Anti-Nigerian tensions ease in Ghana following bilateral talks
Tensions between Nigeria and Ghana eased following a joint statement addressing recent anti-Nigerian protests in Ghana.
Protests in parts of Ghana were fueled by viral videos alleging criminal activities by Nigerian nationals, triggering calls for deportations.
Concerns over adherence to Ghana's trade laws, particularly relating to activities dominated by foreign nationals, remain a source of tension.
The protests, which emerged in parts of Ghana and were fueled by viral social media videos alleging criminal behavior by Nigerian nationals, led to growing calls from some Ghanaian groups for mass deportations.
In a move aimed at de-escalation, Nigeria's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, traveled to Accra as a special envoy dispatched by President Bola Tinubu.
Speaking during a joint press briefing with Ghana's Foreign Affairs Minister, Samuel Ablakwa, Odumegwu-Ojukwu emphasized that the Nigerian government was taking the concerns seriously but also urged the public not to panic.
' Contrary to online reports, there was no visible unrest upon our arrival, ' she said, adding that her mission was to ensure the welfare of Nigerians in Ghana while engaging in constructive dialogue with local authorities.
Ghana's Foreign Minister, Samuel Ablakwa, also used the occasion to reaffirm his government's commitment to the safety of all residents, regardless of nationality.
' The Ghanaian government will ensure that everyone in the country, citizens and non-citizens, is protected,' he stated, while cautioning all residents to steer clear of criminal activities and actions capable of inciting division.
Tensions rooted in trade disputes
On Saturday, a large group of Ghanaians gathered at Accra's Obra Spot to stage a protest demanding the immediate expulsion of Nigerians from the country, accusing them of being behind a rise in crime and social vices.
The demonstrators carried placards bearing charged messages such as 'Nigerians Must Go,' 'End Kidnapping,' 'End Prostitution,' 'End Armed Robbery,' and ' End Ritual Murders.'
Others questioned the state's protection of Ghanaian citizens, with one sign reading, ' Who protects the rights and freedom of Ghanaians?'
The protest, while not unprecedented, reignited public scrutiny over the role of Nigerian nationals, particularly in sectors like petty trading, which Ghanaian law reserves for its citizens.
In a separate report, Ghanaian journalist Obibini Kojo Bansah acknowledged these growing tensions, attributing part of the discontent to the perception that Nigerians are violating the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC) Act 865 of 2013.
The law bars non-citizens from engaging in small-scale trading and street hawking—activities that many local traders argue are increasingly dominated by foreigners.
While enforcement in Ghana has been inconsistent, the regulation mirrors a recent directive by the Tanzanian government that has drawn criticism across the continent, with Kenya openly threatening retaliatory measures.
Bansah pointed out that the Ghana Union of Traders Association (GUTA) has for years, petitioned the government to enforce these regulations. The association has also threatened nationwide demonstrations if foreign encroachment into local trade persists without government intervention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom, Walz and Pritzker are scapegoating immigrants, cutting their health care
Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota have been floated as potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders. But in June, all three governors took a page out of President Trump's playbook by cutting or freezing health care coverage for undocumented immigrants in their states. Their moves aren't just cowardly — they're anti-immigrant, anti-poor and anti-public health. And they should be noted, in permanent ink, as moral and economic failures. These governors may be known for their sharp anti-Trump rhetoric, but their recent policy choices echo the very worst aspects of his administration: using immigrants — particularly those without the right to vote — as economic scapegoats. The idea is simple and cynical: Balance the books by cutting benefits to some of the most vulnerable residents, knowing they can't fight back at the ballot box. In Minnesota, as many as 15,000 people will lose their health insurance by the end of this year because Walz approved changes to state coverage for undocumented residents. In California, Newsom will prohibit new enrollment of undocumented immigrants in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, beginning in January. Californian adults ages 19 to 59 who are already enrolled will have to pay a new $30 monthly premium starting in 2027. Dental coverage will be eliminated for undocumented adults and other noncitizens by next July. And to make matters worse, Newsom slashed funding for nonprofit community health centers to serve immigrant families, leaving them nowhere to access health care. Meanwhile, Illinois has already shuttered a program that provided publicly funded health care to more than 30,000 non-U.S. citizens. These cuts are not just cruel — they are economically shortsighted. Public health officials and economists have shown for years that expanding health care access to undocumented immigrants isn't a burden — it's a boon. An ongoing University of Chicago study found that state-run programs extending health care coverage to noncitizens provided significant financial benefits for Illinois hospitals. When people can access primary and preventive care, they avoid costlier emergency room visits. When hospitals are reimbursed, they're less likely to shut down. When immigrants are healthy, they're more likely to keep working, paying taxes and contributing to their communities. So why did these governors do it? The answer is as cynical as it is familiar: political optics and budget math. Rather than face down the powerful interests who block progressive tax reform — such as raising corporate tax rates, enacting inheritance or wealth taxes or levying vacancy taxes on landlords who keep properties empty — these governors went after the lowest-hanging fruit. Instead of leading with moral clarity and economic foresight, they balanced their budgets on the backs of people who already face a daily onslaught of threats: Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, exploitation in the workplace, housing discrimination and hate-fueled violence. These governors acted against the interests, and wishes, of their own constituents. In California, over 120 organizations signed an open letter condemning Newsom's Medi-Cal cuts, calling them even more devastating than the health care changes in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill. In Minnesota, residents across the state organized protests denouncing Walz's decision. In Illinois, advocates rallied for 'health care for all,' arguing that these programs served as a lifeline for immigrant families. Let's be clear: There's a world of difference between the tone of these Democrats and that of Trump. But tone is not policy. We cannot let ourselves be distracted by surface-level distinctions while immigrants lose their health care — and potentially their lives — under supposedly progressive leadership. The consequences of stripping coverage aren't theoretical. They are real, measurable and deadly. Undocumented immigrants are taxpayers, workers and caregivers. Many live in mixed-status households. Many pay into public systems from which they receive little or no benefit. When they get sick or injured and can't get care, they lose jobs, homes and security — which ripples out into the broader economy. And when safety net providers like community health centers or rural hospitals lose revenue because fewer people are covered, entire communities suffer. At a moment when Trump's threat to civil rights grows more tangible by the day, we need Democratic governors to do more than be not-Trump at the surface level. We need them to lead. That means collaborative solutions that don't throw whole communities under the bus. It means raising revenue in bold and creative ways. It means centering human rights over political convenience. Newsom, Pritzker and Walz have proven they are willing to sacrifice the health and dignity of immigrants for short-term political gain. But it is not too late to reverse course. These governors can still choose to restore funding for immigrant health programs. They can propose tax reforms that ask more from corporations and the ultra-wealthy. They can govern with the moral clarity their speeches so often invoke. We need leaders who will fight to expand care — not slash it. We need leaders who will defend the undocumented — not discard them. Most of all, we need leaders with the courage to act on the values they claim to hold. The eyes of the nation are watching. We won't forget who showed up, and who sold us out.
Chicago Tribune
20 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find nongovernment funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were canceled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
XRP ‘showing off' new record high on the heels of US bills, Trump's crypto 401k plans
After two full bear markets and a drawn-out fight with the Securities and Exchange Commission, XRP has finally shattered its 2018 record. 'XRP is just showing off at this point,' wrote Michael Arrington, founder of Arrington Capital, a digital asset investment firm and major backer of XRP, as the token surged past its 2018 peak to tap a new high of $3.66 on Friday. And it's not the only one celebrating. Indeed, the wider crypto market just smashed through the $4 trillion value mark for the first time. The rally comes amid a wave of historic pro-crypto policy wins in Washington, including the passage of three major bills in the House and a reported upcoming executive order from US President Donald Trump that could unlock the $9 trillion US retirement market for digital assets. Trump is preparing to sign an executive order that would open up 401k retirement plans to alternative investments like cryptocurrencies and private equity, according to the Financial Times. If enacted, the order would remove key regulatory hurdles, allowing exposure to major digital assets like XRP, Bitcoin, and Ethereum to flow into professionally managed retirement accounts for the first time. The legislative tailwind is just as strong. On Thursday, the House passed the Clarity Act, which would assign crypto market oversight to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It also cleared the Genius Act, which allows banks and companies to issue their own stablecoins. Now, it's heading to the desk of the Oval Office next, where Trump has all but promised to rubber stamp it into law. Both bills passed with bipartisan support. The third bill that passed, known as the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital currency. XRP rallies XRP, long hampered by regulatory uncertainty and its high-profile legal fight with the SEC, has surged nearly 70% in the past 30 days. That momentum recently pushed XRP past Tether to become the third-largest crypto by market cap. Analysts say demand from institutions is helping power the rally, with XRP-focused investment products like leveraged exchange-traded funds and futures funds drawing significant inflows. Crypto market movers Bitcoin has gained 1.9% in value over the past 24 hours and is trading at $120,350. Ethereum is up 7.1% in the same period to $3,660. What we're reading Privacy talk off-limits in Roman Storm trial, prosecutors argue — DL News $900M in TRUMP Memecoins Set for Crypto Week Unlock — Unchained Crypto theft is booming as criminals increasingly turn to physical attacks — CNBC Coinbase launches the 'everything app' — Milk Road Ethereum ETFs gobble up $720m investment record in 'clear acceleration' to outpace Bitcoin — DL News Kyle Baird is DL News' Weekend Editor. Got a tip? Email at kbaird@
