Nigeria army airstrike kills 20 people, Amnesty and residents says
MAIDUGURI, Nigeria, June 2 (Reuters) - At least 20 people were killed in a military airstrike in Nigeria's northwestern Zamfara state over the weekend, residents and Amnesty International said on Monday, with the rights group calling for authorities to investigate the incident.
The Nigerian Army and Nigerian Air Force could not immediately be reached for comment.
Residents said the airstrike occurred on Sunday in Maraya and Wabi villages in Zamfara state, one of the epicentres of attacks by armed groups, commonly called bandits, that maraud Nigeria's northwest region.
The military operation was carried out by the Nigerian Air Force at the request of villagers who had suffered a bandit attack at the weekend, the residents said. An unknown number of people were wounded, they said.
"The military aircraft arrived and started firing, killing at least 20 of our people," Abdullahi Ali, a Mani resident and member of a militia group of hunters, told Reuters by phone.
Nigeria's military has in the past admitted to mistakenly targeting civilians while pursuing armed gangs in northwest Nigeria, where there is widespread insecurity, and has promised to investigate such cases.
In January, a military airstrike killed 16 people in Tungar Kara, another town in Zamfara.
Auwal Idris, another resident, said a jet dropped a bomb close to where community guards were fighting bandits, killing 20 of the guards.
Amnesty said the latest incident should be investigated.
"Attacks by bandits clearly warrant a response from the state, but to launch reckless airstrikes into villages — again and again — is absolutely unlawful," Amnesty said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
2 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
35 people including children deported from Ireland to Nigeria
35 people, including five children, 21 males and nine females, were deported from Ireland on Wednesday. The children were all part of family groups, gardaí said. Advertisement They were removed on a chartered flight which left Dublin Airport for Nigeria last night. Gardaí from the National Immigration Bureau carried out the operation of removing individuals from the State. A garda statement said that they continue to work closely with the Department of Justice in implementing immigration policy.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
California's Yurok Tribe gets back ancestral lands that were taken over 120 years ago
As a youngster, Barry McCovey Jr. would sneak through metal gates and hide from security guards just to catch a steelhead trout in Blue Creek amid northwestern California redwoods. Since time immemorial, his ancestors from the Yurok Tribe had fished, hunted and gathered in this watershed flanked by coastal forests. But for more than 100 years, these lands were owned and managed by timber companies, severing the tribe's access to its homelands. When McCovey started working as a fisheries technician, the company would let him go there to do his job. 'Snorkeling Blue Creek ... I felt the significance of that place to myself and to our people, and I knew then that we had to do whatever we could to try and get that back,' McCovey said. After a 23-year effort and $56 million, that became reality. Roughly 73 square miles (189 square kilometers) of homelands have been returned to the Yurok, more than doubling the tribe's land holdings, according to a deal announced Thursday. Completion of the land-back conservation deal along the lower Klamath River — a partnership with Western Rivers Conservancy and other environmental groups — is being called the largest in California history. The Yurok Tribe had 90% of its territory taken during the California Gold Rush in the mid-1800s, suffering massacres and disease from settlers. 'To go from when I was a kid and 20 years ago even, from being afraid to go out there to having it be back in tribal hands … is incredible,' said McCovey, director of the Yurok Tribal Fisheries Department. ___ EDITOR'S NOTE: This is part of a series of on how tribes and Indigenous communities are coping with and combating climate change. ___ Land Back is a global movement seeking the return of homelands to Indigenous people through ownership or co-stewardship. In the last decade, nearly 4,700 square miles (12,173 square kilometers) were returned to tribes in 15 states through a federal program. Organizations are aiding similar efforts. There's mounting recognition that Indigenous people's traditional knowledge is critical to addressing climate change. Studies found the healthiest, most biodiverse and resilient forests are on protected native lands where Indigenous people remained stewards. Beth Rose Middleton Manning, a University of California, Davis professor of Native American Studies, said Indigenous people's perspective — living in relation with the lands, waterways and wildlife — is becoming widely recognized, and is a stark contrast to Western views. ' Management of a forest to grow conifers for sale is very different from thinking about the ecosystem and the different plants and animals and people as part of it and how we all play a role," she said. The Yurok people will now manage these lands and waterways. The tribe's plans include reintroducing fire as a forest management tool, clearing lands for prairie restoration, removing invasive species and planting trees while providing work for some of the tribe's more than 5,000 members and helping restore salmon and wildlife. Protecting a salmon sanctuary One fall morning in heavy fog, a motorboat roared down the turbid Klamath toward Blue Creek — the crown jewel of these lands — past towering redwoods, and cottonwoods, willows, alders. Suddenly, gray gave way to blue sky, where an osprey and bald eagle soared. Along a bank, a black bear scrambled over rocks. The place is home to imperiled marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls and Humboldt martens, as well as elk, deer and mountain lions. The Klamath River basin supports fish — steelhead, coho and Chinook salmon — that live in both fresh and saltwater. The Klamath was once the West Coast's third largest salmon-producing river and the life force of Indigenous people. But the state's salmon stock has plummeted so dramatically — in part from dams and diversions — that fishing was banned for the third consecutive year. 'We can't have commercial fishing because populations are so low,' said Tiana Williams-Claussen, director of the Yurok Tribe Wildlife Department. 'Our people would use the revenue to feed their families; now there's less than one salmon per Yurok Tribe member." Experts say restoring Blue Creek complements the successful, decades-long fight by tribes to remove the Klamath dams — the largest dam removal in U.S. history. This watershed is a cold-water lifeline in the lower Klamath for spawning salmon and steelhead that stop to cool down before swimming upstream. That's key amid climate-infused droughts and warming waters. 'For the major river to have its most critical and cold-water tributary … just doing its job is critical to the entire ecosystem,' said Sue Doroff, co-founder and former president of Western Rivers Conservancy. Altered lands, waterways For more than 100 years, these lands were owned and managed for industrial timber. Patchworks of 15 to 20 acres (6.07 to 8.09 hectares) at a time of redwoods and Douglas firs have been clear cut to produce and sell logs domestically, according to Galen Schuler, a vice president at Green Diamond Resource Company, the previous land owner. Schuler said the forests have been sustainably managed, with no more than 2% cut annually, and that old growth is spared. He said they are 'maybe on the third round' of clear cutting since the 1850s. But clear cutting creates sediment that winds up in streams, making them shallower, more prone to warming and worsening water quality, according to Josh Kling, conservation director for the conservancy. Sediment, including from roads, can also smother salmon eggs and kill small fish. Culverts, common on Western logging roads, have also been an issue here. Most "were undersized relative to what a fish needs for passage,' Kling said. Land management decisions for commercial timber have also created some dense forests of small trees, making them wildfire prone and water thirsty, according to Williams-Claussen. 'I know a lot of people would look at the forested hillsides around here and be like, 'It's beautiful, it's forested.' But see that old growth on the hill, like way up there?' asked Sarah Beesley, fisheries biologist for the Yurok Tribe, sitting on a rock in Blue Creek. 'There's like one or two of those." Fire bans, invasive plants and encroachment of unmanaged native species have contributed to loss of prairies, historically home to abundant elk and deer herds and where the Yurok gathered plants for cultural and medicinal uses. Western Rivers Conservancy bought and conveyed land to the tribe in phases. The $56 million for the conservation deal came from private capital, low interest loans, tax credits, public grants and carbon credit sales that will continue to support restoration. Restoration plans The tribe aims to restore historic prairies by removing invasive species and encroaching native vegetation. The prairies are important food sources for elk and the mardon skipper butterfly, said Kling from the conservancy. Trees removed from prairies will be used as logjams for creeks to create habitat for frogs, fish and turtles. The tribe will reintroduce fire to aid in prairie restoration and reestablish forest diversity and mature forests to help imperiled species bounce back. Members know its going to take decades of work for these lands and waterways to heal. 'And maybe all that's not going to be done in my lifetime,' said McCovey, the fisheries director. 'But that's fine, because I'm not doing doing this for myself.' ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit
Sky News
15 hours ago
- Sky News
The big mistake Labour think Nigel Farage has made - and how the chancellor hopes to capitalise
Next week, the chancellor will unveil the first spending review since 2021. It will set Whitehall budgets for the remainder of this parliament and it will be a big moment for a government struggling to tell a story about what it is trying to achieve to voters. Rachel Reeves, flanked by transport workers in a bus depot in Rochdale, knows it. She came to the North West armed with £15bn of funding for trains, trams and buses across the Midlands and the North. Much more will be announced next week when the chancellor sets out her capital spending plans for the remainder of the parliament, having loosened her fiscal rules in the budget for capital investment. More is coming. Next week, the chancellor is expected to announce plans to spend billions more on a new railway line between Manchester and Liverpool, as well as other transport schemes for northern towns and cities. This will be the backbone of the "Northern Arc" that Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has been arguing for as a northern version to the much-vaunted Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Labour will pour £113bn into capital investment over the course of this parliament and there is an economic and political imperative for a chancellor to talk up capital spending in rail and roads, houses, power stations. On the economic side, she is in search for growth and hopes investment in infrastructure will create jobs and fire up the economy. On the politics, Labour need to show voters in their red wall seats that it is the Starmer government and not Nigel Farage that will improve the lives of working people. Ms Reeves spent a lot of time in her speech talking about the need to invest right across the country. She is overhauling the Treasury's "Green Book" that assesses value for money for public projects to make sure that funding decisions don't just get concentrated in the South East but are weighted to the Midlands and the North. 2:44 She also, in reiterating her commitment to her fiscal rule to not borrow to fund day-to-day government spending (the annual budgets for our schools, councils, courts, police, hospitals), sought to draw out the "choice" between Labour and Reform, as Labour seeks to capitalise on Mr Farage's decision last week to promise up to £80bn worth of new spending - including scrapping the two-child benefit cap and increasing winter fuel payments - while not explaining exactly how they could be paid for. Expect to hear lots more from Labour in the coming weeks about how Mr Farage is an iteration of Liz Truss, ready to pursue "fantasy economics" and trash the economy. Labour are gleeful that Mr Farage has opened up this line of attack and think it was an uncharacteristic political misstep from the Reform leader. "Farage was a politician for vibes, now he's turned himself into a politician of policy and he didn't need to do that yet," observed one senior Labour figure. But if that is the sell, here is the sting. While the Chancellor has loosened her fiscal rules for capital spending, she is resolute she will not do the same when it comes to day-to-day departmental spending, and next week harsh cuts are on the way for some departments, with Yvette Cooper at the Home Office, Angela Rayner at local government, and Ed Miliband at energy still wrangling over their settlements. Ms Reeves was at pains in Rochdale to talk about the extra £190bn the government has put into day-to-day spending in this parliament in order to see off the charges of austerity as those spending cuts kick in. Her allies point to the £300bn in total Ms Reeves has poured into capital projects and public services over this parliament. "You just can't say we aren't a tax-and-spend government," said one ally. But this isn't just a chancellor fighting Mr Farage, she is also battling with those in her own party, under extreme pressure to loosen her fiscal rules, or tax more, as MPs - and her prime minister - demand she spends more on welfare and on getting the UK warfare-ready. You can see it all playing out. After a local election drubbing, the chancellor U-turned on her seemingly iron-clad decision to take the winter fuel allowance away from all pensioners. Now, I'm hearing that the prime minister is pressing to lift the two-child benefit cap (no matter his chief of staff is opposed to the idea, with the cap popular with voters) and MPs are demanding a reverse to some disability cuts (one government insider said the backbench revolt is real and could even force a defeat despite Sir Keir's whopping 165-strong working majority). Meanwhile, the prime minister is under pressure from US President Donald Trump for NATO to lift defence spending to 3.5% of GDP. Spending demands and rising borrowing costs, there is no wonder that attention is already moving towards possible tax rises in the Autumn budget. Ms Rayner, the deputy prime minister, wrote to the chancellor, arguing for targeted wealth taxes. Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, told me this week on Electoral Dysfunction that he wanted more taxes on assets and a revaluation of council tax bands so those with large, valuable homes pay more. "We have not taxed assets and wealth properly and I'd come up with something that can be controversial but council tax has not been revalued since the early 90s so there are homes in London worth tens of millions of pounds that pay less council tax than many average properties here in Greater Manchester so I would look at reforms in that space," Mr Burnham told me this week. "I would look further at land taxation and land taxation reform. If you put in new infrastructure, what I learned through Crossrail, Elizabeth Line - you lift the values of that land. "So why don't we capture some of that uplift from that? I personally would go for a land value tax across the country. So there are things that you can do that I think can be seen to be fair, because we haven't taxed those things fairly. "I've said, and I'll say it again, we've overtaxed people's work and we've undertaxed people's assets and wealth and that balance should be put more right." I asked the chancellor on Wednesday if Ms Rayner and Mr Burnham had a point, and would she level with people that taxes might have to go up again as she struggles with spending demands and self-imposed borrowing constraints - she, of course, swerved the question and said the priority for her is to growth the economy. These questions will, I suspect, only get louder and more frequent in the run-up to the budget should borrowing costs continue to go up alongside demands for spending. The chancellor, at least, has a story to tell about rewiring the economy as a means to national renewal. But with the spoils of infrastructure investment perhaps decades off, Ms Reeves will find it hard to frame this spending review as a reboot for working people rather than a kicking for already stretched public services.
