. A resident even told me she saw them burying tanks at night, confirming our fears.” He also questioned the rationale behind such a development. “This area already has multiple filling stations between Wawa and Ibafo. “The road here is too narrow. Trucks can’t even turn in easily, which is why they want the estate’s security house moved. It’s risky. No one would ever approve a filling station here if due process were followed,” he said. Residents informed PUNCH Metro that they were initially told the property would house a shopping mall. But a recent letter addressed to the Ogun State Ministry of Urban and Physical Planning, dated April 9, 2025, and signed by the community chairman and secretary, Timi Oyelowo and Oluwabunmi Oluwatosin, painted a different picture. “It has come to our notice that a fuel station is currently under construction in an area dangerously close to the entrance of Praise Hill Estate, a school with boarding facilities, and a place of worship. “Originally, the promoter stated in a letter dated January 27, 2025, that the land would be used for a mall. However, recent activities suggest otherwise,” the letter read. The letter urged the ministry to “intervene immediately” and halt the project, citing “significant safety, health, and environmental risks.” It emphasised that the location is unsuitable for such a development and called for a “comprehensive review” to ensure compliance with urban and environmental planning laws. In a separate letter sighted by PUNCH Metro, Yewande Aluko, legal counsel to the property owner, Sunday Babatunde, maintained that the property was intended “to be developed into a commercial premise (a mall) and potentially for other commercial purposes in the future.” Aluko’s letter also noted that the estate gate was “hindering” development and requested permission to shift and reconstruct it “at no cost to the estate” to allow optimal access to the site. When contacted on Monday, the Commissioner for the Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development, Tunji Odunlami, questioned the timeline of the communication. He stated, “You mentioned that the letter was written on 9th April 2025, which was less than a week ago and with the weekend in between, but when was it submitted and received in my office?” Despite sending him an acknowledged copy of the letter as requested, Odunlami had not responded to the message as of the time this report was filed on Tuesday.