Ivory Coast president announces bid for fourth term after changing constitution
His candidacy is contested after he changed the constitution to remove the presidential term limit.
Advertisement
The 83-year-old president declared his plan in a televised announcement.
He won a third term in 2020 after he initially said he was not going to run again.
However, he changed his position following the death of his hand-picked successor, Prime Minister Amadou Gon Coulibaly.
'For several months, I have received numerous calls from fellow citizens regarding my potential candidacy in the presidential election,' the president said.
Advertisement
Referring to the country by its name in French, he went on: 'Women and young people from all regions of Cote d'Ivoire, and countless anonymous voices from our neighbourhoods, towns and villages have reached out.
'In response to those appeals, I announced on June 22 that, as president of all Ivorians, I would, after careful reflection, make a decision guided solely by the best interest of the nation.'
His most prominent rival, Tidjane Thiam, has already been barred from running by a court on the grounds that he was still a French citizen at the time he declared his candidacy, even though he later renounced his French nationality. Ivorian law bans dual nationals from running for president.
Elections in Ivory Coast have usually been fraught with tension and violence. When Mr Ouattara announced his third term bid, several people were killed in the ensuing violence. There have been protests against the court's decision to bar Mr Thiam from contesting the election.
Advertisement
Mr Ouattara is the latest among a growing number of leaders in West Africa who remain in power by changing the constitutional term limit.
Coup leaders in the region have used alleged corruption within democratic governments and electoral changes as a pretext to seize power, leading to a split in the regional bloc, Ecowas.
'For those critical of Ecowas and civilian governments, Ouattara's decision just reinforces the legitimacy crisis everyone in the region is facing. It makes people like Ouattara look like hypocrites,' Nat Powell, Africa analyst at Oxford Analytica, told the Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Inside Keir Starmer's Palestine decision after months of pressure as Israel reacts with fury
Keir Starmer has faced intense pressure on the global stage and domestically over the last few weeks to shift the government's stance on recognising a Palestinian state Keir Starmer has faced intense pressure over the last few weeks to shift the government's stance on recognising a Palestinian state. On the global stage, the Prime Minister was not the first G7 leader to act. The French President Emmanuel Macron announced his intention on Thursday to recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September. Of the 193 member UN states, 147 currently recognise Palestine, including Norway and Spain. Domestically, pressure was ratcheting up over Gaza. The Foreign Affairs Committee - led by the senior Labour MP Emily Thornberry - said Britain must do more to stop the slaughter and starvation. A furious Bob Geldof issued a desperate plea on Sky News to save babies in Gaza. Then over 200 MPs from across the Commons - including over 100 Labour MPs - urged him to recognise Palestine in a letter that landed on the PM's desk on Friday. The signatures continued to grow as experts warned famine was unfolding in Gaza. There were also calls from within the Cabinet for the UK to follow its close ally France amid global horror from the scenes being broadcast. After convening an emergency Cabinet during the summer recess on Tuesday, the PM made clear he had lost patience with an ultimatum given to Israel. 'We see starving babies, children too weak to stand — images that will stay with us for a lifetime," Mr Starmer said from the state dining room in Downing Street. He said it was now the "moment to act" with the UK prepared to recognise Palestine in September alongside France at the UN General Assembly in New York. The PM set out key conditions for this to happen, including Israel ending the "appalling situation" in Gaza, agreeing to a ceasefire and reviving the prospect of a two-state solution. Earlier in the day he called the leaders of Jordan, Canada, and the Palestinian Authority. He also spoke with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and urged "immediate action to lift all restrictions on aid access and get those suffering in Gaza the food they need" No10 said. But Mr Starmer's announcement last night on Palestine was met with a furious response. Hours later Netanyahu posted on X: "Starmer rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism & punishes its victims. Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails." But it appeared Mr Starmer had been given the green-light by Donald Trump over the move during a meeting at the US President's golf course in Scotland. "I don't mind him taking a position," Mr Trump had said on Monday. Given Israel's opposition it appears the UK's recognition of the state of Palestine will happen in September. And a majority of MPs are likely to be behind it. Senior Labour Dame Emily welcomed the "major change in British foreign policy". But other MPs will continue to demand the government goes much further. The Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Daveysaid the UK's actions must include "fully ceasing arms sales and implementing sanctions against the Israeli cabinet." The former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn added: "Palestinian statehood is not a bargaining chip. It is not a threat. It is an inalienable right of the Palestinian people. Our demands on this shameful government remain the same: end all arms sales to Israel, impose widespread sanctions, and stop the genocide, now."
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Michel Barnier v Rachida Dati: the prize fight for Paris
When Michel Barnier stepped down as the EU's Brexit negotiator in 2021, observers assumed he was planning to retire to his country house in the wooded Sologne region south of Paris. They were wrong. He kept his main home in the capital's chic 7th arrondissement, where he has provoked an internecine war within his Republicans party by standing in a by-election against Rachida Dati, the tough-talking centre-right culture minister who dreams of becoming mayor of Paris next year. Dati is livid about what she views as his intrusion in her well-heeled backyard. Barnier does not seem to care. He has his eyes on bigger things. At the age of 74, he believes that his 'destiny' may be to unite a fractured, indebted, befuddled nation by becoming president. • Rachida Dati: why the most feared woman in Paris won't back down Barnier has pointedly refused to rule out entering the race to succeed President Macron in 2027 and, in the meantime, he is seeking to become an MP once more, 47 years after he first sat in the National Assembly. This week the Republicans named him as the candidate for an autumn by-election in a Parisian constituency considered so safe that 'you don't have to mess around handing out leaflets in markets', according to a senior member of the movement. Barnier's victory is a foregone conclusion, or at least it would be if Dati, 59, had not also decided to stand in the by-election. The confrontation between Dati, the child of north African immigrants who has fought her way up the political ladder, and Barnier, an old-school grandee who joined the movement as a teenager, has left political observers agog. On one side is Dati, who is often described as a glamorous French answer to President Trump. On the other is a painstakingly courteous, slightly antiquated politician who embodies everything Trump is not. Barnier's claim to the seat is based upon his residency in the constituency, which incorporates the 7th arrondissement, home to the Musée d'Orsay and the Eiffel Tower. Dati, however, views him as an outsider. Not only does she too have a flat in the arrondissement but she is also the district mayor. She accused Barnier of a 'lack of respect'. Republican leaders are worried that the war might not only cost them a safe seat in parliament, by splitting their vote, but also harm the party's standing in the country — just as it is starting to emerge from years in the electoral desert. Dati is convinced that Barnier wants to thwart her lifetime goal of becoming mayor of Paris in next year's council elections. Having lost to Anne Hidalgo, the socialist incumbent, six years ago, she is the pollsters' favourite. However, she remains a divisive figure who angered some in the party by joining Macron's centrist government in 2024. The announcement last week that judges are sending her for trial on corruption charges was a further blow, although she insists she is innocent. The suspicion in the Dati camp is that Barnier wants to push her aside in a show of force that would cement his presidential credentials. Some of her supporters also suspect that if the presidency proves out of reach for him, he may be tempted to stand as mayor of Paris instead. 'This [by-election] cannot be used to carry Michel Barnier's presidential ambitions,' said Dati. Suggesting that he was a pawn in a bigger game, she said he was 'being pushed by those who want to stop me winning Paris'. Barnier retorted: 'I'm too old to be manipulated.' He sought to portray himself as a unifying figure on the centre right and added that he was 'determined and humble'. Barnier said he had no intention of standing as mayor of Paris, suggesting it was the entire country and not just its capital that interested him. 'The moment is so serious that one must be on the bridge,' he said. In an interview with the TF1 television channel in June, he was asked whether he planned to run for the presidency in 2027. 'If circumstances and destiny mean that I must ask myself the question of whether to be a candidate, I will force myself to respond to three demands: am I up to it, do I have the right projects for France and can I bring people together?' he replied. He followed the interview with the publication of a book based on conversations with ordinary French people entitled Ce Que J'ai Appris de Vous (What I Learnt From You). In a country that believes its leaders need an intellectual veneer, a foray into literature is a prerequisite for high office. Barnier is the second most-popular politician in France behind Dominique de Villepin, 71, also a former centre-right prime minister, according to the Ifop polling institute. However, he remains an outsider for 2027, so much so that Ifop did not include him in its list of potential candidates when assessing voting intentions for the presidential election. His supporters are convinced that he has a chance in a wide open race. Marine Le Pen, 56, the populist-right National Rally leader, is ahead in the polls but has been barred from standing following a corruption conviction against which she is appealing. Jordan Bardella, 29, her protégé, would be well placed to replace her if she loses the appeal, according to pollsters, but is hampered by his inexperience. On the left, the centre and the centre right, there are plenty of potential runners but no clear favourites. • Embattled French PM risks public wrath by cutting two bank holidays Barnier tried to win the Republicans' nomination for the 2022 presidential election but was defeated by Valérie Pécresse, 58, the head of the Paris region council. She polled a pitiful 4.78 per cent to propel the party into the wilderness. At the time, Barnier was written off as a has-been by commentators. Three years later, however, he was appointed prime minister after Macron's ill-fated decision to call snap parliamentary elections resulted in a hung National Assembly and a political crisis. Barnier's premiership lasted a mere three months before his minority centre-right government fell in a no-confidence vote in December. The defeat was humiliating. This time, political analysts declared that his career really was over. Now he seeks to prove them wrong again.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Shameful: our libel laws are a plaything for the rich
The law, as it then stood in relation to libel and privacy, sought to ensure that everyone, no matter their means or status, was able to protect their reputation, while those guilty of wrongdoing could be exposed. Those lofty ideals, it appears, have since been dumped on the spike of journalistic history along with hot metal, paperboys and passive smoking. Two recent cases illustrate starkly how far we have moved since those days, and in an entirely wrong direction. This week Brigitte Macron, the wife of the French President, filed a lawsuit against the right-wing podcaster Candace Ownes, over claims that she could be a man. Meanwhile Donald Trump has filed a $10 billion (£7.5bn) defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones – parent company of The Wall Street Journal – and its owner Rupert Murdoch, over claims that he sent a "bawdy" birthday note to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Irrespective of what you think about the merits of such claims, it is unlikely either would have been brought had the plaintiffs not been financially well endowed. French First Lady Brigitte Macron, seen here with husband Emmanuel Macron, has filed a lawsuit against the right-wing podcaster Candace Ownes over claims that she could be a man. (Image: PA) While neither of the cases will be heard in Britain, they might easily have done, such is the popularity of this country as a favoured jurisdiction for libel suits brought by the rich and powerful. As a result, London has earned the reputation of being the "libel capital of the world" with an estimated 90% success rate in lawsuits encouraging the growth of "libel tourism", where plaintiffs file cases in even if the disputed statements had minimal impact here. Defamation cases in Britain are the most expensive in Europe, with defendants bearing most costs, while plaintiffs often face little financial risk even if they lose. It was anticipated that the introduction of the 2013 Defamation Act would reduce the number of claims – because it imposed a 'serious harm' threshold for claimants – but, by 2019, there had been a 127% rise in cases. Even unsuccessful lawsuits can drain a media company's resources, discouraging investigative journalism. The result is a system where the rich and powerful can manipulate the courts to stifle scrutiny, leaving the public uninformed about potential abuses. As a corollary there has rarely, if ever, been a time when it has been more difficult for ordinary people, of modest means, to challenge in the courts what is written or broadcast about them. Legal Aid is not available for defamation cases meaning that, if you bring an action, you will have to fund yourself to meet the court's costs, pay your own lawyer and, potentially, meet the costs of the person you are suing, even if you win. Tactical application of the law and the use of cynical lawfare tactics such as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) and superinjunctions mean that wrongdoers – those whom the law should work to expose – have never been better protected. The burden of proof in British cases heavily favours claimants, making it perilous for journalists to report on allegations. Unlike in the US, where plaintiffs must prove 'falsity' and 'malice', English and Scottish law place the onus on publishers to defend their reporting – often requiring exhaustive evidence, even when allegations are credible. This creates a chilling effect, where media organisations avoid naming powerful figures unless they possess irrefutable proof, fostering a culture of "open secrets", where misconduct is widely known but legally unmentionable. Channel 4 News collaborated with The Guardian and The New York Times to investigate how Cambridge Analytica harvested Facebook users' personal data to influence the 2016 Brexit referendum. Its then editor Ben De Pear recalls how Facebook responded when journalists sought comment: 'They delayed until the last possible moment. Their statement was published and shared with other news outlets before we even received it. They dodged questions. And their lawyers bombarded us with 30 or 40 pages of dense legal jargon.' He added: 'Usually, the longer the response, the emptier it is. Skilled journalists and editors can see through it, but it still wastes time and creates unnecessary stress.' Catherine Belton's 2020 book, Putin's People, prompted multiple lawsuits from Russian oligarchs and state-owned oil company Rosneft, in 2021. Four cases reached preliminary hearings, with HarperCollins settling claims by billionaires Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman and Roman Abramovich over alleged inaccuracies. The former FT writer made minor amendments to future editions, though HarperCollins maintained the text was not defamatory. Separately, Rosneft's claims were judged to lack merit, leading the company to drop its case, while Abramovich's claims were partially dismissed and he settled, with no damages paid and only minor clarifications made to the text. Read more by Carlos Alba Belton and HarperCollins said they faced distorted media narratives, which plaintiffs exploited to claim victory, despite minimal changes to the book. The writer argued for stronger protections against SLAPPs to ensure accountability and press freedom, warning that lax regulations left the UK vulnerable to legal abuse by wealthy foreign actors. Unlike when I started in journalism, investigative reporting can now seem more like an expensive hobby than a profession. You can spend months meticulously gathering documents, interviewing sources, and crafting an article – only to receive a threatening legal letter from a high-priced law firm, forcing you to gut your work or abandon it entirely. It's not that newspapers and their lawyers doubt the accuracy of your reporting – it's simply that they can't afford the crippling cost of a lawsuit. What makes the system even more shameful, according to some of those who have been through it, is that victory in court can offer little solace. Even after enduring years of stress and mounting legal bills, a win can feel pyrrhic. Britain's libel laws ensure a bitter irony: even when you win, you lose. The system punishes persistence, leaving truth-tellers drained and disillusioned. Carlos Alba is a journalist, author, and PR consultant at Carlos Alba Media. His latest novel, There's a Problem with Dad, explores the issue of undiagnosed autism among older people
