Adesanya bets $10,000 on Joshua to defeat Dubois

Nigerian-born UFC fighter Israel Adesanya has staked $10,000 on Anthony Joshua, the two-time former unified world heavyweight champion, in his IBF heavyweight title battle against Daniel Dubois. 

The title bout is scheduled for September 21, 2024, at Wembley Stadium in England.

The all-British showdown will include 96,000 spectators, creating an exciting atmosphere at a location familiar to Joshua but new to Dubois.

This will be Dubois’ first fight at England’s national stadium, increasing the burden on him and his staff, who is overseen by trainer Don Charles.

READ ALSO:

• Edo election: Mercy Johnson’s husband escapes assassination
• EFCC begins fresh hunt as Yahaya Bello goes into hiding
• Jega panel’s proposal on open grazing unconstitutional – Group

Adesanya’s bet indicated that he picked Joshua to win between the 10th and 12th rounds, with an anticipated payoff of $50,000.

But Dubois had brazenly announced his goal to knock out Joshua.

“I aim to knock him out. That’s the programme. That’s the mindset; that’s the intention coming into this fight,” Dubois told Sky Sports.

“I’m going to focus my whole life on destroying him and just being a good destroyer, a good conqueror. Don’t wait. Go out there. Smash him.”

33-year-old Joshua is coming off four straight wins, including a knockout victory over former UFC champion Francis Ngannou.

Adesanya bets $10,000 on Joshua to defeat Dubois

Jega panel’s proposal on open grazing unconstitutional – Group

The recommendation on open grazing by the Presidential Committee on Implementation of Livestock Reforms, chaired by Prof. Attahiru Jega, has been described as unconstitutional, discriminatory, and illegal.

Civil rights group, Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), which rubbished the recommendation in a statement on Friday, said the committee’s proposal on coexistence of open grazing and ranching as a solution to the farmer-herder crisis was faulty.

The statement signed by HURIWA national coordinator, Emmanuel Onwubiko, also said the committee’s foundation is unconstitutional, citing Section 42(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, which prohibits laws or executive actions that impose restrictions based on ethnicity, community, or profession.

The group insisted that the establishment of the committee inherently favours herders at the expense of farmers, who have suffered violent attacks by armed pastoralists.

“It is unconstitutional for the government to form a committee that prioritizes one profession over another. Section 42(1) expressly prohibits subjecting citizens to laws that discriminate based on ethnicity, profession, or community. By promoting policies that favor herders while marginalizing farmers—who are the primary victims of these conflicts—President Tinubu’s administration is engaging in unconstitutional actions,” HURIWA stated.

The association also criticized the recommendations for disregarding state laws that have already banned open grazing. “In several states across Nigeria, laws have been enacted to outlaw open grazing due to the destruction of farmland and conflicts caused by herders. A national panel advocating for open grazing not only undermines these state laws but also sets a dangerous precedent where federal policies override state legislation. These recommendations are not just unconstitutional; they are illegal,” HURIWA added.

READ ALSO:

• Ukraine bans Telegram for officials over security threats
• Teenage housewife kills three-year-old stepson
• US officer arrested over killing of judge in court

HURIWA further condemned the Jega panel for favoring cattle rearers while ignoring the plight of farmers, who have been the primary victims of armed herder violence. “Farmers who have lost their livelihoods and lives in this ongoing crisis are being sidelined by recommendations that placate the herders. This approach fails to address the root causes of the conflict and may even exacerbate tensions,” the group noted.

HURIWA called for the immediate rejection of the panel’s recommendations by President Tinubu, labeling them an affront to state laws and legal frameworks established to protect citizens from the violence associated with open grazing. “We urge President Tinubu to reject these recommendations outright. They are unconstitutional and illegal, disregarding the rule of law in states that have banned open grazing,” the group demanded.

The rights group emphasized the need for a more balanced approach to resolving the farmer-herder conflict, advocating for the establishment of a presidential committee focused on farmers’ concerns. “For a lasting resolution, the government must ensure that farmers’ voices are heard. It is inconceivable to craft policies that cater to herders while ignoring the farmers who have been terrorized, displaced, and impoverished by the conflict. A balanced approach is essential for any resolution to be just and legitimate,” HURIWA stressed.

HURIWA warned that addressing only one side of the conflict would deepen the divide and prolong violence. “No government can settle one side of a conflict and expect peace. If the President is serious about resolving this crisis, he must give equal consideration to farmers’ concerns,” the group added.

Additionally, HURIWA highlighted international legal frameworks that bolster its stance. The rights group noted that Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) requires state parties to “respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.”

Similarly, the association informed that Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights mandates that the rights guaranteed by the Charter’s provisions must be respected “without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth, or other status.”

In light of these international legal principles, HURIWA urged the President and his administration to adhere to both national and global legal frameworks, ensuring that all Nigerians are treated equally under the law, without favoritism or discrimination.

In conclusion, HURIWA reiterated its opposition to the Jega-led committee’s recommendations, calling them unconstitutional and a violation of the rights of Nigerian citizens. The group urged President Tinubu to reject the report and focus on inclusive, lawful, and balanced solutions to the ongoing farmer-herder crisis.

“The Jega report is unconstitutional, illegal, and ill-advised. We demand that the President reject these recommendations and work towards a solution that protects the rights of all Nigerians, especially the farmers who have suffered the most in this crisis,” HURIWA concluded.

Jega panel’s proposal on open grazing unconstitutional – Group

Abuja court dismisses suit seeking replacement of pro-Wike Rivers lawmakers

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a defection suit instituted against the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Ezenwo Wike.

The suit seeking to replace the 27 lawmakers on account of their alleged defection from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) was on Friday thrown out on various grounds.

Among others, Justice Peter Lifu who delivered the judgment held that the suit instituted by the Action People’s Party APP was statute barred having not been filed within 14 days allowed by law.

While the defection was said to have been carried out in December last year, the APP filed the case on July 12, a period of 8 months after the cause of action emanated.

READ ALSO:

• Super Eagles maintain 39th position in latest FIFA ranking
• JUST IN: Petrol price to drop as marketers pay N766/litre for Dangote PMS
• Prison official kills colleague over food in Bauchi

Besides, Justice Lifu said that the case was a gross abuse of court process on the ground that several suits on the alleged defection of the same 27 lawmakers had been adjudicated upon by the federal high court.

The Judge who quoted the previous judgments of the federal high court said that the request for replacement of the lawmakers had earlier been rejected due to lack of sufficient evidence to establish the defection of the legislators.

He specifically recalled the judgment of Justice James Omotosho of the federal high court in Abuja delivered in July this year where the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC was restrained from declaring the seats of the lawmakers vacant and from conducting any fresh election to replace them.

Justice Lifu said that since the judgment has not been set aside and not appealed against, it remains binding with the force of law as far as the issue of defection is concerned for the 27 legislators.

He said that it would amount to a display of judicial rascality for him to sit as an appeal court in the judgment of the same court.

The Judge subsequently dismissed the suit on the three major grounds.

Abuja court dismisses suit seeking replacement of pro-Wike Rivers lawmakers