CARICOM backs renewal of Haiti gang force mandate

The Caribbean Community, CARICOM has called for the renewal of the mandate of the Gang Suppression Force in Haiti, urging international partners to urgently provide the personnel, funding, equipment and logistics required to strengthen the force’s operations.

The CARICOM Secretary-General, Dr Carla Barnett, made the call while addressing the Regular Meeting of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C., on September 3, 2026.

Barnett said the commitments made by Haiti’s international partners to support the GSF had not been sufficiently fulfilled, stressing that increased assistance was necessary to tackle insecurity and create an enabling environment for elections.

According to her, progress in strengthening the security force would help to “release the chokehold” of armed gangs on Haitians while also providing the conditions required for the country’s electoral process.

She said, “It is clear both our Organisations hold firmly to the view that the mandate of the Gang Suppression Force needs to be renewed.”

The CARICOM chief said the regional bloc was also prepared to work with the OAS on election observation as Haiti’s electoral process gathered momentum.

She noted that CARICOM and the OAS had collaborated on election observation in the past, adding that such cooperation could be revived in the coming months to support Haiti’s return to constitutional and democratic governance.

Barnett also highlighted the need for stronger coordination among regional and international organisations supporting Haiti, saying duplication of efforts must be avoided to ensure that the urgent needs of the Haitian people were adequately addressed.

She spoke against the backdrop of a recent High-Level Inter-American and International Delegation visit to Haiti from August 16 to 19, which included CARICOM representatives.

According to her, the visit strengthened coordination among international actors, facilitated the exchange of experiences and provided a clearer understanding of the situation on the ground.

She added that the delegation’s presence also sent a message to Haitians that they had not been abandoned by the international community despite the prolonged political, social and security crisis.

Barnett said CARICOM was contributing to efforts to resolve the crisis through dialogue and good offices.

She disclosed that the CARICOM Eminent Persons Group, comprising three former prime ministers and established in 2023, had continued engaging political and civil society stakeholders, government officials and representatives of the international community.

The group, she said, was currently visiting Haiti to engage political actors, including emerging parties and coalitions, and facilitate dialogue among stakeholders involved in the electoral process.

Barnett urged continued international attention to the plight of Haitians, particularly those whose livelihoods, education, access to healthcare and freedom of movement had been disrupted by crime and violence.

“Our objective must continue to be to support the Haitian people as they seek to find solutions to the present crises of insecurity and governance,” she said.

She added that resolving the immediate crises would enable Haiti to focus on long-term economic and social development, including investment, job creation and access to essential services.

98 Nigerians Killed in South Africa Since 2022, Fresh Deaths Deepen Diplomatic Row

By Alabidun Shuaib AbdulRahman

The killing of two Nigerians in South Africa within 24 hours has renewed concerns over the safety of Nigerian nationals in the country, with Nigeria escalating diplomatic and parliamentary pressure on Pretoria over recurring xenophobic attacks and alleged abuses involving security personnel.

The latest victims were identified as Bishop Michael Taiwo Fakunle and James Uchechukwu Nwankwo.

Fakunle was reportedly shot dead at his residence in Kensington, Johannesburg, on September 4, while Nwankwo was reported dead the following day in an incident involving personnel of the South African Police Service.

The circumstances surrounding the two deaths remain subject to investigation, with Nigerian community representatives and officials demanding that the South African authorities establish what happened and prosecute anyone found culpable.

The deaths came as Nigeria and South Africa were already locked in a diplomatic dispute over attacks on Nigerians and other African nationals, with Nigeria’s National Assembly on Friday suspending official visits to South Africa and boycotting South African-hosted legislative engagements until further notice.

The latest parliamentary action followed months of renewed anti-foreigner mobilisation in South Africa and growing concern in Abuja over the treatment of Nigerian citizens.

The Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, said the legislature was “particularly concerned by reports of Nigerians being killed, injured, displaced and forced to abandon their businesses, investments, homes and other properties as a result of recurring violent attacks.”

The National Assembly said its decision was a “strong expression of concern over the safety, dignity and welfare of Nigerians living and conducting legitimate businesses in South Africa,” while stressing that the measure was not intended to undermine the longstanding historical and diplomatic relationship between both countries.

The latest deaths have therefore brought the long-running dispute to a new point.

Two deaths, different allegations

According to the Nigerian Citizens Association South Africa, two suspects allegedly gained access to Fakunle’s residence in Johannesburg and opened fire on the cleric.

The association’s National President, Rev. Frank Onyekwelu, said the bishop was shot more than seven times.

Onyekwelu said the incident was reported to the Nigerian Consulate General in Johannesburg and that a murder case was opened at Jeppe Police Station.

The Nigerian Consulate subsequently confirmed Fakunle’s death, describing it as a “gruesome murder” and calling on South African authorities to conduct a comprehensive investigation and prosecute anyone found responsible.

The allegation that Fakunle had received threats before his death came from former Nigerian Minister of Aviation and ambassador-designate to South Africa, Femi Fani-Kayode.

In a statement on Friday, Fani-Kayode said he was “mortified and deeply shocked” by the killing.

He alleged that Fakunle had received threats before unidentified assailants went to his home and shot him.

Fani-Kayode also raised the case of Nwankwo, alleging that he died after being subjected to what he described as “gruesome interrogation techniques” by South African police officers.

However, as of Friday evening, there was no immediate public response from the South African Government or SAPS confirming Fani-Kayode’s account of Nwankwo’s death.

Fani-Kayode nevertheless claimed that the two men were the seventh and eighth Nigerians killed in South Africa in 2026 and alleged that four of the eight deaths involved South African police officers.

He further claimed that more than 100 Nigerians had been killed in South Africa between 2022 and September 2026, including more than 30 allegedly killed by SAPS and South African Defence Force personnel.

Nigeria’s 98-death record

Nigeria’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye, told South African International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola during diplomatic discussions in Abuja in July that 98 Nigerians had been killed in South Africa since 2022 in mob actions, hate-related attacks and cases Nigeria described as extrajudicial killings.

“We’ve seen a pattern emerge as early as 1995, in 1998, in 2006, in 2015, in 2016, 2019, 2021, 2024, and 2026,” Enikanolaiye said.

“It is on record that from 2022 alone, 98 Nigerians have died in mob actions, in hate-related actions that we have called Afrophobia, because we found that the primary victims of this ugly situation are Africans, and Nigerians in particular.”

Nigeria has demanded that such allegations be investigated through the appropriate South African institutions.

At the July meeting, Enikanolaiye also acknowledged that some Nigerians had been involved in criminal activities but rejected the idea that criminality should lead to collective punishment.

“Migration is a fact of history,” the minister said, stressing that people who violated the laws of their host country should be dealt with according to established rules.

Pretoria’s response

South Africa has rejected the suggestion that the attacks are sanctioned by its government.

Lamola, who led a South African delegation to Abuja in July, said Pretoria condemned xenophobia and wanted criminality involving foreigners handled through the law.

“The protest and the violence that is happening is not state-sponsored, it is not condoned by the South African government,” Lamola said during the talks.

He added that criminality should be dealt with through legal processes.

“We have agreed that all issues of criminality must be dealt with in terms of the law,” he said.

South Africa insists on its right to enforce immigration laws and deal with criminality.

Nigeria insists that those objectives must not be pursued through mob violence, collective punishment or unlawful treatment of its citizens.

The September 30 deadline

The latest diplomatic concerns have been compounded by another deadline issued by an anti-immigration movement in South Africa.

Diaspora Watch Newspaper reports that March and March, a controversial anti-migrant organisation, has reportedly set September 30 as a new deadline for undocumented foreigners to leave the country.

Fani-Kayode referred to the September 30 deadline in his statement, alleging that organisations behind the campaign had threatened African nationals who failed to comply.

He called on Pretoria to protect Nigerians and other African nationals against unlawful threats and attacks.

The development follows an earlier June 30 deadline around which anti-immigration groups mobilised in South Africa.

The June mobilisation occurred amid a broader wave of protests over undocumented migration, with foreign nationals accused by some campaigners of contributing to unemployment, crime and pressure on public services.

1,695 Nigerians leave South Africa

The consequences of the unrest are already visible in the number of Nigerians returning home.

Nigeria’s Acting High Commissioner to South Africa, Ambassador Ajayi Alexander, said 1,695 Nigerians had been repatriated from South Africa in 2026 amid the security concerns.

According to the envoy, 1,490 were returned through government-sponsored arrangements, while another 205 left with financial support from private individuals.

The Federal Government funded five repatriation flights, each carrying at least 200 Nigerians, while the diplomatic mission arranged additional one-way tickets for citizens who wanted to return.

The Nigerian mission has continued to monitor the situation as the September 30 deadline approaches.

National Assembly steps in

The National Assembly’s decision to suspend legislative engagements with South Africa represents the latest institutional escalation.

Under the directive, official visits by the National Assembly, its committees, lawmakers, officials and staff are suspended.

The restriction also covers conferences, seminars, workshops, parliamentary meetings, legislative exchanges and other activities organised or hosted by South African legislative authorities.

It extends to physical and virtual participation.

The suspension will remain in force until further notice and is subject to review as circumstances change.

The legislature, however, made clear that the action was not intended to sever Nigeria’s broader relationship with South Africa.

Instead, it urged Pretoria to take “urgent and concrete measures” to protect Nigerians and other African nationals, investigate reported attacks, arrest suspects and prosecute those found culpable.

The move followed earlier diplomatic efforts by the Federal Government.

President Bola Tinubu had raised concerns over xenophobic attacks against Nigerians and other Africans, while Nigerian officials engaged their South African counterparts over the security situation.

The July meeting between Enikanolaiye and Lamola was part of those efforts.

The latest parliamentary action indicates that the issue has now moved beyond diplomatic correspondence and into Nigeria’s legislative institutions.

Our Tinubu Has Run Away Again?

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to embark on a three-week vacation abroad has triggered renewed debate over his foreign travels, with opposition politicians, civil society activists and concerned Nigerians questioning the timing of his latest absence from the country.

Tinubu left Abuja on Sunday, August 30, 2026, for Europe to begin what the Presidency described as his annual leave.

According to a statement issued by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the President’s first destination was London, United Kingdom.

The statement said Tinubu would use the period for a working vacation and return to Nigeria after the three-week break to participate in the activities leading to the 2027 general elections.

However, the announcement came at a politically sensitive period, with Nigeria facing renewed security concerns, economic pressures and an increasingly competitive political environment ahead of the 2027 elections.

The timing has consequently revived questions that have followed the President throughout his administration: How often has Tinubu travelled abroad since assuming office, how much time has he spent outside Nigeria and have the trips produced sufficient benefits to justify the criticisms surrounding them?

51 foreign trips in three years

Tinubu’s foreign travel record has become a recurring subject of public debate since he assumed office on May 29, 2023.

A Sunday PUNCH investigation published in May 2026 reported that Tinubu had embarked on 51 foreign trips during his first three years in office, spending about 261 days outside Nigeria and visiting at least 30 countries.

The investigation was based on officially announced presidential trips and available flight information.

The report also showed that Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima had collectively spent 344 days abroad during the first three years of the administration.

Earlier, another Sunday PUNCH analysis reported that the President and his deputy had spent 315 days outside the country in 69 trips across 35 countries within the first 33 months of the administration.

The figures have generated contrasting interpretations.

While critics have described the frequency of the travels as excessive, the Presidency has maintained that Tinubu’s international engagements are designed to promote Nigeria’s economic interests, attract foreign investment, strengthen bilateral relations and enhance the country’s diplomatic standing.

The administration has repeatedly argued that presidential diplomacy cannot be conducted exclusively from Abuja.

Why the latest trip is different

The controversy surrounding the latest trip, however, is largely about timing.

Tinubu’s departure came barely days after a major security crisis in Niger State, where hundreds of people were reportedly abducted in a mass kidnapping incident.

The incident renewed concerns about the worsening kidnapping epidemic across the country and the ability of security agencies to protect vulnerable communities.

A recent report by SBM Intelligence, cited by Reuters, estimated that 7,825 Nigerians were kidnapped between July 2025 and June 2026.

The report also estimated that 1,142 people were killed during the period and that kidnappers collected about $5.79m in ransom payments.

The figures underline the scale of the security challenge confronting the administration as Tinubu begins preparations for a second-term campaign.

For critics, the President’s decision to spend three weeks abroad against that backdrop sends the wrong message.

Atiku attacks President

Atiku Abubakar, the NDC presidential candidate, was among those who criticised the decision.

Atiku argued that the President’s absence was inappropriate at a time when Nigerians were contending with worsening insecurity and economic hardship.

The former Vice-President said the issue was not whether Tinubu was entitled to a holiday but whether such a lengthy foreign vacation was appropriate given the challenges facing the country.

He accused the President of abandoning a nation facing serious problems and described Nigeria as being in crisis.

The criticism was particularly significant because Atiku is one of the leading opposition politicians positioning himself for the 2027 presidential contest.

Activists join debate

Civil society activists have also questioned aspects of the administration’s leadership and the President’s foreign travels.

Human rights lawyer and activist Deji Adeyanju has been particularly vocal on issues of insecurity, governance and the welfare of Nigerians.

Adeyanju recently criticised the Federal Government over the security situation and flooding concerns in Abuja, urging the administration to demonstrate stronger leadership.

Another prominent activist, Aisha Yesufu, has previously criticised Tinubu over his foreign travels and the priorities of the administration.

Their interventions have contributed to a broader civil society argument that political leaders should remain more closely connected to the realities confronting ordinary Nigerians.

For many activists, the central issue is not the President’s constitutional right to take leave but the perception created when a President spends an extended period abroad while citizens at home confront insecurity, unemployment and rising living costs.

Presidency defends travels

The Presidency has consistently rejected the suggestion that Tinubu’s foreign trips amount to unnecessary journeys.

Government officials have repeatedly said the President’s travels are driven by national interests.

Tinubu has attended several high-level international meetings since assuming office, including engagements with global leaders, investors and international institutions.

His March 2026 state visit to the United Kingdom was particularly significant, being the first state visit by a Nigerian President to Britain since 1989.

The administration has also cited investment agreements and diplomatic engagements arising from Tinubu’s international trips as evidence that the journeys serve national objectives.

Former presidential spokesman Reuben Abati also recently defended Tinubu’s right to travel, arguing that the President was entitled to travel anywhere and that the criticism of his movement risked becoming excessive.

But Nigerians want results

Despite the official defence, the controversy has refused to disappear.

For ordinary Nigerians, the question is increasingly about the relationship between presidential travels and tangible improvements in their daily lives.

The President came into office promising to undertake bold economic reforms.

His administration removed the petrol subsidy and liberalised the foreign exchange market, arguing that the measures were necessary to address structural weaknesses in the economy.

While the government has highlighted improved macroeconomic indicators and increased investor confidence, Nigerians continue to complain about high food prices, transportation costs, electricity tariffs, housing expenses and declining purchasing power.

The World Bank and other international institutions have acknowledged some improvements in Nigeria’s macroeconomic position while also warning about the continuing impact of inflation and poverty on households.

This disconnect between macroeconomic indicators and household realities has become one of the administration’s biggest political vulnerabilities.

The cost of presidential travel

The financial cost of presidential movements has also featured prominently in the debate.

A recent report put Presidency travel-related expenditure between June 2023 and April 2026 at N37.64bn.

The figure has attracted criticism from Nigerians who argue that public resources should be deployed more aggressively towards security, healthcare, education, infrastructure and poverty reduction.

Government officials, however, have not accepted the argument that the expenditure should be viewed simply as waste.

Presidential movements require security, logistics, aircraft operations, accommodation and diplomatic arrangements, while some trips involve large official delegations.

The question therefore remains whether the expenditure produces commensurate economic and diplomatic returns.

Leave is constitutional

Legally, there is little controversy over the President proceeding on annual leave.

Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the President to transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives when proceeding on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge his functions.

The Vice-President then performs the functions of President in an acting capacity until the President resumes those functions.

Thus, Nigeria’s constitutional system does not require the President to remain physically within the country throughout his tenure.

The argument against Tinubu’s latest trip is therefore not fundamentally a constitutional one. It is political.

The 2027 factor

The timing of the vacation also has significance because Nigeria has effectively entered the 2027 political cycle.

The Independent National Electoral Commission lifted the ban on political campaigns on August 19, paving the way for open mobilisation by political parties and candidates.

Tinubu’s administration will now face increasing scrutiny over its record as opposition parties seek to turn insecurity, economic hardship and governance into major campaign issues.

The President’s supporters are expected to highlight what they describe as the administration’s economic reforms, infrastructure projects, increased revenue generation and efforts to reposition Nigeria.

The opposition, meanwhile, is likely to focus on insecurity, poverty, unemployment, inflation and the cost of governance.

Tinubu’s foreign travels could therefore become part of the opposition’s wider campaign narrative.