Ugandan authorities have reportedly lifted the recent prohibition on meat sales in the capital city, Kampala, amidst an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
Last week, health officials had implemented the ban and mandated the closure of all slaughterhouses to contain the spread of the outbreak.
However, Minister for Kampala City and Metropolitan Affairs, Minsa Kabanda, informed the Daily Monitor newspaper on Sunday that the ban had been suspended while the government evaluates the disease’s impact in the capital.
Despite this, Ms. Kabanda emphasized the importance of ensuring animals are tested before slaughter.
Traders had opposed the ban, criticizing the government for its failure to prevent the disease from spreading.
Local media reports indicate foot-and-mouth disease has been detected in 40 districts across the country.
Tricycle operators in the Ashanti Region are intensifying their protest against a directive that limits their movement within certain parts of the Central Business District, as the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly remains steadfast in its commitment to enforce the policy.
On Wednesday, August 2, the tricycle operators took to the streets, blocking a major road leading to Kejetia, causing significant disruptions to traffic and daily activities.
This demonstration comes in response to the KMA’s decision to ban tricycles, commonly known as “pragya” or “aboboyaa,” from operating within the central business district of Kumasi.
The ban was implemented to address traffic congestion and improve pedestrian safety in the bustling area.
The tricycle operators heavily rely on transporting passengers and goods within the city center, and they voiced their frustration and concerns over the ban.
They argued that this decision would negatively impact their livelihoods and result in many of them losing their jobs.
In their demand to the KMA, the tricycle operators are urging a reconsideration of the ban and are seeking constructive dialogue with their representatives to find a viable solution that protects their interests while also addressing the city’s traffic challenges.
The road blockade leading to Kejetia resulted in a traffic gridlock, with commuters and motorists caught in the midst of the protest. Police officers were promptly dispatched to manage the situation and ensure public safety.
Earlier, on August 1, nine tricycle operators were arrested and subsequently granted bail following clashes with some city guards.
The leadership of the Pragya Workers Association of Ghana contends that the reasons given by the Assembly to restrict their movement are not convincing enough.
In an interview with the media, Secretary of the group, expressed concern about being pushed out of the Central Business District onto highways, thereby increasing the risk to their safety.
“When you look at the demarcation, they are now clearly sacking us from the Central Business District to the highways for the cars to kill us more. Are they looking for the betterment of Pragya drivers, or what? Because this decision will further expose us to more risk, than their decision to minimise congestion”.
The Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly began implementing the directive to restrict tricycles from operating within the central business district (CBD) on July 25, as part of its efforts to address congestion within the metropolis.
While tricycle riders strongly oppose the decision, the head of the transport department at KMA, Randy Wilson, remains unwavering in the assembly’s determination to enforce the directive as a means to tackle the congestion issue in the metropolis.
Media regulator in Burkina Faso has imposed a three-month ban on a French television news channel, alleging the dissemination of false information regarding jihadist violence.
The high council for communication (CSC) accused LCI of making misleading statements, claiming that jihadists were making significant progress while government troops were using local defense force volunteers as cannon fodder to shield themselves from the attacks.
Earlier in April, the government of Ouagadougou expelled journalists from French newspapers Le Monde and Liberation.
Additionally, two other broadcasters, France 24 and Radio France International, have been indefinitely suspended in response to their actions in the country.
Former Premier League referee Mark Halsey has called for a ban to be imposed on Jose Mourinho for ‘indefensible’ behaviour during and after the Europa League final.
Mourinho lost his first ever European final on Wednesday, May 31 as Roma were beaten by Sevilla on penalties.
Mark Halsey, former Premier League referee
Mourinho was highly critical of referee Anthony Taylor throughout the game, and took his frustrations out on the English referee after full time in the car park.
A video doing rounds on social media shows an irate Mourinho muttering “You’re a (expletive) disgrace” in reference to Taylor’s performance in the Europa League final.
That was not the end of Taylor’s woes as the referee was swarmed by angry Roma fans at the airport as he was preparing for a flight back in Britain from Budapest, as reported on Sky Sports.
This series of events have divided fans online, with majority now turning on Mourinho, who they blamed for Anthony Taylor’s encounter with the fans.
Meanwhile, Halsey, who officiated in the Premier League from 1999 to 2013, believes a heavy ban should be imposed on Mourinho and Roma.
“Jose Mourinho’s attack on Anthony Taylor in the Budapest car park was indefensible,” Halsey wrote as quoted on Express Sport.
“Fines and touchline bans are not a deterrent, so I hope Europe’s governing body acts,” added Halsey.
“The level of abuse towards officials is evident in Europe and in English football and points deductions are the only answer. The FA revealed this week they are bringing this punishment into grassroots football but it should start at the top.
According to the former Premier League referee, Sevilla and Roma should also be slapped with a three-point deduction from their next European campaigns.
“I would also ban Mourinho, wherever he goes, for six games because of his unacceptable conduct.” He went on.
Mourinho congratulated Sevilla coach before final penalty
Sports Brief also reported on an interesting incident that saw Mourinho congratulated the Sevilla manager before the penalty shootout was over in the Europa League final.
During the shootout, Sevilla’s Gonzalo Montiel stepped up, but his first effort was stopped by Rui Patricio.
Anthony Taylor, however, ordered the penalty to be retaken after replays showed the keeper was off his line before the ball was struck.
Just before the Argentine went in for his second attempt, Mourinho approached the Sevilla huddle and congratulated opposition coach, Jose Mendilibar.
After kneeing a player in the groyne during a Liga MX match between America and Leon, Mexican referee Fernando Hernandez was given a 12-match ban.
During Sunday’s 2-2 draw, Hernandez kneed Leon midfielder Lucas Romero as he and his teammates surrounded the referee and demanded a VAR review into an America equaliser.
The bad-tempered affair saw both coaches dismissed following a scuffle which left Leon boss Nicolas Larcamon with a torn shirt, while one 10-minute second-half stint featured six yellow cards.
Any referees looking to replicate Hernandez’s methods for dealing with dissenting players may have to think twice, with the league’s disciplinary committee hitting the official with a long ban.
After widely shared footage showed Hernandez kneeing Romero while issuing him with a yellow card, the Leon man described the incident as a “misunderstanding”.
“Referees are human beings, many times they can make mistakes and those mistakes end up developing what happened, a lot of misunderstandings,” he told Mexican broadcaster TUDN.
Hernandez has since apologisedto Romero and said he “would never attack him or any other player”, promising to accept the punishment handed down by the league’s disciplinary committee.
UEFA, Europe’s governing body, wants to punish Barcelona by barring them from the Champions League for an indefinite period of time.
From 2001 to 2018, Barcelona is accused of making payments totaling more than €7 million to Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira, former vice president of the Spanish Technical Committee of Referees.
According to Forbes, if Barcelona is found guilty of the allegations, UEFA will request a multi-year ban from European competitions such as the Champions League.
UEFA’s Ethics and Disciplinary Inspectors have been appointed to conduct an investigation into Barcelona’s possible violation of UEFA’s legal framework in connection with the so-called ‘Caso Negreira.’
Barcelona through its president Joan Laporta has since denied the club broke any laws and insisted all payments were made legally for consultation services carried out by Negreira.
Barcelona worried about UEFA ban Meanwhile, officials at Barcelona are worried about being banned from UEFA competitions after the European football governing body opened an investigation into the club.
The Catalans believed they could be sanctioned by UEFA which automatically means a ban from the Champions League for at least one season if they are found guilty.
Barcelona, on the other hand, is unconcerned about the Spanish justice system or the prosecutor’s office, believing that no crimes were committed in the ‘Negreira case.
Barcelona could be relegated to second division
It was reported that Barcelona could be sent to the Spanish second division of Spanish football in the wake of the corruption charges the club faces over paying officials.
Spanish prosecutors have charged Barcelona with corruption over payments the club made to a former vice president of Spain’s referees’ Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira.
The Catalan giants had paid the company of Enrique Negreira £7.4m between 2001 and 2018, which has caused much resentment within La Liga teams.
The future health of Germany’s youth is at risk, according toGermany’s agriculture minister, who has called for a ban on all child-accessible advertising of unhealthy food, including sweets and items with a high salt, fat, and sugar content.
The Greens’ Cem Zdemir said it was time to protect children from the effects of unhealthy food, such as obesity, diabetes, and other illnesses.
Some consumer groups said the proposals should go far further and include banning the strategic placement of confectionery—so-called “Quengelware” or “moaning goods”—at supermarket cash desks, where parents often feel pressured by children to buy them. Sweets and gums are often placed close to alcohol miniatures such as schnapps and the digestif Jägermeister.
An estimated one in two Germans is considered overweight, as are 15% of children, according to health professionals.
“We must ensure that children can grow up more healthily,” Özdemir said, adding that calls on industry to regulate itself had failed.
According to his plans, junk food advertising “in every medium relevant to children” including television, radio and YouTube and Instagram, should be reduced. In future such advertising should only be broadcast between 11pm and 6am, he said.
He stressed he was not in favour of a complete advertising ban, but said: “Advertising should no longer be directed at children.”
Print advertising in children’s magazines as well as billboard advertising in the vicinity of schools and leisure centres for sweets and confectionery should be banned. Zdemir stated that his definition of unhealthy food was based on World Health Organisation guidelines.
He said he would seek cross-party support for the initiative, but expected resistance.
Zdemir’s plan is consistent with the pre-election promise made by the Social Democrats, Greens, and the pro-business FDP, which stated that “Child-focused advertising of foodstuffs containing high sugar, fat, and salt content should in future not be allowed in broadcasting and other formats directed at children under the age of 14.”
Support and praise for the proposal came from consumer rights groups, the World Wildlife Fund and the German Obesity Society which said Özdemir had “delivered a big hit.” It said that obesity was a “key health problem” for children and that the advertising of unhealthy foods was an important contributory factor.
The German Society for Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ) said it was behind the proposal. Its vice-president, Ursula Felderhoff-Müser, told German media that doctors and scientific associations as well as consumer protection groups had been calling for tighter regulation for years insisting that the efficacy of advertising directed at children was well documented.
The FDP and CDU were critical of the plans, while some within the ruling SPD also raised concerns.
Gero Hocker, agricultural spokesperson for the FDP said Özdemir would find no majority within the ruling coalition. He accused him of “trying to turn children unable to make decisions for themselves into citizens unable to do so”.
The CDU’s Steffen Bilger criticised Özdemir for, he said, “trying to smooth the way for dirigisme, bureaucracy and paternalism”.
The SPD’s leader, Saskia Esken, stated that while advertising should not be allowed to mislead, it was ultimately personal decisions that made a difference. “I believe that it’s still up to the parents to protect children from unhealthy foods.”
Employees were informed that if they did not remove the Chinese-owned social media website by March 15, they would lose access to their email accounts and video conferencing systems.
“To protect the Commission’s data and increase its cybersecurity, the EC [European Commission] Corporate Management Board has decided to suspend the TikTok application on corporate devices and personal devices enrolled in the Commission mobile device services,” bosses told staff in an email message.
TikTok is allegedly intended to collect more personal data than any other social media app or messaging service, according to experts.
This has sparked fears within Western governments that TikTok poses a potential security risk because of concerns over its Chinese parent company’s close relationship with Beijing.
The EU ban will also apply to its staffs’ personal phones if they have work-related applications installed on them.
It follows a decision by the US Congress to restrict TikTok usage on federal government devices.
The Dutch intelligence agency has also launched a probe into the risks posed by government workers with the app installed on their mobile phones.
Time for UK Government ban?
But as it stands, no European government has followed the US lead in officially banning the app.
At the time, Forbes reported the application was being used to spy on journalists covering its parent company ByteDance.
On Thursday, TikTok said that a decision by the European Commission to ban the video-sharing app on its staff’s official devices was based on mistaken ideas about its platform.
“We are disappointed with this decision, which we believe to be misguided and based on fundamental misconceptions,” a spokesperson for the Chinese-owned company said, after the Commission cited data protection concerns.
They wanted to know if the FBI had additional information to support a ban in their state amid dire warnings by the law enforcement agency’s leadership and Republican governors that the Chinese-owned app posed serious threats to privacy and national security.
“Good morning gentlemen. We’re looking for any recommendations on TikTok after Maryland moved to ‘ban’ its use,” Jeff Brown, the chief information security officer for Connecticut, said in an email to a contact at the FBI on December 7.
“Our logic is captured below, but we’d be interested in your thoughts. Appreciate any feedback,” Brown said in the email, which was also sent to contacts at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Department of Homeland Security.
Brown included in his message an email chain in which he and Mark Raymond, Connecticut’s chief information officer (CIO), expressed agreement that Maryland’s ban appeared to be a case of “overreach”.
Offered a chance to provide additional information in support of a ban, the FBI contact declined.
[Connecticut Department of Administrative Services]
“I asked one of my analysts to reach out to our HQ,” the FBI agent, who leads a team in Connecticut focused on cybercrime, said in an email to Brown.
“She emailed me towards the end of the day to say that she couldn’t find evidence that we had any additional information to share.”
Maryland and other states that had announced TikTok bans appeared to have “based their decisions on news reports and other open source information about China in general, not specific to Tik Tok,” the FBI agent quoted his analyst as saying.
“Sorry we don’t have more to offer,” the FBI agent said.
The CISA contact, a cybersecurity adviser for Connecticut, told Brown he had “no additional” information and would recommend deferring to the guidance of the FBI.
Al Jazeera obtained the Connecticut state government emails, along with emails from several other state governments, after submitting public records requests with the 50 US states and the District of Columbia.
Cybersecurity officials in Connecticut last month asked the FBI for advice on banning TikTok [File: Yuri Gripas/Reuters]
Raymond, the Connecticut CIO, ultimately determined that the risk of TikTok was “low” based on the fact that, among other criteria, he had received no information suggesting Tiktok had misused data, concerns about the app appeared to have nothing to do with the platform itself, and a ban could “drive additional Chinese cyber activity and interest in Connecticut.”
He recommended that Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, a Democrat, “take no action at this time” but continue to monitor the situation.
[Connecticut Department of Administrative Services]
When contacted by Al Jazeera for comment, Raymond said protecting state networks is an “extremely high priority for us”.
“We regularly review security threats against the state and act as warranted,” he said. “We are supportive of national action on topics that may threaten our national security and continue to work with all our partners on the most appropriate recommendations for our state.
The episode in Connecticut, which has not been previously reported, stands in contrast to the dire public warnings FBI Director Christopher Wray has made about TikTok.
Wray has repeatedly warned that China could use TikTok to “manipulate content” to carry out influence operations and steal personal data for espionage purposes.
“All of these things are in the hands of a government that doesn’t share our values, and that has a mission that’s very much at odds with what’s in the best interests of the United States,” Wray told a University of Michigan event last month. “That should concern us.”
In response to a request for comment, the FBI National Press Office directed Al Jazeera to past comments by Wray in which he said the agency is advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) amid its discussions with TikTok on ways to address national security fears and expressed concern about the Chinese government forcing companies to hand over sensitive data.
FBI Director Christopher Wray has repeatedly described TikTok as a national security threat [File: Graeme Jennings/pool via Reuters]
TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, which has its headquarters in Beijing and is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, argues that the FBI’s warnings about the app relate to purely hypothetical concerns and no evidence has been presented of wrongdoing.
ByteDance has long insisted it would never share user data with the Chinese government and says it is working to address hypothetical national security risks as part of a deal it is negotiating with CFIUS.
“As we have said before, these state and university bans are not driven by specific intelligence about TikTok and are driven by misinformation about our company and our service,” TikTok spokeswoman Brooke Oberwetter told Al Jazeera.
“We stand ready to fully brief state and local officials about our comprehensive plan to address national security concerns, plans developed under the oversight of our nation’s top national security agencies.”
Even as bans on TikTok gather steam, tech experts — and even some government officials, as in the case of Connecticut — acknowledge there is little technical evidence to justify the level of fear and anxiety the video-streaming platform, one of the world’s most popular apps, has inspired.
Instead, most arguments for restricting the app have rested on broader mistrust of Beijing, including fears the Chinese government could access users’ personal data or manipulate public opinion for nefarious ends.
“We haven’t seen any evidence that TikTok is a greater risk than any other social media platform,” Cliff Lampe, a professor of information at the University of Michigan, told Al Jazeera.
“The sole concern expressed is that its main owner is a Chinese company — even though most TikTok traffic in the US is managed on US servers. The logic is that the Chinese government could importune TikTok for private user data.”
TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, has denied claims that the popular app poses a threat to privacy or national security [File: Dado Ruvic/Illustration]
While the Trump administration first put TikTok in the crosshairs in 2020 with proposals for an outright ban, efforts to stymie the app gained momentum after South Dakota announced its ban in November last year.
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem claimed the Chinese Communist Party used the app to “manipulate the American people” and said her state would have no part in the “intelligence gathering operations of nations who hate us”.
Among Republicans, the party affiliation of Noem and other governors that rolled out early bans appears to have had some influence in persuading other states to follow suit.
In December last year, the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee (RGPPC), a public policy organisation for promoting conservative policy at the state level, sent out a newsletter to Republican-led state governments highlighting recent bans in South Dakota, South Carolina, Maryland and Texas.
“Within the past week, four Republican governors banned or limited the social media platform, TikTok, on state devices,” Zach Swint, a senior policy adviser for the RGPPC, wrote in the December 7 newsletter.
In North Dakota, which banned TikTok on state devices on December 13, the newsletter prompted the chief of staff to Governor Doug Burgum to request state cybersecurity officials to “quickly determine if we have any state devices using TikTok and if we should consider an action like other governors below”.
“Please expedite this and send a recommendation as quickly as possible,” Jace Beehler said in an email dated December 8.
Lampe, the University of Michigan professor, said that states appear to have looked to each other for lessons on how to handle TiKTok “given their lack of expertise in the area”.
“The danger of that, however, is that if the legislation is misguided then it will replicate itself quickly with little critical examination. My sense is that part of this is that legislatures are mostly run by older people, who may see a youth-oriented social platform as banal, so the danger of being too strict is low.”
Bipartisan concerns
At least 28 US states, including Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and Georgia, have introduced bans on TikTok for government devices so far. While a majority are led by Republican governors, Democratic-led states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina have also rolled out bans, which have increasingly attracted bipartisan support.
In December, US President Joe Biden signed legislation containing a ban for federal government devices, while a number of Republican politicians are pushing legislation to ban the app outright. Universities in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia and Iowa have in recent weeks also announced bans for official devices.
Marc Faddoul, codirector of AI Forensics, a European non-profit that researches the mechanics of TikTok, said that concerns that the app has access to large amounts of personal data and could be used to sway public opinion are both reasonable and mired in hypocrisy.
“The concerns, I think, are legitimate but I think the US government’s position is hypocritical because the same concern is true for any other country with respect to the American platforms,” Faddoul told Al Jazeera, adding that it is also important to acknowledge that the US government has more respect for democratic norms than its Chinese counterpart.
“The US government could and has in the past leverage their power, their domestic companies for national security interests and could in the context of a war make use of it potentially to filter to promote specific types of information.”
Faddoul said discussions should focus more on protecting user data across the industry instead of just TikTok alone.
“I do believe that a better approach is to do something that is systematic for the whole industry in terms of data protection laws,” he said.
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont has not announced restrictions on TikTok [File: Jessica Hill/AP]
Even as a majority of US states have rolled out TikTok bans, some state officials have expressed ambivalence about the app.
In some cases, state governments have carved out exemptions in recognition of the app’s usefulness for some official business.
In Utah, which banned TikTok on state devices on December 12, officials at the Division of Juvenile Justice and Youth Services sought an exemption to allow some staff to access the app, emails obtained by Al Jazeera through a public records request show.
In South Carolina, one of the first states to announce a ban, officials retroactively introduced changes to allow “identified” law enforcement personnel to access TikTok, according to emails obtained via a public records request.
In New Jersey, where Democrats control the governorship and both branches of the legislature, the state’s top cybersecurity official last month expressed a preference for restricting the app to “separate and isolated devices” rather than a total ban, according to emails revealed by Al Jazeera last month. New Jersey, like most other Democratic-led states, has yet to publicly announce restrictions on the app.
Some states appear to have preferred a quiet approach to limiting the use of TikTok.
In Michigan, Caleb Buhs, the state’s director of communications, told colleagues TikTok would be added to a list of social media platforms not approved for official use from the following month, emails show.
Michigan has not yet announced a ban on the app and Democrat Gretchen Whitmer, the state’s governor, continues to operate a TikTok account where she regularly posts videos.
Sara Collins, an expert in data protection and consumer privacy at the non-profit Public Knowledge, said TikTok’s links to China deserve scrutiny, but the controversy around the app has distracted from the broader lack of privacy protections in the internet age.
“Given China’s authoritarian government and its control of its corporations mean that TikTok rightly deserves additional scrutiny,” Collins told Al Jazeera.
“However, the discourse surrounding the TikTok bans have mostly moved away from addressing specific risks and become a convenient way for politicians to signal they are anti-China. TikTok, like all social media platforms, collects enormous amounts of data about its users. As we have seen with other major tech companies, this constant surveillance can cause harm.”
Japan and South Korea no longer receive short-term visas from China in response for Covid travel restrictions on Chinese citizens.
Visas for South Koreans entering China as tourists have been suspended, Beijing’s embassy in Seoul said.
Japanese media reported China was imposing similar measures there.
It’s a tit-for-tat move which Beijing says will remain in place until “discriminatory” entry restrictions against China are lifted.
Last week, South Korea stopped issuing tourist visas for those coming from China, which the Chinese foreign ministry called “unacceptable” and “unscientific”.
Reacting to China’s latest move, South Korea’s foreign ministry told the BBC that its policy towards arrivals from China was “in accordance with scientific and objective evidence”.
Japan meanwhile is currently allowing Chinese visitors into the country, provided they test negative for Covid.
According to South Korea’s Disease Control and Prevention Agency, around a third of all arrivals from China tested positive for Covid prior to the visa restrictions being put in place.
The curbs are supposed to last at least until the end of the month, which would give scientists time to analyse for any potential new variants coming from China.
“There’s no transparency at the moment in China about any monitoring for new variants. If a new variant comes from China, it would be a very difficult situation for the whole world,” Professor Kim Woo Joo, an infectious diseases expert at Korea University and a government adviser, told the BBC.
“It would also be a disaster for the Korean healthcare system. We currently have a lot of hospitalisations and deaths already and our elderly people are also under-vaccinated. This is what we are worried about.”
At the moment, only a small number of business or diplomatic travellers from China are being allowed into South Korea. They must test negative before departure and also on arrival.
One Chinese man who tested positive escaped from a bus taking him to a quarantine hotel near the airport. Two days later he was caught by police in a hotel in Seoul.
At Seoul’s Incheon International airport, the only South Korean airport still allowing flights from China, arrivals are met by military personnel in personal protective equipment.
The BBC managed to speak to some of them as they were escorted to the airport testing centre.
“Personally, I think it’s okay. I have been through much worse during this pandemic,” said William, a businessman from Shanghai. “As a traveller I just try to comply with the policies are much as possible.”
But another passenger disagreed.
“In my mind it’s not scientific at all,” says Emily, who arrived from Hong Kong. She, like those coming from mainland China, was required to test.
“I feel like it’s a little bit unfair on this side. They must feel really unsafe, I suppose.”
Many South Koreans support the idea of protecting their country from the China’s coronavirus surge, but not all are convinced that the decision to limit travel is a purely medical one.
“There is a political element to it and the relationship between the two countries isn’t a good one. A lot of Korean people hold a lot of animosity blaming China for the coronavirus,” said Jinsun, who was heading to Abu Dhabi.
Another woman going on her honeymoon to Paris said South Korea might not have implemented such rules if the country concerned wasn’t China.
“But then again, whatever we did, China would have a problem with it,” she said.
Tanzania’s leader, Samia Suluhu Hassan, has lifted a six-year ban on political rallies that was imposed by the former president, John Magufuli.
Her decision is part of her “4 R’s” initiative: reconciliation, resilience, reform, and reconstruction.
She acknowledged parties had the right to hold rallies but she urged them to be “civil” and not to “trade insults”
Mr Magufuli had banned rallies in between electionsin what was seen as an attempt to weaken the opposition.
He dismissed rallies as a waste of time and money and said they detracted from the key challenge of building the economy.
Mrs Samia announced the reversal of his policy at a meeting with opposition politicians.
“Our duty as a government will be offering protection for the rallies,” she said.
The chairman of the main opposition Chadema party, Freeman Mbowe, said he welcomed the announcement.
“The move is first of all a return to a right guaranteed in the constitution and our laws,” he added.
Mr Mbowe spent seven months in prison, before the prosecution dropped charges of terrorism against him in March 2022.
His arrest had raised doubts about Mrs Samia’s commitment to reforms after she became president following Mr Magufuli’s death in 2021.
Another opposition politician, Zito Kabwe, told the AFP news agency that the president’s decision to lift the ban was a “big move.”
“This is the right that was snatched by the state through an illegal presidential decree,” he added.
Mrs Samia also promised to look into opposition demands for changes to the constitution.
Opposition parties say the constitution gives too much power to thepresident. They also want changes to safeguard the independence of the electoral commission and the courts.
Mrs Samiah is the leader of the ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), which has been in power for more than half a century.
It has often been accused of rigging elections and harassing and intimidating the opposition. It denies the allegations.
The United Arab Emirateshas reportedly banned nationals of some 20 African countries from entering its capital city, Dubai.
“This is to inform you that we will not be posting 30 days visa applications for these nationalities effective today October 18, 2022,” the notice read in part.
countries affected by the visa ban include Uganda, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Cameroon, Nigeria, Liberia, Burundi, Republic of Guinea, Gambia, Togo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal, Benin, Ivory Coast, Congo, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau, Comoros, and the Dominican Republic.
In a notice issued to trade partners including travel agents, authorities indicated that all applications should be rejected.
“Any applications from the above-mentioned countries will be sent back or canceled.” According to reports.
this is not the first time some African countries have been banned from entering Dubai.
In December 2021, Emirates Airlines announced that eight African countries will not be accepted to travel through Dubai until further notice due to the spread of Covid 19.
It is however not clear the reason behind the latest ban.
Countriesmay ban the exportation of certain commodities from time to time. It is not an altogether uncommon thing to do, and it may occur for several different reasons.
The length of time a commodity may remain banned is entirely relative to the reason or reasons it was banned for, or to the special conditions that may have provoked causing it to be banned in the first place.
What precisely does it mean to ban the exportation of a commodity, why may it happen, how may it be done, should it even happen and what steps can producers and governments take to mitigate its possibly negative socio-economic repercussions?
Reading onwards, you will discover what arguments exist for and against this practice and what that may mean for you (whether or not you are directly involved). Where national or domestic commodities are concerned, we are mostly all of us involved or affected in one way or the other.
Why do we ban food exports (or imports)
Banning the exportation of certain foods or agricultural commodities may happen for a myriad of reasons. The practice dates back thousands of years even, as we may observe in the famous Bible story in which Joseph, Prime Minister of Egypt, levied restrictions on grains for the purposes of saving the nation of Egypt from the oncoming famine that was to plague the then-modern world.
We often share several similarities when this practice extends to us even in these current times. You have heard that Ghana recently placed a ban on the exportation of grains. These grains included the staples such as soybeans, maize, rice, and others.
This is understandable, as the ban has been in place since September 2021 in order to help fortify Ghana’s domestic production of poultry and livestock. This new extension (of the ban) is now a consequence of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine are the largest exporters of wheat (and also heavily export other grains). The following are some facts about Russia and Ukraine’s contributions to the global grain market (according to this Forbes article):
“Grain exports from Ukraine are down 64% so far in May compared to the same timeframe last year, the country’s agriculture ministry said Thursday according to Interfax Ukraine.
Known as one of the world’s breadbaskets for its agricultural production, Ukraine accounted for 10% of global wheat exports in 2021, according to the United Nations, while Russia produced about 17% of all wheat globally.” (Saul, 2022)
With grain exports down 64% (from Ukraine), we can see how much of a global strain this would cause on the market. With no proper way of determining just how much longer the unrest may carry on, the ban is unfortunate but arguably necessary. Further, Russia not only exports a lot of wheat but is also the world’s largest exporter, as this synopsis from an Aljazeera news article states:
“Russia is the world’s largest exporter of wheat, accounting for more than 18 percent of international exports. In 2019, Russia and Ukraine together exported more than a quarter (25.4 percent) of the world’s wheat, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).” (Duggal & Haddad, 2022)
So on one hand, we understand that food export (and import) bans are imposed for the purposes of food security and safeguarding livelihoods. There are, however, arguments from some very prominent authorities and bodies that argue strongly against this, citing also that banning the export or import of these grain commodities is ridding the world of at least 10% of its calories, and thereby increasing the risks of food insecurity.
An article on the matter published by The Economist cites the bans and actions against food imports that were taken by at least 20 countries including India and Malaysia, and how this action may be hurting the world instead of healing it:
“On May 23rd Malaysia banned the export of poultry. Earlier this month, India banned wheat exports. According to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), a think-tank, at least 20 countries have imposed some sort of limit on exports since the war began. Taken together the restricted exports account for 10% of calories on the global market. The United Nations has urged countries to reconsider. Keeping calories flowing across borders, it argues, is the best way to ensure global food security and less-volatile prices.“ (The Economist, 2022)
Both the arguments for and against are worth looking into, as they undoubtedly both have sound grounds backing them.
What goes into setting the right domestic market prices
So what exactly goes into determining food prices? Who decides how they are set? What are the rules of engagement? What is the modus operandi? Domestic food prices (in Ghana) are mostly set based on the demand for that particular food commodity within the domestic market. Food prices are also often inflated and influenced by seasonal farming, and the lack of adequate food preservation and processing facilities. According to Forbes, the following reasons may also influence the price of food within domestic markets:
“Prices are set by either retail category managers or pricing analysts according to their category role (competitive, destination, innovation, etc.), market intel, demand elasticity and the corresponding gross margins and sales targets. Any given retailer will have dozens of product categories based on particular purchase occasions, such as milk, yoghurt, snack bars, citrus, berries, etc. These staff who negotiate prices with suppliers are accountable to financial targets set by executives. Pricing strategy is a major tool these workers use to achieve or exceed these expectations, lest they lose their jobs.” (Schweizer, 2022)
We understand the domestic market sets the domestic prices, but the average Ghanaian is forced to bend over backwards to be able to afford basic common foods. Hausa Koko is now selling for 1.50 Cedis a bag in some neighbourhoods. It appears the government needs to intervene and provide some form of economic agricultural commodity respite for citizens before things truly go out of hand. Inflation is on the rise and is on its highest in the past 18 years. Bloomberg reported the following:
“Ghana’s inflation rate jumped to the highest level in more than 18 years in May as food and transport costs surged. Annual inflation accelerated to 27.6%, the fastest pace since January 2004, from 23.6% in April, Government Statistician Samuel Kobina Annim told reporters Wednesday in Accra, the capital. The headline inflation rate is more than double the upper ceiling of the central bank’s target band of 6% to 10% and has been above that range for nine months. Prices jumped 4.1% in the month.” (Bloomberg, 2022)
Conclusion
It is fact that the world at large is in a bit of a pickle in the food sector and that things are rather uncertain as they are somewhat at the whim of the unrest currently happening in Ukraine, but our nation cannot sit idly as the cost of living soars beyond the allocation of salaries.
The rise of food prices in the county is by no means an isolated case, as it happens that the cost of fuel, transportation and accommodation is equally on the rise. The onus appears to have fallen on the leading economists and planners of this nation and the core members of government to step in and step up for the people.
I hope you enjoyed the read. Hit me up and let’s keep the conversation going! I read all the feedback you send. Also, feel free to throw at me topics you’d like to read or hear my thoughts on. You can always head to my Calendly at calendly.com/maxwellampong or connect with me your own way through my Linktree: https://linktr.ee/themax.
The Duke of Norfolk told magistrates that losing his license would cause “exceptional hardship” because he needs to driveto organize the coronation of King Charles III.
A senior peer who organized the Queen’s funeral has been handed a six-month driving ban for using his mobile phone behind the wheel.
The Earl Marshal, the Duke of Norfolk, 65, argued in court that he should be spared a ban because he needs his licence to organize the coronation of King Charles III.
A lawyer for the duke – a descendant of Queen Elizabeth I believed to be worth £100m – told magistrates on Monday that losing his license would lead to “exceptional hardship”.
The Oxford-educated father-of-five, who is also responsible for arranging the State Opening of Parliament, pleaded guilty at Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court to using his mobile phone behind the wheel in Battersea, southwest London.
The duke, also known as Edward Fitzalan-Howard, was stopped by police after he was spotted using his phone while driving his BMW on 7 April.
The offense comes with a compulsory six-point endorsement – but he already had nine penalty points on his licence for previous speeding offenses.
Passing the sentence, bench chair Judith Way, said: “We accept that this a unique case because of the defendant’s role in society and in particular in relation to the King’s coronation.
“The hardship needs to be exceptional and although we find inconvenience may be caused, we don’t find it exceptional hardship.”
The duke’s lawyer, Natasha Dardashti, made an application for parts of the hearing to be held “in camera” – excluding the press and public – over “national security” concerns regarding “very sensitive” information.
Image:The Duke of Norfolk arriving at Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court
She told the court: “In relation to the exceptional hardship argument, his grace will need to provide some detail and information about the preparation of the coronation of His Royal Highness King Charles III.
“The application for this matter to be in camera is for reasons of national security and because details of this will be provided which have not yet been discussed with His Royal Highness, and not yet discussed with the prime minister and not yet discussed with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
“It would be unacceptable for these details to be made public or made known to risk the escape of that information of a very sensitive nature.”
Image: The Duke of Norfolk, far right, at the Accession Council ceremony at St James’s Palace where King Charles was formally proclaimed the new monarch
.
Outlining the facts of the driving offense, prosecutor Jonathan Bryan said: “Officers were stationary at traffic lights, which turned green.
“A BMW cut across them and on that basis, the officers assumed it must have gone through a red light because their light was green.
“One of the officers noticed the driver was using a mobile phone while doing this and didn’t seem to be paying attention.
“The officers drove up to the BMW and saw through the window that the driver was using his mobile phone.
“They spoke to the driver, who was his grace. He said he had not been aware of going through the red light but accepted this was because he was using his mobile phone.
Some supporters of Asante Kotoko are urging the Ghana Referees Association to ban referee Selorm Yao Bless from officiating the Super Clash after awarding an ‘offside goal’ to Accra Hearts of Oak at the Baba Yara Sports Stadium.
Asante Kotoko drew 1-1 with Accra Hearts of Oak in their first game of the 2021/22 Ghana Premier League season.
Caleb Amankwa scored an offside goal from a set piece to get a late equalizer for Hearts Oak in the matchday three encounter.
Kotoko were denied some penalties in the match as their striker Mukwala was brought down in the box on several occasions with the referee allowing play to continue.
After the game, some disappointed Kotoko fans berated referee Selorm Yao Bless for failing to make bold decisions in the game.
While some called for stiffer punishment for referee Yao Bless just like referee Kenny Paddy who officiated a similar match last season, others also called for his ban.
Here are some comments on social media
@ghanafaofficial we are waiting to see you ban or suspend referee selorm Yao bless
Hypocrites
An improved @AsanteKotoko_SC performance, still needs time for our players to jell. But truth be told; Ref. Selorm Yao Bless had an agenda. How could he deny us 3 clear penalties and accept an offside goal by @HeartsOfOakGH ? @ghanafaofficial should ban this ref ASAP.
@AsanteKotoko_SC vs @HeartsOfOakGH …
The man of the match is Referee Selorm Yao Bless.!!
He blessed hearts with an offside goal and denied kotoko clear penalties. @HeartsOfOakGH Please sign him.fantastic performance !!!
The Ho based referee Selorm Yao Bless wasn’t just biased against Asante Kotote but unprofessional as well. Referee Bless, please put your tribal sentiments aside and officiate professionally. Ghana needs good and well trained referees. Still Kum Apem a, Apem bɛba. Asante yɛ Ɔman. pic.twitter.com/5h3G5VUF8g
A much better spectacle in the second half as Asante Kotoko and Hearts of Oak share the spoils. Looks like the biggest talking point from the game will be referee Selorm Yao Bless 😬
Selorm Yaw Bless continued… Hopefully the Match review committee of the @ghanafaofficial will see the need to look into these bad calls and call him to order.. This s shameful especially on the bavk that a referee in this same fixture last sesson got suspended for 1 call pic.twitter.com/67QWiMJEuF
Management consultancy Bain has been banned from government contracts for three years over its involvement in a South African corruption scandal.
The government cited “grave professional misconduct” for the move.
The firm said it was “disappointed and surprised” by the decision but acknowledged it had made “mistakes”.
The move follows a probe into allegations of widespread corruption during South Africa’s former President Jacob Zuma nine years in power.
The former president has been accused of placing the interests of corrupt associates ahead of those of his country, in a type of corruption known as “state capture”.
In the South African government’s investigation, Bain was found to have had links with corruption in the country as part of its work for the national tax agency.
The 2018-2022 South African Government Commission, called the Zondo commission, after Raymond Zondo, who currently serves as Chief Justice of South Africa, concluded Bain acted “unlawfully” and, along with other private sector companies, colluded in “the clearest example of state capture”.
A spokesperson from the Cabinet Office said that after reviewing Bain’s role and taking account of the “evidence and conclusions of the South African Government Commission”, the Minister for Government Efficiency, Jacob Rees-Mogg, considered Bain to be “guilty of grave professional misconduct”.
“This decision has been taken in light of Bain’s responsibility as a global brand for its South Africa division and the company’s failure to clarify the facts and circumstances of its involvement,” the spokesperson added.
Bain said it had “apologized for the mistakes” it’s South African office made in its work with Sars and that it had repaid all fees from the work, with interest, in 2018.
But the management consultancy said it had not acted illegally at Sars or elsewhere “and no evidence to the contrary has been put forward.”
Labour peer and veteran anti-apartheid campaigner Peter Hain said he believed that the alleged role Bain played in assisting the damaging of Sars, was “sufficient for precluding Bain from engaging in work at public institutions”.
The US-based firm has been awarded UK government contracts worth up to £63m since 2018 and London is its second-largest office.
Lord Hain said he was pleased by the decision.
Global corporates like Bain, he said, had to “feel the pain for the consequences” of their behavior in South Africa’s “state capture and corruption scandal” under former President Zuma.
“Otherwise other corporates will be tempted to do the same,” Lord Hain told the BBC.
‘Brazenly assisted’ corruption
In a speech to the House of Lords last month, Lord Hain, under parliamentary privilege, said Bain had “brazenly assisted” Mr. Zuma to organize his decade of “shameless looting and corruption”. Lord Hain said the firm had earned fees estimated at £100m from state institutions during this period.
“Bain used its expertise, not to enhance the functioning of a world-renowned tax authority as Sars was acknowledged, but to disable its ability to collect tax and pursue tax evaders, all in the service of their corrupt paymasters.”
“The very company who possessed the expertise to bolster South Africa’s defensesagainst the ravages of state capture, in fact, weakened these defenses and profited from it,” Lord Hain added.
After raising the issue with former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Lord Hain received a letter from his office in January affirming that the Cabinet Office had been asked to “look into this matter with urgency”.
In another letter also seen by the BBC, the American Ambassador in London promised to share Lord Hain’s concerns with relevant parties in Washington.
Whistleblower formerly employed by Bain welcomes news
Athol Williams, a South African whistleblower formerly employed by Bain, testified at the Zondo Commission’s state inquiry into corruption allegations and left the country saying he feared for his life.
IMAGE SOURCE, ATHOL WILLIAMS
Image caption,
Athol Williams says the killing of another whistle-blower in SA had left him in fear of his life
In response to the decision, Mr. Williams, a former ethics lecturer at the University of Cape Town, said that this external confirmation of Bain’s misconduct “raises the urgency of the Zondo Commission’s recommendation that all Bain’s public sector contracts be investigated with a view to prosecution”.
“SA has taken a big step forward today in our fight against corruption, state capture, and predatory companies, a fight that I consider our new liberation struggle.”
