DAILY NEWS

Latest hot news all day long.

DAILY NEWS

Latest hot news all day long.

DAILY NEWS

Latest hot news all day long.

DAILY NEWS

Latest hot news all day long.

DAILY NEWS

Latest hot news all day long.

Showing posts with label controversies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label controversies. Show all posts

Why Is Joey Swoll Being Cancelled? Hulk Hogan's Apology Controversy Explained

Featured Image

The Controversy Surrounding Joey Swoll's Social Media Exit

Fitness influencer Joey Swoll has made a surprising decision to step away from social media, citing the intense backlash and threats he and his loved ones have faced. This move comes after a series of events that sparked heated discussions online, particularly around his response to the passing of Hulk Hogan.

A Tribute Gone Wrong

Swoll initially shared a TikTok tribute to Hulk Hogan, dressing up as the late WWE icon for Halloween. While the intention was to honor Hogan, the post received criticism for being tone-deaf. Many viewers felt it was inappropriate given Hogan’s controversial past, including allegations of using racial slurs against his daughter’s ex-boyfriend.

This led to an outpouring of negative comments from followers, with some accusing Swoll of being insensitive. The controversy escalated when Swoll issued an apology, which was met with further backlash from his right-wing fanbase. They criticized him for what they saw as yielding to "leftist pressure."

Escalation of Backlash

In a post on X, Swoll expressed frustration over the situation, stating that many had called him "weak" and a "quitter." He emphasized that he could handle the criticism but was deeply upset when threats extended to his girlfriend, business partner, and even his sister. This prompted him to announce his decision to leave social media entirely.

Apology and Reflection

In an Instagram post, Swoll took full accountability for his actions, acknowledging that he was still learning and growing. He admitted to becoming defensive during a livestream where fans brought up Hogan's controversial history. Swoll explained that he wanted to celebrate Hogan's achievements, not ignore his mistakes.

However, his use of the word "colored" drew additional criticism. In response, he apologized for this specific term and admitted he hadn’t fully understood the extent of Hogan’s actions. He noted that his online brand is about holding people accountable, including himself.

Criticism of the Apology

Despite his apology, some netizens, including X user Matt Walsh, criticized Swoll for thanking "leftist trolls" for "educating" him. Walsh called the apology "pathetic," suggesting that Swoll had caved to the "woke mob."

Swoll later addressed the backlash in another X post, expressing disappointment that his positive contributions were overshadowed by those seeking reasons to hate him. He announced a break from social media and thanked those who had supported him.

Ongoing Debate

As the debate continues, Swoll has not publicly responded further. His decision to step back from social media highlights the challenges influencers face in navigating public opinion and maintaining their personal safety in the digital age. The incident also underscores the complexities of honoring public figures while acknowledging their flaws.

Why Christopher Nolan Is Under Fire for a Scene in *The Odyssey*

Featured Image

Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey Sparks Controversy Over Filming Location

Christopher Nolan, known for his cinematic masterpieces like Inception and Interstellar, is set to release another ambitious project in 2026: a large-scale adaptation of The Odyssey. This film has already generated significant buzz due to its star-studded cast, groundbreaking technology, and the rich source material that inspired it. Following the success of Oppenheimer, Nolan is once again pushing the boundaries of blockbuster filmmaking.

However, the film is now at the center of a heated controversy, particularly regarding its choice of filming location. The issue has sparked discussions about the ethical implications of producing a major motion picture in a region with complex political and historical tensions.

The Film’s Plot and Filming Locations

The Odyssey follows the journey of Odysseus, portrayed by Matt Damon, as he navigates his way home after the Trojan War. To bring this ancient tale to life, the production team has traveled across the globe, capturing scenes in various locations such as rural Iceland, the Mediterranean, a Scottish castle, a soundstage in Los Angeles, and even Greece, where the story originates.

Recently, the film was reported to have shot a sequence in Dakhla, a city located in the Western Sahara. This location has become the focal point of the current controversy.

Why Is Western Sahara a Controversial Location?

Western Sahara is a disputed territory, with the United Nations classifying it as “non-self-governing.” Dakhla, considered the capital of the Moroccan-occupied Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region, is at the heart of this debate. The area has been under Moroccan control for over five decades, and the indigenous Sahrawi population continues to face challenges related to their rights and autonomy.

Organizers of the Western Sahara International Film Festival (FiSahara) have been vocal critics of the decision to film in the region. They argue that while Dakhla may offer visually stunning landscapes, it is also an occupied and militarized city. According to them, the local Sahrawi people are subjected to harsh repression by the occupying forces.

María Carrión, executive director of FiSahara, expressed concerns that by filming in the region, Nolan and his team might be inadvertently supporting Morocco's occupation. She emphasized that if the filmmakers had fully understood the implications, they would likely be horrified.

What Has Christopher Nolan Said About the Controversy?

Despite the growing criticism, Christopher Nolan has not publicly addressed the controversy. According to The Guardian, the filming in Dakhla reportedly lasted only four days, and the issue was raised after the shoot had already concluded.

HuffPost UK has reached out to representatives of both Nolan and The Odyssey for further comment. While the production is still ongoing, the film is scheduled to premiere in cinemas in July 2026.

Broader Implications of Filmmaking in Contested Territories

This situation raises important questions about the responsibilities of filmmakers when choosing locations in politically sensitive areas. It also highlights the intersection between art and politics, as creative projects can sometimes unintentionally support or perpetuate controversial situations.

As the film nears its release, the debate over its filming location will likely continue to spark discussion among audiences, critics, and activists alike. Whether The Odyssey will ultimately be remembered for its storytelling or for the controversy surrounding its production remains to be seen.

Stephen Colbert Jabs CBS Over 'The Late Show' Cancellation

Featured Image

The End of an Era

On Monday night, Stephen Colbert made his return to television after the shocking news that CBS had decided to end “The Late Show” in May 2026. This historic franchise, which has held the top spot in late-night ratings for nine consecutive seasons, came to an abrupt end, leaving many in disbelief.

Colbert kicked off his monologue with a bold statement: “Cancel culture has gone too far.” He expressed gratitude for the support he received over the weekend and hinted at a more unrestrained approach in the coming months. “The gloves are off! I can finally speak unvarnished truth to power and say what I really think about Donald Trump,” he said, directly addressing the camera. “I don’t care for him.”

The decision to cancel “The Late Show” stunned a wide range of people, from comedians and celebrities to politicians and viewers. Many questioned the timing, especially given that Colbert had recently criticized Paramount, the parent company of CBS, for paying a $16 million settlement over Trump’s claims of an unfairly edited “60 Minutes” interview. The move came just as Paramount was seeking approval from the Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump-picked chairman Brendan Carr, for a $8 billion merger with Skydance Media.

CBS issued a statement calling the cancellation an “agonizing decision” and emphasizing that it was purely a financial choice. However, Colbert raised doubts about this explanation, pointing out that the show was still No. 1 in ratings. “How could it purely be a financial decision if ‘The Late Show’ is No. 1 in ratings? It’s confusing,” he said, drawing cheers from the audience.

He also mentioned a leaked report suggesting that the show loses between $40 and $50 million annually, citing falling ratings and advertising revenue. “$40 million’s a big number,” Colbert joked. “I could see us losing $24 million, but where would Paramount have possibly spent the other $16 million?” He then compared the situation to Red Lobster’s bankruptcy, quipping, “I told them we should stop offering the audience unlimited shrimp!”

A Celebration of Friendship and Music

Despite the somber news, Colbert wanted to ensure the show ended on a positive note. He brought out musical guests like “Weird Al” Yankovic and Lin-Manuel Miranda to lift everyone’s spirits. They performed a parody of a viral clip involving a CEO cuddling with his human resources chief at a Coldplay concert, which had been featured on the Jumbotron.

The show also featured appearances from various TV hosts and celebrities, including Anderson Cooper, Andy Cohen, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, John Oliver, Jon Stewart, Adam Sandler, and Christopher McDonald. Even Triumph the Insult Comic Dog made an appearance, adding a touch of humor to the evening.

Colbert then played a cartoon of Trump hugging the Paramount logo, only for it to quickly duck when the camera approached. A note from corporate informed him that the song had been canceled, claiming it was a purely financial decision. “That’s impossible, that song was a No. 1 song!” Miranda exclaimed, questioning whether the cancellation was related to the spotlight on Trump.

A Powerful Message from Sandra Oh

Guest Sandra Oh expressed her sadness and outrage over the show’s cancellation, stating, “Not only for yourself and for this entire family who are here, but for what it means, what it is, where we are in our culture and what that means for free speech.” She concluded with a strong message: “To CBS and Paramount: A plague on both of your houses.”

Colbert responded with a smile, acknowledging the support he had received. However, Oh wasn’t finished, adding, “And also, a pox on all those who they serve.”

Jon Stewart’s Take on the Situation

Jon Stewart, who has a long history with Colbert from their early Comedy Central days, addressed the issue on “The Daily Show.” He acknowledged the financial challenges facing late-night TV, comparing it to “operating a Blockbuster kiosk inside of a Tower Records.” However, he grew increasingly heated, questioning whether CBS had to end the No. 1, three-decade-spanning franchise.

Stewart pointed to Trump’s recent social media post expressing delight over Colbert’s potential firing. “My God! When CDs stopped selling, they didn’t just go ‘Oh well! Music, it’s been a good run.’” He argued that the shows that contributed to Paramount’s success were the ones that took a stand and spoke out.

“I think the answer is in the fear and pre-compliance that is gripping all of America’s institutions at this very moment,” Stewart concluded, highlighting the broader implications of the decision.

Bethenny Frankel Confronts Andy Byron Over Coldplay Concert Chaos

Featured Image

Bethenny Frankel Speaks Out on Astronomer CEO's Controversial Moment at a Coldplay Concert

Bethenny Frankel, a former star of "Real Housewives of New York City," recently voiced strong opinions about Andy Byron, the CEO of Astronomer. The controversy began when Byron was seen cuddling with Kristin Cabot, the company’s HR Chief, during a "kiss cam" segment at a Coldplay concert. Frankel took to TikTok to express her frustration with Byron’s lack of discretion.

In her video, Frankel questioned why Byron and Cabot would choose such an event for their private moment. “What’s wrong with a Motel 6? Who could you not run into at a Coldplay concert?” she asked her followers. She highlighted that the setting is far from exclusive, noting that people from all walks of life, including teachers, doctors, and even coworkers, could be in attendance.

Frankel continued by suggesting that Byron and Cabot might have encountered someone like “Dan from accounting” or “Jane from HR,” emphasizing how public the situation was. Her frustration was evident as she exclaimed, “Like, what the f-ck were you thinking? Dude, Astronomer, the 'Sky Full of Stars' that's for shizzle. What the f-ck?”

Fan Reactions to Frankel’s Comments

Fans of Frankel took to the comments section of her TikTok video to share their own thoughts on the incident. One user wrote, “Baby, she WAS Jane from HR.” Another commented, “Coldplay haven't made a single in years, last night, they made 2.” A third fan agreed with Frankel, stating that going to a Coldplay concert is like visiting a neighborhood grocery store. Another shared a personal experience, saying, “I literally ran into a coworker I hadn’t seen in a decade at a Coldplay concert.”

Coldplay’s Lead Singer Reacts in Real Time

The viral clip also captured Chris Martin, Coldplay’s lead singer, reacting to the situation. At first, he joked about the couple, saying, “Either they're having an affair, or they're just very shy.” Later, he seemed to regret his comment, telling the audience, “I don't know what to do” before adding, “Oh sh-t, I hope we didn’t do something bad.”

A Contradictory Statement from Astronomer CEO

Ironically, in November 2024, Byron praised Cabot in a press release. He highlighted her leadership skills, calling her a “proven leader at multiple growth-stage companies” and praising her “passion for fostering diverse, collaborative workplaces.” Cabot herself spoke about her new role, emphasizing that her position is more than traditional human resources. She stated, “I prefer to think of my role as people strategy versus traditional human resources.”

Investigation and Company Response

Astronomer has since confirmed that Byron has been placed on leave while the company investigates the incident. A spokesperson for the company stated, “Astronomer is committed to the values and culture that have guided us since our founding. Our leaders are expected to set the standard in both conduct and accountability.” The company also addressed claims that other employees were present at the concert, stating, “... no other employees were in the video.”

This ongoing situation has sparked discussions about workplace conduct and the importance of discretion, especially for high-profile executives. As the investigation continues, it remains to be seen how this will affect the company's future.

Why "Killing in the Name" Was Banned by Rage Against the Machine

Featured Image

The Legacy of "Killing in the Name" by Rage Against the Machine

Rage Against the Machine’s 1992 track "Killing in the Name" is widely regarded as one of the most powerful protest songs in rock history. With its intense guitar riffs and bold lyrics, the song became a rallying cry against systemic racism and police brutality. However, its raw energy and explicit language have led to significant controversy over the years.

The song's climax features frontman Zack de la Rocha shouting the phrase “F--k you, I won’t do what you tell me” repeatedly. This line, along with other strong language, has caused many radio stations to avoid playing the track or opt for heavily censored versions. In the UK, BBC Radio 1 faced backlash after accidentally airing the uncensored version during a chart show in 1993, leading to over 100 complaints from listeners.

In the United States, the song was among many that were informally blacklisted by Clear Channel Communications following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. The company created a list of songs deemed “lyrically questionable” for airplay during that sensitive period. "Killing in the Name" was included due to its aggressive tone and themes of rebellion, which were seen as potentially inappropriate during a time of national tension.

Despite these restrictions, the band members have always stood by their original vision. In a previous interview with Spin Magazine, guitarist Tom Morello shared insights into the decision-making process around the song’s lyrics. He noted that there was a musical discussion about the song’s structure, particularly the moment where the track seems to stop. Morello recalled that the band disagreed with the idea that this part disrupted the flow of the song.

Morello also shared a humorous anecdote about the band's early days. At their second-ever performance, label executives were present and taken aback by the band's unfiltered energy. After playing "Killing in the Name," one executive reportedly asked, “So is that the direction you’re heading in?” The band’s response was clear: they were not backing down from their message.

The song experienced a resurgence in popularity in 2009 when a Facebook campaign aimed to prevent an X Factor winner from claiming the UK’s Christmas No. 1 single. Fans downloaded "Killing in the Name," and the campaign succeeded, with the track reaching No. 1 in December. This revival brought the song back into the public eye and led to new opportunities for the band.

BBC Radio 5 Live invited Rage Against the Machine to perform the song live in the studio. The band agreed, but only if they could play the radio-friendly version. However, during the broadcast, Zack de la Rocha deviated from the script and delivered the full uncensored outro. The presenters tried to cut the performance short, but the explicit language had already reached listeners.

The BBC issued an apology, stating that the band had promised not to swear. Despite the controversy, the song continued to gain traction. Earlier this year, "Killing in the Name" became the first song by the band to surpass one billion streams on Spotify, marking a significant milestone in its long and impactful journey.

Rumors Spread Since Springsteen's Trump Conflict

Featured Image

A Deep Dive into the Controversies Surrounding Bruce Springsteen and Donald Trump

Bruce Springsteen, one of the most iconic musicians in the world, has long been known for his powerful music and his strong political voice. Over the years, he has become a prominent figure in the political landscape, often using his platform to speak out against policies and leaders he disagrees with. His most notable and enduring conflict has been with former U.S. President Donald Trump, a relationship that has sparked a lot of controversy and misinformation.

Springsteen's criticism of Trump began shortly after Trump took office in 2016, and he has consistently supported candidates who oppose Trump. This stance has not gone unnoticed by Trump, who has responded with what many consider to be pettiness and immaturity. The tension between the two has only intensified over time, leading to a series of public exchanges that have captured media attention.

As Springsteen’s anti-Trump rhetoric gained traction, so did the spread of fake news and conspiracy theories targeting him. These rumors were largely fueled by supporters of Trump, who viewed Springsteen as an enemy of their cause. The situation escalated significantly in May 2025 when Springsteen made a strong statement during a concert in Manchester, England, calling the administration "corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous." This led to a social media backlash from Trump, who posted a rant on his Truth Social page, attacking Springsteen's music and his political views.

The online discourse surrounding Springsteen became even more chaotic when a fabricated story circulated claiming that he had performed with Taylor Swift as a show of solidarity against Trump. The post, shared on Facebook, included images that were later revealed to be from different events. Snopes, a fact-checking website, debunked the story, pointing out that the photos were taken at separate concerts and that such a high-profile collaboration would have been widely reported in the mainstream media.

Another false rumor involved Pam Bondi, the former U.S. Attorney General, who was falsely quoted as saying it was illegal for Springsteen to call himself "The Boss." The doctored screenshot of a supposed press briefing went viral across social media, with many people taking it as fact. However, it was later revealed that the quote was a satirical creation by a user named Schlarmann, who had no intention of making it seem genuine.

In addition to these stories, there were claims that Billy Joel had canceled his concerts with Springsteen due to the singer's criticism of Trump. The story, which first appeared on Facebook, was debunked when it was revealed that Joel had previously criticized Trump and even praised Springsteen for his activism. The post was attributed to a Facebook page that claimed to be satirical but often blurred the line between humor and misinformation.

A similar story emerged about Springsteen losing a Jeep advertising deal because of his comments on Trump. The post, which claimed the car company had pulled the ad due to Springsteen’s political views, was also false. In reality, Springsteen had only done one Jeep commercial in 2021, and the ad was pulled due to unrelated legal issues, not his political stance.

Even before Trump's 2024 election victory, there were rumors that Springsteen and Robert De Niro were planning to move out of the country. The story, which was shared on a Facebook group, suggested they would relocate to Italy and work on a documentary. However, both the group and the website where the article was published labeled it as satire, though many still believed it to be true.

Despite these false narratives, Springsteen has remained a vocal critic of Trump and continues to use his platform to advocate for change. While some of his remarks have led to backlash, he has also inspired many fans and fellow artists to speak out against injustice. As the political climate remains polarized, the stories surrounding Springsteen will likely continue to evolve, but his commitment to his beliefs remains unwavering.

Jon Stewart Reveals Fears for "The Daily Show" After "Late Show" Cancellation Outrage

Featured Image

Jon Stewart Shares Thoughts on The Daily Show’s Future Amid Industry Changes

Jon Stewart, the former host of The Daily Show, recently shared his thoughts on the future of the show during an episode of his podcast. His comments came at a time when the media landscape is undergoing significant changes, particularly with the ongoing merger between Paramount and Skydance Media.

Stewart was asked about what might happen to The Daily Show if the merger goes through, especially since the show is owned by Paramount, which is now part of CBS. He admitted that he doesn’t have a clear answer. “Boy, that’s a good question,” he said. “Unfortunately, we haven’t heard anything from them. They haven’t called me and said like, ‘Don’t get too comfortable in that office, Stewart!’”

He added humor to the situation, joking, “I’ve been kicked out of s--- establishments than that. We’ll land on our feet.” However, he also acknowledged that the uncertainty is real. “I honestly don’t know what the show’s fate will be,” he said. “I’d like to believe that... Like, without The Daily Show, Comedy Central is kind of like muzak at this point. I think we’re the only sort of life that exists on a current basis other than South Park.”

Stewart expressed hope that the show brings enough value to the channel, but he also admitted that it may not be the priority for the company. “But that may not be their consideration,” he said. “I just don’t know.”

His remarks come in the wake of another major development: the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. CBS announced that the show would end after the 2023-2024 season, citing financial reasons. The network emphasized that the decision had nothing to do with the show’s performance or content.

Interestingly, the cancellation news broke shortly after a controversial settlement involving Paramount and Donald Trump. The $16 million payout was made after Trump claimed that 60 Minutes had deceptively edited an interview with Kamala Harris. This incident sparked discussions about the pressures facing journalists and media outlets.

Steve Kroft, a former correspondent for 60 Minutes, appeared on The Daily Show a week before the cancellation announcement. He discussed the impact of the lawsuit on the network and the broader media environment. “I think there’s a lot of fear,” Kroft said. “Fear of losing their job, fear of what’s happening to the country, fear of losing the First Amendment. All of those things.”

He also criticized the settlement, calling it a “shakedown” and suggesting that some viewed it as “extortion.”

CBS released a statement defending the decision to cancel The Late Show, highlighting its long-standing success. “Stephen has taken CBS late night by storm with cutting-edge comedy, a must-watch monologue and interviews with leaders in entertainment, politics, news and newsmakers across all areas,” the statement read. It also noted that the show had been number one in late night for nine straight seasons.

Despite these reassurances, the media industry continues to face challenges. Mergers, financial pressures, and shifting audience habits are all factors that could influence the future of shows like The Daily Show and The Late Show.

For now, Stewart remains cautious but hopeful. He knows that the world of television is unpredictable, but he also believes that The Daily Show has played a unique role in keeping Comedy Central relevant. Whether that role continues in the future remains to be seen.

The Inconvenient Truth: Gold Isn't the Curse – Greed and Materialism Are!

The Inconvenient Truth: Gold Isn't the Curse – Greed and Materialism Are!

…TheRivers are fading, farms are struggling, and future generations are forced to consume and drink the consequences of their forebears' actions.

By Professor Douglas BOATENG

It starts as a hole in the ground but ultimately becomes an open grave with polluted rivers, tainted farmlands, a public health emergency, and weakened national independence. Ghana's unlawful gold mining problem, referred to locally as Galamsey, has evolved far beyond a criminal economy. What began as small-scale panning has expanded into a shadow industry valued at a minimum of one billion dollars.

Equipped with excavators, mercury, drones, and outside funding, Galamsey has gone beyond causing environmental harm. It is eroding rural economies, weakening institutions, and threatening the future of Ghana's youth. Even after years of high-profile initiatives, such as Operation Vanguard, Halt, NAIMOS, and thousands of arrests since 2016, the damage continues. The machinery comes back. The rivers become darker. And the people keep enduring the hardship.The harsh reality is that the government cannot triumph in this conflict by itself.This goes beyond a law enforcement issue. It represents a societal breakdown, a lack of effective governance, and a humanitarian crisis that will affect the most vulnerable the hardest.

Dirty waters, polluted soil – the effects of the future

In the Eastern and Western regions of Ghana, rivers like the Birim, Pra, Ankobrah, and Offin are now carrying sludge, mercury, and cyanide. The Ghana Water Company has raised concerns that the nation might soon need to import clean water. Craters have taken the place of cocoa farms. Cattle herders are looking for safe areas to water their animals. Fishing communities catch silt. Wells provide water that is chemically polluted. When water is not safe to drink and soil is not fertile, no crops grow, no livestock survives, and no country can endure. Once a symbol of food and water security in the region, Ghana is now moving dangerously toward ecological bankruptcy.

Foreign influence, local support and secrecy

The most tragic irony is this: the worst offenders would never carry out such actions in their own nations. International-backed groups, typically more equipped than local police forces, breach Ghana's environmental standards in ways that would be impossible under the regulations of their home countries. However, they do not act alone. The unfortunate truth is that a network of local, intricate, and self-interested partners facilitates their activities:

  • Citizensthose who remain quiet due to fear or monetary benefit
  • Chiefs who lease sacred land
  • Security officerswho ignore the situation
  • Politicianswho gains from the earnings

The inconvenient truth –These external entities will leave with their pockets full. Ghana will be left with contaminated wells, deteriorating environments, and a generation that grows up sick. This is more than just illegal mining; it represents the commercialization of Ghana's spirit, being sold off piece by piece for another's prosperity.

The hidden expense – a significant long-term health issue emerging

In mining areas, clinics are observing a rise in mercury poisoning, breathing difficulties, pregnancy losses, and brain-related injuries, particularly affecting children and expectant mothers. These harmful substances won't be visible at voting booths, yet they will manifest in special education facilities, overburdened medical centers, and throughout families trapped in poverty. Galamsey is not only harming the land; it is subtly changing the country's biological makeup. This issue extends beyond rural zones; it represents a nationwide crisis. Ghanaians might not fully realize the consequences today, but in two decades, hospitals, educational institutions, and the economy will bear the weight of our inaction.

Crime cannot be addressed solely by the government.

The issue is not the intent. From President Kufuor's initial worries to President Mahama's instructions and President Akufo-Addo's promise to risk his presidency, and once more under President Mahama, administrations have attempted and keep striving their hardest. Operations have been initiated. Equipment has been confiscated. Declarations have been issued. Nevertheless, within a few weeks, the same locations resume operations.

Galamsey continues to exist not due to the absence of laws, but because it flourishes in the gaps between policies and their implementation, shielded by patronage, desperation, and silence. No bulldozer can remove complicity. No single law can eliminate deep-rooted indifference. The true battle is about civic ethics and shared bravery. This issue will not be addressed from Accra. It needs to be confronted in the villages, churches, schools, and chief's residences.

The main way to eliminate this crime is through a collaboration between citizens and the government.

The government is unable to halt Galamsey by itself; it has become deeply integrated into Ghana's social and economic system, fueled by poverty, greed, materialism, and hidden behind fragmented accountability. If around 300,000 Ghanaians (~1% of the population) came together as whistleblowers and community advocates, it could shake up the criminal network. Alerts, reports, reclaiming, and revealing; these are forms of civic engagement.

When people take the initiative, progress occurs

In 2023, an educator from the Ashanti Region captured footage of Galamsey operations close to a school. The video became widely shared online. Soon after, the activity was halted. In the Western Region, a grandmother refused a GHS 5,000 bribe and alerted authorities about a nighttime group. Their machinery was confiscated. In Upper Denkyira, young people blocked entry points and transformed a ruined excavation site into a plantain farm. These successes werenot created by the government. They were deeds of regular individuals surpassing fear and exhaustion.

Traditional authority – between respect and significance

Chieftaincy continues to be one of the most respected systems in Ghana. Yet, it faces the possibility of losing its significance. No stool should rent out ancestral land for its destruction. No palace should protect those responsible. No elder should pretend not to know. A chief who benefits from Galamsey is not safeguarding tradition. He is selling it off. It's high time for chieftaincy to regain its ethical authority, not just through ceremonies, but by protecting water, land, and future generations.

The economic mirage

Some people support Galamsey by pointing to joblessness. However, the consequences are severe:

  • Jobs that poison workers
  • Income that destroys forests
  • Gold that fuels corruption

This is not genuine progress. It represents temporary self-destruction and lawlessness, backed by those who prioritize immediate gains and lack understanding, presented as a remedy for joblessness and poverty. And when the gold is gone? They will depart with their pockets full. Ghana will be left with contaminated water sources and damaged infrastructure.forests, and children who come into the world with illness.

The global investment dimension

As one of Africa's major gold producers and an important participant in cocoa and critical minerals, Ghana faces consequences that go beyond environmental concerns. Investors are closely watching the situation. With ESG metrics playing a growing role in global investment trends, Ghana runs the risk of damaging its reputation, which may deter ethical investors.

Companies engaged in mining or farming encounter challenges related to social acceptance if they are perceived as being close to or benefiting from unlawful operations. Exporting countries, especially in Europe, are implementing stricter regulations on supply chain transparency, like the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Galamsey also threatens the goals of the AfCFTA by undermining confidence in cross-border regulatory systems. The true danger is that Ghana might serve as a cautionary tale for resource-abundant nations losing authority over their natural resources.

The cost of doing nothing is measurable and disastrous

If current trends persist:

  • Ghana could allocate more than US$2 billion each year for water treatment purposes by 2035.
  • Cocoa exports might drop by 30 percent, causing instability in rural economies.
  • Mercury and cyanide exposure might trigger a multi-billion-dollar public health crisis
  • The ability to withstand climate impacts will disappear as tree coverage decreases and river networks fail.

And when the gold has disappeared? What will be left are contaminated rivers, barren soil, weakened economies, and futures sold off for foreign gain at the cost of Ghanaians.

From observers to participants – a new vision of citizenship

Leadership is not solely the responsibility of the government. It represents a collective ethical agreement.

  • Educators should promote environmental awareness, rather than remain quiet.
  • Religious figures should promote responsibility, not apathy
  • Reporters are required to reveal, not justify
  • Chiefs should guide, not rent
  • Residents are required to be responsible for leaders and their own actions.

A country does not merely perish when its rivers run dry and the land becomes tainted, but when its citizens lose their concern.

A fresh approach to governance – originating from the grassroots, rather than imposed from above

Galamsey serves as both a cautionary tale and an example for African governance. It highlights the shortcomings of centralized approaches and the strength of local authority. Picture:
  • Each District Assembly that supports youth-driven restoration teams
  • Public environmental dashboards monitoring decline and regulatory action
  • Funds for restoration are jointly funded by the state and the community, and are monitored in a transparent manner.
This is not idealism. It represents practical realism in a situation where governmental ability must be supported by strong civic engagement.Conclusion – Reclaiming a Country from Within

This is more than a call to action; it is a call to moral awareness. Enough empty words. Enough clichés. Enough inaction. Let the educator speak. Let the leader take responsibility. Let the mother voice her concerns. Let the young people mobilize. Let the reporter reveal the truth. Let the public hold accountable. Because the decision-makers are too distant. The community is too close. The river is too valuable. The land needs protection. And time is running out. Let history not remember that we stood by as our rivers died and lands were polluted while foreign criminal groups and local selfish lawbreakers prospered. Let it be known that we rose not with weapons, but with determination. That we reclaimed not only the land, but our self-respect. That we fought not for wealth, but for Ghana. And let it be said that when the future's child cried out, we responded.

The author is a globally recognized thought leader, Chartered Director, industrial engineer, supply chain management specialist, and social entrepreneur, renowned for his impactful work in industrialization, procurement, and strategic sourcing within developing countries.

As Africa's inaugural Professor Extraordinaire in Supply Chain Governance and Industrialization, he has provided guidance to governments, companies, and decision-makers, promoting sustainability and development. While serving as Chairman of the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) and Labadi Beach Hotel, he guided these organizations to international acclaim for their innovation and operational excellence. He previously held the position of chairman at the Public Procurement Authority.

A highly productive writer with more than 90 works, he is the founder of NyansaKasa (Words of Wisdom), an engaging platform that reaches over one million readers each day. Under his forward-thinking guidance, Professor Boateng keeps motivating ethical leadership, creativity, and the empowerment of young people, pushing Africa towards a sustainable and equitable future.

Byju Raveendran Accuses GLAS Trust Counsel of Baseless Claims

New Delhi [India], July 18 (ANI): In a series of statements, the founder of the struggling ed tech company BYJU's, Byju Raveendran, has stated that the legal representatives of the GLAS trust have presented unverified accusations against him during a hearing in a US Court in Delaware. GLAS Trust is the entity that acts on behalf of the lenders.

In a post on X, Byju Raveendran claimed, "Surprising disclosures from Delaware court records! GLAS attorney Ravi Shankar is once again fabricating stories to influence rulings. He is promoting 'reports' suggesting I am in talks with senior Indian officials for 'large payments' — completely false, with no proof provided. This is happening in a legal case where I am not even involved to defend myself!"

"Extract from the transcript: Shankar states these 'reports' indicate private or unofficial agreements to settle FEMA issues. NO EVIDENCE, ONLY ATTACKS! These FEMA investigations targeted TLPL - currently illegally controlled by GLAS, represented by Ravi Shankar as 99% of the COC! Why would I," the second post stated.

"The evidence? There isn't any. Only that Ravi Shankar and GLAS have 'received reports.' From where? Their own distorted inner thoughts? This is their strategy: -Make an exaggerated statement in Delaware to create fear and influence decisions in the Delaware court. -Repeat the figures '533m' and '1.2b' multiple times, without," the third post stated.

Further, Byju Raveendran alleges that the legal team has been leaking information to harm his reputation.

"This isn't an isolated incident. Shankar has consistently used slide decks to mislead—by leaving out important details about signatures, jurisdiction, and service dates to create a misleading image. It's a recurring pattern of courtroom drama: lie and omit in US court, leak information to Indian media, and harm reputations while all my significant payments were directed to TLPL. Today, I have nothing left except my shares in TLPL! And, for the nth time, no funds are 'missing' and we do not possess any of these funds! The future of thousands of employees and millions of students has been ruined by GLAS...," his posts stated.

Byju Raveendran also stated that he is working on a $2.5 billion legal case targeting the investor.

I've had enough of their defamation efforts and the misrepresentation in court. Moving forward, I will utilize all available resources to force them to rectify the harm they've done and ensure they make significant payments that will aid in rebuilding our company. We are getting ready to file a $2.5 billion lawsuit against... This goes beyond me. It's about justice for the thousands who have supported us despite being manipulated, misled, and subjected to legal intimidation. We will fight back—using the truth, evidence, and every relevant platform," he stated in his post.

Previously, the founders of BYJU'S mentioned that they were thinking about taking legal steps against entities they claim are attempting to harm their business.

"The behavior of Alpha, Glas Trust, and its lawyers in front of the courts has been unacceptable and inappropriate in our opinion. We retain the right to employ all legal methods to achieve justice for the BYJU's founders. Legal claims have already been filed in India against Glas Trust, which was previously a subsidiary of Think & Learn, and now Glas Trust asserts it has control over other parties," said J Michael McNutt, Senior Litigation Advisor at Lazareff Le Bars Eurl on behalf of the BYJU's founders.

"Further claims are being developed against these parties in different regions. These claims, which may be filed by all or some of BYJU's founders, are anticipated to seek financial compensation of at least $2.5 billion," the Litigation Advisor stated.

BYJU's additionally stated that there is no court order in any region, including India or the United States, mandating Byju Raveendran or Divya Gokulnath to pay any sum to Think & Learn, or any affiliated entity of Think & Learn. (ANI)


Senators' Post-Office Struggles vs. Nigerian Perceptions of Wealth - Akpabio

In contrast with common belief, Senate President Godswill Akpabio has stated that legislators do not make significant income and many face financial difficulties once they leave their positions.

The former Governor of Akwa Ibom State revealedon Wednesday, July 9, 2025, as legislators honoredCaleb Zagi, a former senator from Kaduna South, who passed away on June 25 following a short illness.

The legislator from Kaduna South,Sunday Marshall Katung, had proposed a motion to recognize Zagi, who passed away on June 25 following a short illness.

During his speech, Enyinnaya Abaribe, the senator for Abia South, stated that the deceased had contacted his former colleagues for financial assistance just before his death.

ALSO READ: Tinubu dissatisfied with the opposition parties' lack of unity - Akpabio states

Abaribe mentioned that he and several colleagues provided personal donations for Zagi, whom he characterized as a dedicated lawmaker who represented his constituents with modesty and bridged religious and regional differences.

The Abia senator said, 'I was extremely upset when he came to me and revealed that he was seriously ill and was asking for our support, requiring us to make personal contributions to him.'

Of course, this is one of the aspects that many people in Nigeria are unaware of regarding the life of a legislative member.

There is a belief that a significant amount of money is invested here for individuals, but naturally, whatever you witness, the moment you leave this room is the very moment this chamber offers you no advantages.

Caleb belonged to that group, and I am deeply, deeply sorry that in the end, that illness took his life. He was a very kind and respectable lawmaker and a supporter of the people from Kaduna South.

And since he was someone who bridged gaps — from the north to the south, from Christian to Muslim — we can only pray that God blesses this wonderful soul and grants him eternal peace.

Akpabio claims that senators often face financial difficulties after leaving their positions.

In his capacity, the Senate President commended Abaribe for his individual efforts and took the chance to address what he referred to as common misunderstandings regarding legislators.

According to Akpabio, the idea that senators accumulate riches during their time in office is inaccurate, arguing that many government workers endure hardships with minimal rewards following their service.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump sought to enact a visa restriction on Akpabio and Abbas concerning the Rivers crisis

"I was impressed by your involvement in the discussion regarding the passing of respected Senator Caleb, and you highlighted your personal role during his illness. For this, the senate thanks you," Akpabio stated.

But you made a deep statement—that people in Nigeria believe a significant amount of money is spent on the national assembly.

But once you leave the national assembly, you find yourself in need of money just to treat yourself, which highlights the absurdity of all the accusations and subtle hints directed at the lawmakers.

I believe it was a revealing experience for many. Some individuals feel that our purpose here is to earn money.

They are unaware that we have come here to make sacrifices for the nation's development, allowing us to leave a better country for future generations.

The Senate held a moment of silence to pay respects to the departed and decided to send a group to express their condolences to his family.

Zagi was a member of the House of Representatives prior to transitioning to the Senate in 2007, all while being affiliated with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Editorial: Democrats Unashamed in Reversing Special Activity Funds Cut

The Democratic Party often seems to have no shame. They flip their words and actions overnight without hesitation. Their double standards are nothing new, but the party’s sudden reversal on the presidential office’s special activity expenses clearly shows their lack of integrity and conscience.

Last November, when President Lee Jae-myung was party leader, the Democratic Party cut the entire 8.2 billion won special activity expenses budget for the presidential office during a National Assembly budget committee meeting, calling it “a waste of money.” Now in power, Lee has completely reversed his position and insists the funding is necessary. The party announced that the supplementary budget would restore these expenses, just seven months after eliminating them entirely.

According to budget subcommittee documents, Democratic lawmaker Jo Seoung-lae said the funds cover activities closely linked to national security and require strict confidentiality. He called for an increase to ensure smooth government operations. While no exact amount was mentioned, other party members agreed. What was once dismissed as unnecessary is now considered essential, with the budget likely to return at tens of billions of won.

Under Article 44 of the National Finance Act, special activity expenses fund certain government operations. This includes condolence money, rewards, and farewell payments given by the president, as well as secret security activities carried out by the National Security Office. The funds are meant to support sensitive or overlooked areas of government work. Yet the Democratic Party cut the entire budget.

When the People Power Party raised objections at the time, President Lee dismissed them, saying it was absurd to claim the government could not operate without these funds. Former Democratic floor leader Park Chan-dae also said cutting the expenses would not paralyze the government. At the same time, the party left untouched the National Assembly’s own 980 million won in special activity expenses and 18.5 billion won in discretionary funds. The party now says the presidential office can use the funds if it provides justification and follows transparent procedures. But they say nothing about why they cut the funds before.

Special activity expenses are necessary regardless of who is in power. The Democratic Party knew this but cut the budget entirely for political reasons. If they now want to use those funds, they should start by apologizing. That is the least they can do to show responsibility.