ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Niger’s national television was off air on Saturday after a night of heavy gunfire in parts of the capital, including around a military base near the city’s airport which has been attacked twice this year by jihadists.

Niger has been ruled for three years by a military junta that has struggled to contain jihadist violence, which has blighted the West African country for around a decade.

The origins of Saturday’s shooting were not immediately clear but the military said: “In light of current events, let us remain calm and avoid sharing unverified information.

“Our defence and security forces have been mobilised for the defence of the homeland,” it wrote on its official social media pages.

One local resident told AFP that there was “heavy gunfire and explosions” at Base 101 in Niamey, a report confirmed by several other witnesses.

At 9:00 am (0800 GMT), a black screen had replaced Tele Sahel’s programming both via satellite and online. Soldiers blocked access to the presidential palace and national television, residents added.

The first shots were heard at about 1:00 am local time (0000 GMT) and continued until daybreak, according to a video published by a local journalist filming the area around the airport.

Another local resident said he heard “bursts of gunfire” at about 7:00 am local time.

“I went to get credit for my phone. I saw a military vehicle heading towards the base that had to turn back,” he added.

“The weapons we’re hearing are not the kind that terrorists on motorbikes can carry. The fighting has been non-stop since last night.”

Another resident in the west of Niamey said he heard sporadic small arms fire at about 5:00 am.

Several social media posts also reported shooting and explosions in the city, particularly in the administrative area where the presidential palace and national television station are located.

Videos online showed armoured vehicles deployed to reinforce the neighbourhood near the airport.

– Rival jihadist groups –
Niamey airport has been targeted twice this year by jihadists, first by the Islamic State in the Sahel (EIS) in January, then in late June by their rivals the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims (JNIM), the Sahel branch of Al-Qaeda.

The jihadist groups not only target civilians and the military but are also struggling for dominance over each other in the Sahel, and especially in Niger.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The judiciary has been thrown into mourning following the death of Hon. Justice Umaru Atu Kalgo, JSC (Rtd.), CON, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and distinguished jurist whose judicial career spanned several decades.

Justice Kalgo reportedly died at about 3:00 a.m. on Tuesday after a prolonged illness.

A resident of Kalgo community, who requested anonymity, said the retired Supreme Court Justice was buried at about 2:30 p.m. in Sokoto in accordance with Islamic rites.

His death marks the end of a distinguished legal career spanning nearly five decades, during which he contributed to legal practice, judicial service, law reform and the development of Nigerian jurisprudence.

Born on May 12, 1937, in Kalgo, present-day Kebbi State, then part of the old North-Western State, Justice Kalgo began his education at Elementary School, Kalgo. He later attended Middle School Sokoto, Middle School Birnin-Kebbi and Government College, Zaria, between 1953 and 1958.

He subsequently pursued legal studies at the Institute of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria; the Council of Legal Education, London; the College of Law, Holborn, London; and the Nigerian Law School, Lagos. He was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1965.

Justice Kalgo began his public service career as an Administrative Officer in Northern Nigeria before moving into legal practice in government service. Between 1965 and 1972, he served as State Counsel and later rose to become Deputy Solicitor-General of the North-Western State.

His judicial career began in 1974 when he was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Kano and North-Western State. He subsequently served on the Sokoto State High Court Bench.

On January 1, 1981, Justice Kalgo was elevated to the position of Chief Judge of Sokoto State, a position he held until 1988.

In February 1988, he was appointed a Justice of the Court of Appeal, where he continued to contribute to the development of Nigeria’s appellate jurisprudence.

A decade later, on November 25, 1998, Justice Kalgo reached the pinnacle of his judicial career when he was elevated to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

He served on the apex court until his statutory retirement at the age of 70 in May 2007.

During his years on the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court benches, Justice Kalgo delivered and participated in numerous judgments covering constitutional, civil and criminal law. His contributions formed part of the body of judicial precedents that continue to influence Nigerian jurisprudence.

Beyond the courtroom, the late jurist played significant roles in national law reform and constitutional development. He served on the Constitution Review Committee between 1987 and 1988, participated in the Constituent Assembly between 1988 and 1989, and was a member of the Law Revision Committee for the Laws of the Federation in 1990.

His public service therefore extended beyond adjudication to the broader development of Nigeria’s constitutional and legal framework.

Justice Kalgo was also recognised for his contributions to national service and was conferred with the national honour of Commander of the Order of the Niger, CON.

His passing brings to a close the life and career of a jurist whose professional journey took him from public administration and government legal service through the High Court and Court of Appeal to Nigeria’s highest court, leaving behind a significant legacy in the country’s legal and judicial history.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

President Bola Tinubu has filed a challenge in a US court to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI and DEA from releasing records linked to allegations of drug trafficking.

The records are being sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against several US government agencies seeking documents relating to investigations involving Tinubu.
Greenspan’s requests include the FBI’s entire file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records concerning the period between 1992 and 1993.
The case also involves an alleged record connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving about $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.

According to the 16-page court documents shared with Channels Television by his lawyer and legal team, Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson, and Oluwole O. Afolabi, on Saturday, Tinubu argued that the release of the records could infringe on his privacy.

“Submitted in that proceeding, did not reveal the details of a possible criminal investigation (or its results) involving Intervenor. Other than by speculation or labels, Plaintiff does not point to an existing public record that contains details of a governmental criminal investigation or findings about Intervenor. (DE 85-3, No. 16.)

“The purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that the limited disclosures in connection with the forfeiture negates all privacy interests is not consistent with precedent. The Supreme Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest in an entire file or document being produced, even where there are “scattered” disclosures of information from that same file. See Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 764-67 (“our cases have recognized the privacy interests inherent in the non-disclosure of certain information even where the information may have been public at one time.”).
“While some information may appear in portions of public records, an individual still retains a privacy interest in the details that remain undisclosed.

Applying Reporter’s Committee, this Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest even if they were previously publicly associated with criminal activity. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice, 898 F.Supp.2d 93, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2012).

“Other decisions have likewise described the fact someone was under investigation as “distinct” from the contents of the investigative files. See Electronic Privacy Info. Center v. United States Dept. of Justice, 18 F.4d 712, 719 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (“Although the names of – 6 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 7 of 16 Trump campaign officials appear in public portions of the Report, they retain a privacy interest in ‘avoiding disclosure of the details of the investigation.’”)
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff”, the document read in part.

“Plaintiff’s motion critiques the FBI’s search efforts, the DEA’s Vaughn Index, segregability, document specific withholdings, and the applicability of exemptions to deceased individuals and confidential sources. All of Plaintiff’s other critiques should be viewed in the context of Plaintiff’s overarching goal.

“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.” (See supra pgs. 1-3, 10, and 11.) Any other issues should – 14 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 15 of 16 not allow Plaintiff to access documents that should otherwise be withheld or redacted under Exemption 7(C) or the Privacy Act.
“If this Court finds that Plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.”
“Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenor requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand”, Tinubu’s legal team further argued.