Posts falsely claim Nigeria's Abia state governor banned cows from the north
'Breaking news: Governor Alex Otti bans cow imports from northern Nigeria, urges Abians to switch to fish or Ehi-Igbo,' reads the heading of a post on Facebook.
Ehi means cow in the Igbo language, the major dialect in southeastern Nigeria. Ehi-Igbo refers to the local cow breed in the region (archived here).
The post has been shared more than 360 times since it was published on March 8, 2025.
It further claims that the Abia state government banned cow imports from the north after reports that the animals were injected with harmful substances that can cause long-term health issues.
'Governor Otti described this as a 'slow extermination' of the Igbo people by certain elements from the north,' the post concludes, suggesting that the governor announced the ban in a speech.
Nigerian officials are promoting a plan to give traditionally nomadic Fulani herders land on dozens of designated reservations, arguing this would stop confrontation by preventing cattle from wandering onto farms and settlements.
Competition for natural resources like fertile land and water between nomadic herders and farmers has resulted in conflicts that have claimed thousands of lives and caused displacement in several communities (archived here).
States in Nigeria's Middle Belt region, such as Benue, Plateau, and Nasarawa, were among the worst hit by the crisis from 2010-2020 (archived here).
In February 2021, Okezie Ikpeazu, who was the governor of Abia state at the time, said the state paid compensation for each cow killed in clashes between farmers and herders (archived here).
However, there is no ban in Abia on cows from the north.
The post contains the link to a website called Daily Excessive, which has been identified as sharing false information on multiple occasions (archived here and here).
In December 2024, Yahaya Bello, the former governor of Kogi state in Nigeria's north-central region, threatened to sue the platform's owners for publishing false information about him (archived here).
The post claiming that the Abia state governor banned cow imports was published on the website's Facebook page on March 6, 2025 – two days before it circulated elsewhere.
AFP Fact Check found no evidence of the governor making any speech or statement announcing a ban, nor did any credible local media outlet report on a ban.
Ukoha Njoku, the chief press secretary to the Abia state governor, told AFP Fact Check that the claim is false.
He also said nomadic herders are allowed to graze their cattle in the state.
"There was an anti-grazing law already passed by the Abia State House of Assembly during the immediate past administration. However, the anti-grazing is yet to be enforced until now as the state is still exploring the introduction of ranching as an alternative before the enforcement of the existing anti-grazing law," he said.
Read more of AFP Fact Check's debunks about claims circulating in Nigeria here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Russian attack on eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv kills 3, wounds 21
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A large Russian drone-and-missile attack targeted Ukraine's eastern city of Kharkiv on Saturday, killing at least three people and wounded 21 others, local officials said. The barrage — the latest in near daily widescale attacks — included aerial glide bombs that have become part of a fierce Russian onslaught in the all-out war , which began on Feb. 24, 2022. The intensity of the Russian attacks on Ukraine over the past weeks has further dampened hopes that the warring sides could reach a peace deal anytime soon — especially after Kyiv recently embarrassed the Kremlin with a surprising drone attack on military airfields deep inside Russia. 'More pressure on Moscow is required' Ukraine's air force said that Russia struck with 215 missiles and drones overnight, and Ukrainian air defenses shot down and neutralized 87 drones and seven missiles. Several other areas in Ukraine were also hit, including the regions of Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, and the city of Ternopil, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said in an X post. 'To put an end to Russia's killing and destruction, more pressure on Moscow is required, as are more steps to strengthen Ukraine,' he said. The Russian Defense Ministry on Saturday said that its forces carried out a nighttime strike on Ukrainian military targets, including ammunition depots, drone assembly workshops, and weaponry repair stations. There was no comment from Moscow on the reports of casualties in Kharkiv. Kharkiv's mayor, Ihor Terekhov, said that the strikes also damaged 18 apartment buildings and 13 private homes. Terekhov said that it was 'the most powerful attack' on the city since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion. Children among the wounded Kharkiv's regional governor, Oleh Syniehubov, said two districts in the city were struck with three missiles, five aerial glide bombs and 48 drones. Among the wounded were two children, a baby boy and a 14-year old girl, he added. In the Dnipropetrovsk province further south, two women, ages 45 and 88, were wounded, according to local Gov. Serhii Lysak. Russian shelling also killed a couple in their 50s in the southern city of Kherson, close to the front lines, local Gov. Oleksandr Prokudin reported in a Facebook post. Meanwhile, Russia's defense ministry said that its forces shot down 36 Ukrainian drones overnight, over the country's south and west, including near the capital. Drone debris wounded two civilians in the suburbs of Moscow, local Gov. Andrei Vorobyov reported. No breakthrough on a peace deal On Friday, Russia struck six Ukrainian territories, killing at least six people and wounding about 80. Among the dead were three emergency responders in Kyiv, one person in Lutsk and two people in Chernihiv. A U.S.-led diplomatic push for a settlement has brought two rounds of direct peace talks between delegations from Russia and Ukraine, though the negotiations delivered no significant breakthroughs. The sides remain far apart on their terms for an end to the fighting. Ukraine has offered an unconditional 30-day ceasefire and a meeting between its Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to break the deadlock . But the Kremlin has effectively rejected a truce and hasn't budged from its demands . U.S. President Donald Trump said this week that Putin told him Moscow would respond to Ukraine's attack on Russian military airfields on June 1. Trump also said that it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia 'fight for a while' before pulling them apart and pursuing peace. Trump's comments were a remarkable detour from his often-stated appeals to stop the war and signaled that he may be giving up on recent peace efforts. Prisoner swap called into question Later on Saturday, Russia and Ukraine each accused the other of endangering plans to swap 6,000 bodies of soldiers killed in action, agreed upon during direct talks in Istanbul on Monday that otherwise made no progress towards ending the war. Vladimir Medinsky, a Putin aide who led the Russian delegation, said that Kyiv called a last-minute halt to an imminent swap. In a Telegram post, Medinsky said that refrigerated trucks carrying more than 1,200 bodies of Ukrainian troops from Russia had already reached the agreed exchange site at the border when the news came. In response, Ukraine said Russia was playing 'dirty games' and manipulating facts. According to the main Ukrainian authority dealing with such swaps, no date had been set for repatriating the bodies. In a statement Saturday, the agency also accused Russia of submitting lists of prisoners of war for repatriation that didn't correspond to agreements reached on Monday. It wasn't immediately possible to reconcile the conflicting claims. Monday's talks unfolded a day after a string of stunning long-range attacks by both sides, with Ukraine launching the devastating drone assault on Russian air bases , and Moscow launching its largest drone attack of the war against Ukraine. A previous round of negotiations in Istanbul, the first time Russian and Ukrainian negotiators sat at the same table since the early weeks of the full-scale invasion, led to 1,000 prisoners on both sides being exchanged. ___ Follow AP's coverage of the war in Ukraine at Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: What we know about 'Big Beautiful Bill' banning states from regulating AI for 10 years
Claim: H.R. 1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contains a provision that bans states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rating: Context: If the "Big Beautiful Bill" becomes law, states and local governments would be unable to enforce any regulations on AI systems and models involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. There are exceptions for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems. A budget bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025, allegedly bans all 50 states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, according to claims shared on social media in early June. As the Senate prepared to take up H.R. 1, more commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, people online expressed their concerns about the alleged AI-related provisions in the legislation. For example, one X user shared this claim (archived) on June 2, 2025: Similar claims also appeared in Facebook (archived) posts (archived) around the same time. Snopes reviewed the text of H.R. 1 and found a provision that bans states from regulating AI systems "entered into interstate commerce" for 10 years in Section 43201 of the bill. Paragraph (c) in that section outlines the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation: (1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce. In other words, if the bill becomes law, states and local governments will be blocked from enforcing any regulations on AI systems and models that are involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. The phrase "interstate commerce" broadly refers to business or activity that crosses state lines. But in the context of this bill, the distinction likely doesn't mean much. As a result, we've rated the claim mostly true. The Supreme Court has said activities that happen entirely within one state can still count as interstate commerce if they have a significant enough impact on the national economy, as David Brody, a civil rights and technology legal expert, explained in an article for Tech Policy Press published on May 27, 2025. That means many AI systems would likely be subject to the federal rules if H.R. 1 passes. However, there are some exceptions to the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation — notably for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems, according to the bill text. Snopes reached out to the White House and the office of U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, who introduced H.R. 1, for comment about the 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI and the purpose of including it in the bill, and is awaiting responses. Multiple Republican lawmakers have voiced support for the 10-year moratorium, with some saying a patchwork of state laws doesn't support innovation and others stressing the importance of a federal approach to AI regulation. But other federal and state lawmakers as well as watchdog groups have strongly opposed the proposed rule over concerns about limiting states' ability to deal with potential harms caused by AI. For example, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said in an X post on June 3, 2025, that she "did not know about" the section of H.R. 1 that bans states from regulating AI for a decade, adding that she is "adamantly opposed" to the provision. Hundreds of state lawmakers across the political spectrum also signed a letter addressed to the U.S. House and Senate on June 3, 2025, expressing "strong opposition" to the 10-year moratorium on AI regulation. The letter read in part, "The proposed 10-year freeze of state and local regulation of AI and automated decision systems would cut short democratic discussion of AI policy in the states with a sweeping moratorium that threatens to halt a broad array of laws and restrict policymakers from responding to emerging issues." Nearly two weeks earlier, a coalition of advocacy organizations, including Common Sense Media, Fairplay and Encode, also called on congressional leaders to oppose the provision, writing in part that AI companies would have "no rules, no accountability and total control" if it were to take effect. In a letter dated May 21, 2025, the groups wrote: As written, the provision is so broad it would block states from enacting any AI-related legislation, including bills addressing hyper-sexualized AI companions, social media recommendation algorithms, protections for whistleblowers, and more. It ties lawmakers' hands for a decade, sidelining policymakers and leaving families on their own as they face risks and harms that emerge with this fast-evolving technology in the years to come. Discussions about AI companions and possible issues arising from their use have gained prominence in recent months. For example, research from Drexel University in Philadelphia suggests that inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment, during conversations with AI chatbots is "becoming a widespread problem," the university said on May 5, 2025. Consumer Reports, another advocacy organization, also raised concerns about states being unable to deal with a variety of issues that AI technology poses, including sexually explicit images, audio and video created without a person's consent. Snopes has previously looked into other claims about the "Big Beautiful Bill," including whether it contains a provision allowing the U.S. president to delay or cancel elections. Arrington, Jodey. "Text - H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act." 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Brody, David. "The Big Beautiful Bill Could Decimate Legal Accountability for Tech and Anything Tech Touches." Tech Policy Press, 27 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Cornell Law School. "Commerce Clause." Legal Information Institute, 18 Sept. 2018, Accessed 4 June 2025. Hendrix, Justin. "Transcript: US House Subcommittee Hosts Hearing on 'AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership.'" Tech Policy Press, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Open letter from consumer advocacy organizations to congressional leadership. Common Sense Media, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How benefits fraud exploded – and milking the system went mainstream
Sara Morris, a 50-year-old from Stone, Staffordshire, is not the first middle-aged jogger to showcase their exploits on social media. In posts on Facebook, the mother-of-three – and member of the Stone Master Marathoners – advertised her exertions in scores of running events, including 5k and 10k races. The difference for Morris was that rather than just showing off, her posts betrayed her as a benefits cheat. In 2005 she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, but in 2020 she exaggerated the extent of her condition to claim Personal Independence Payment (PIP). She claimed that she could not stand at her cooker or get out of the bath, and that she was so anxious she ended up in tears when she went to the pharmacy to collect her medication. She did not mention long-distance running. At Stoke Crown Court last July, Morris was sentenced to eight months in prison for dishonestly making a false statement to obtain a benefit, having been overpaid £20,528.83 between October 20 2020 and April 25 2023. Between May 2019 and December 2022, an investigation found that she competed in 73 races. She accepted that her benefit application 'crossed over into the realms of dishonesty'. She served nine weeks. Last week, in a proceeds of crime hearing, in the same court Judge Graeme Smith ordered Morris to repay £22,386.02 within 28 days or serve nine months in prison in default. Morris's case is so blatant as to verge on the comic. But Keir Starmer will not laugh at the timing of the hearing, in a week when he has faced calls for higher spending and warnings of lower growth. On Monday, the Prime Minister revealed the results of Lord Robertson's Strategic Defence Review, which included a pledge to build up to 12 new attack submarines and increase defence spending from 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of national income. He had barely finished the announcement when it was reported that Nato would oblige him to commit to increasing defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035. On Thursday US defence secretary Pete Hegseth pushed for five per cent. Meanwhile, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicted that the UK economic growth would slump to a measly one per cent next year, hit by uncertainty over Donald Trump's tariffs regime and higher-than-expected inflation. Even if Starmer manages to reform the welfare system, as he has promised – and his handbrake U-turn on winter fuel payments suggest this will be easier said than done – it appears inevitable he will have to put up taxes, too. It's never a popular decision, and especially not when there is a perception among the vast majority that criminals and scammers are fleecing honest taxpayers. And that perception is borne out by the statistics: benefit fraud has remained stubbornly high since the pandemic, while convictions for the crime have fallen. Telegraph analysis of Ministry of Justice data shows that the number of people sentenced for key benefit fraud-related offences has plummeted from 4,154 to 685 since 2017. Such is public concern that Britons overestimate the true extent of benefit fraud. 'We find that the public estimate that about 24 per cent of the entire welfare budget is being fraudulently claimed, whereas the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimate 2.2 per cent of benefit expenditure is 'over paid',' says Ben Page, CEO of Ipsos. Yet in a department as large as the DWP, even a small percentage can mean a huge loss. In its report last year, the DWP reported a top-line figure that 2.8 per cent of its £268 billion total benefits outlay (which includes around £160 billion on pensions, less susceptible to fraud), or £7.4 billion, was lost to fraud. This year fraud was down to 2.2 per cent, or £6.5 billion – a sum that has more than doubled since 2020 – with a further £1.9 billion on claimant error and £1 billion official error. If fraud was its own block of spending, it would be not far from how much the government spends on the entire legal system (£8.6 billion), and more than higher education (£7.2 billion), foreign aid (£7.2 billion) and potholes (£7 billion). It would be enough to buy you a Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier with change for 11 F-35s to put on it. A 1p cut in income tax would cost just £6.4 billion. There were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024. The most recent data show that there were 39,000 new 'starts' – people receiving benefit – per week in that month from 47,000 claims, implying an acceptance rate of 83 per cent. High profile fraud cases, even if they represent a minority of claimants, are infuriating for the rule-abiding public and toxic for government. Sara Morris's was not the only recent case to make headlines. Last May, three women and two men from a Bulgarian crime gang were jailed for between three and eight years each for a £50 million benefits fraud, the biggest in British history, which involved thousands of fraudulent claims. Sentencing Gyunesh Ali, one of the gang members, Judge David Aaronberg said Ali had committed fraud 'on an industrial scale'. In December, Halton council announced it would have to write off more than £240,000 of unpaid welfare fraud debt owed by Christina Pomfrey, a Runcorn grandmother, after her death. Pomfrey had received more than £1 million in benefits over a 15-year period, having lied that her MS had left her blind and in need of a wheelchair, before she was arrested. In 2020 she was sentenced to three years and eight months, after what the judge called 'staggering' dishonesty and 'determined benefit fraud on a substantial scale'. In October 2023, Hossein Ali Najafi, 57, who was born in Iran, was sentenced to 29 months in prison for falsely claiming £349,000 in benefits, using two identities and 26 bank accounts. 'Fraudsters like Hossein Ali Najafi abuse the benefits system, which exists to support people who are in genuine need,' said Maqsood Khan, senior crown prosecutor of Mersey Cheshire Fraud Unit. And so on and on. Benefit fraud has rocketed in recent times. A State of the Nation report commissioned by David Cameron's government in 2010 estimated the total fraud to be £1 billion. In 2011/12, the DWP estimated that fraud was worth 0.7 per cent of the total budget. (The government's counting method changed after 2018.) The figures rocketed up during the pandemic, particularly in Universal Credit. According to the National Audit Office's analysis of the DWP data, the Universal Credit overpayments due to fraud and error went from £700 million in 2018-2019 to £1.7 billion the following year and a whopping £5.5 billion the year by 2020-2021. Last year's record figure for Universal Credit fraud was £6.5 billion. Fraud in other areas, such as housing benefit, meanwhile, remained stable or fell over the same period. State pension fraud is extremely low, with less than 0.1 per cent overpaid due to fraud or error. The fraud rate in Universal Credit amounts to around 10 per cent of the overall Universal Credit spending; bearing in mind this only registers the fraud that has been caught, the true figure may be higher still. That's not counting the men and women – perhaps following tips gleaned from a 'sickfluencer' – who are gaming the system but technically within the letter of it. It has been argued that one factor in the shocking rise in Universal Credit fraud has been the move away from in-person assessments to remote ones, often conducted over the phone. Last year Peter Schofield, the DWP permanent secretary, blamed the 'underlying growth of fraud in the economy' for the increase. Reporting on the 2024 figures, the National Audit Office's Gareth Davies said it was clear the DWP 'no longer expects Universal Credit fraud and error to return to the levels seen before the significant increase during the Covid-19 pandemic'. A DWP spokesperson told The Telegraph: 'We are bringing forward the biggest fraud crackdown in a generation, as part of wider plans that will save £9.6 billion by 2030. 'Thanks to our efforts we have reduced fraud by around £800 million – with over £400 million of savings in Universal Credit alone in the last year. We are absolutely clear we will not tolerate any waste as we protect taxpayer's money.' Joe Shalam, the policy director of the Centre for Social Justice, a think tank, who previously worked at the DWP, believes that there has been a cultural shift in recent years towards seeking out benefits. 'The rise in benefit fraud is analogous to the rise in shoplifting,' he says. 'A population-level change driven by wider economic forces, like inflation and the cost of living. Such casual lawbreaking was highlighted last week when Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary and putative successor to Kemi Badenoch as Conservative leader, released a widely-shared film in which he confronted some of the passengers on the Tube, thought to be as many as one in 25 of the total, who push through the barriers without paying. But there is a cultural dimension to it as well. The welfare system has an implicit or assumed sense that everyone who is 'entitled' will not necessarily apply for it. We're seeing a cultural shift where people are much more likely to say 'my neighbour is receiving X, why am I not?' says Shalam. 'There are some cultural and economic factors that make it harder to get back to a pre-pandemic norm.' In March, for example, it was reported that the Motability scheme, which provides taxpayer-funded cars to those claiming PIP benefits, had signed up 815,000 people last year, an increase of more than 170,000 in a year. Claimants can apply for a new model every three years. The Motability fleet is the biggest in Europe, valued at more than £14 billion. On social media, there are accounts dedicated to showing their followers how they can secure a car for themselves, too. All of which can corrode faith in government, says James Frayne, a veteran political strategist. 'Since the late 2000s, when everyone had to tighten their belts, there has been increasing exasperation that some people are wrongly living off the fat of the land by claiming benefits they aren't due,' he says. 'While people get angry at cases of systematic criminal fraud, they can get just as angry at individuals they think just can't be bothered to work. It all adds up to this sense that nobody seems to be able to govern Britain properly. Inevitably, the anger at those milking or ripping off the system rebounds towards politicians.' Soon after winning the general election last year, Keir Starmer announced that cracking down on benefit fraud would be a priority for his government. In his speech to the Labour Party conference in September, he said that new legislation, following a policy mooted by the Conservatives, would let investigators 'root out' fraud with similar powers of 'search and seizure' to those enjoyed by HMRC. This would compel banks to hand over financial information about their customers where there was reasonable suspicion of benefit fraud. The plan was designed to save the taxpayer £1.6 billion over five years and free up more money for public services. Another proposal, announced in January, was to strip benefit fraudsters of their driving licences. Starmer's reforms have met with resistance. Neil Duncan-Jordan, who was elected the Labour MP for Poole last year, has proposed amendments to the bill that would ensure only those suspected of fraud would be surveilled. Writing in The Guardian, Duncan accused Starmer of 'resurrecting Tory proposals for mass spying on people who receive state support' and that under the proposed legislation 'welfare recipients would be treated as suspects, simply because they need support from the state'. The vast sums of money lost to benefit fraud are also an incentive for a government to crack down on it, to free up money for other projects. Recent comparative international studies are thin on the ground, but Britain might learn from Finland, a high-trust society with a relatively simple benefits system and high rates of digitisation, where fraud rates amount to less than half a percentage point of the total paid. According to the latest report by Kela, the Finnish welfare institution, there were 1,104 suspected cases of benefit 'misuse' in 2024, amounting to €7.2 million (£6 million); the number of cases has been stable over the past five years. In the UK, failing a cultural reversion away from seeking out every benefit you might be entitled to, Shalam believes technology might improve efficiency. 'Analysing and assessing all the information about people's claims and their condition takes a huge volume of human resource,' he says. 'There's a lot of potential in AI to crack down on fraud and make sure the system is going to those who need it most.' Ultimately the people most angry about benefit fraud are those working on the front lines, says Amber Rudd, who was secretary of state for work and pensions from 2018-2019. 'The people who mind most about [fraud] are the people who work in the job centres,' she says. 'They find it really upsetting and frustrating. They are trying to help other people. When I went round the job centres it was the first thing they wanted to talk about. Fraud takes many different forms. The abusive form, forcing single mothers to go in and apply, then there are the multiple frauds where someone has a system. 'It's like the bank robber who says he robs banks because 'that's where the money is'. There's money being handed out; there is inevitably going to be fraud. I thought at the time we could do better with technology trying to weed it out. But it's going to be a constant battle.' In attempting to mitigate Sara Morris's sentence, her lawyer Paul Cliff conceded that her application to the DWP 'did not give the full picture,' but that 'running was one of the ways she tried to manage her MS'. 'She lost her home because of financial problems,' he also said. 'And was struggling to keep her head above water financially.' As he tries to placate an increasingly angry electorate while balancing Britain's precarious books, Keir Starmer may sympathise with her. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
