Connect with us

News

US sanctions eight Nigerians over links to Boko Haram, cybercrime

Published

on

The United States has frozen the assets and properties of eight Nigerians accused of having links to the Islamic sect, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

This was contained in a 3,000-page document dated February 10, released by the United States Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and sighted by the correspondent on Monday.

The document also identified individuals sanctioned for cybercrime-related offences and other security threats.

The pronouncement comes on the heels of recent recommendations by the US Congress for visa bans and asset freezes on persons and groups accused of violations of religious freedom and persecution of Christians in Nigeria.

The former Governor of Kano State, Rabiu Kwankwaso; the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria; and Miyetti Allah Kautal were recommended by United States lawmakers for visa bans and asset freezes.

The OFAC document, titled “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List,” detailed individuals of other nationalities and entities whose assets had been frozen, serving as a reference tool.

It also provided notice of actions taken against Specially Designated Nationals, whose property and interests were blocked as part of counter-terrorism efforts.

According to OFAC, the move forms part of its broader efforts to block the property and interests of Specially Designated Nationals and prevent financial dealings with them.

“This publication of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control is designed as a reference tool providing actual notice of actions by OFAC with respect to Specially Designated Nationals and other persons (which term includes both individuals and entities) whose property is blocked, to assist the public in complying with the various sanctions programmes administered by OFAC,” the agency said.

See also  Court grants Malami, son N200m bail in terrorism financing case

Among those listed is Salih Yusuf Adamu, also known as Salihu Yusuf, born on August 23, 1990, in Nigeria. Yusuf was identified as having ties to Boko Haram and was reported to hold a Nigerian passport.

Yusuf was among six Nigerians convicted in 2022 for setting up a Boko Haram cell in the United Arab Emirates to raise funds for insurgents in Nigeria. The six men were convicted in the UAE for attempting to send $782,000 from Dubai to Nigeria.

Another individual, Babestan Oluwole Ademulero, born on March 4, 1953, in Nigeria, was designated under SDNTK sanctions. He appeared under several aliases, including Wole A. Babestan and Olatunde Irewole Shofeso.

Also designated was Abu Abdullah ibn Umar Al-Barnawi, also known as Ba Idrisa. He was reportedly born between 1989 and 1994 in Maiduguri, Borno State, and was flagged under terrorism-related sanctions.

Abu Musab Al-Barnawi, also referred to as Habib Yusuf, was listed with varying birth years between 1990 and 1995. He was identified as a Boko Haram leader and sanctioned under terrorism provisions.

Khaled (or Khalid) Al-Barnawi, whose name appeared twice in the publication, was born in 1976 in Maiduguri, Nigeria. He was linked to Boko Haram and listed under several aliases, including Abu Hafsat and Mohammed Usman.

Ibrahim Ali Alhassan, born January 31, 1981, in Nigeria, was listed with a Nigerian passport. He was reported to reside in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, and was linked to Boko Haram.

Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Mainuki, also known as Abu-Bilal Al-Minuki, was born in 1982 in Mainok, Borno State. He was identified as having ties to ISIL.

See also  FG, states shut schools as terrorists abduct 215 Niger pupils

Nnamdi Orson Benson, born March 21, 1987, in Nigeria, was listed under CYBER2 sanctions and was reported to hold a Nigerian passport.

The inclusion of these names in the OFAC list highlights Washington’s continued focus on countering terrorism financing and cyber threats.

The sanctions mean that all property and interests of these individuals within US jurisdiction are blocked, and US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

Nigerians listed under the US Treasury sanctions face asset freezes under Executive Order 13224.

The United States officially designated Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organisation in 2013. According to the US State Department, the group is responsible for numerous attacks in the northern and northeastern regions of the country, as well as in the Lake Chad Basin in Cameroon, Chad, and Niger, that have killed thousands of people since 2009.

The US Secretary of State determines countries that have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

Such countries are designated under three laws: Section 1754(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

In October 2025, for the second time, US President Donald Trump announced that Nigeria would be added to the US Department of State’s list of “Countries of Particular Concern.”

Trump, in a post on X, explained that Nigeria would be placed on a religious freedom watchlist, alleging that Christians were facing persecution and being killed by Muslims.

Nigeria was first designated as a Country of Particular Concern in 2020 under President Trump, but former President Joe Biden removed Nigeria from the list shortly after assuming office.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Step-by-step guide for contactless passport renewal for Nigerians abroad

Published

on

The Nigeria Immigration Service has released an updated step-by-step guide for Nigerians living abroad to renew their passports through its Contactless Passport Application System.

The Service announced the update in a post on its official X handle on Tuesday, encouraging Nigerians in the diaspora to take advantage of the digital platform.

According to the Service, the application process involves the following steps:

1. Visit the official NIS Passport Application portal.
2. Select Continue from the pop-up window.
3. Click Apply for Renewal/Re-issue.
4. Create an account and verify your identity using your National Identification Number and date of birth.
5. Complete the application form and choose your preferred processing embassy or high commission.
6. Upload the required documents.
7. Pay the passport fee for your selected booklet.
8. Obtain your Application ID and Reference Number.
9. Select the Contactless option under the Application Status/Book Appointment section.
10. Review the contactless instructions and click “I Understand and Opt In.”
11. Download the NIS Mobile App.
12. Log in or create a profile on the app.
13. Select Passport Application Services.
14. Click Passport Biometrics Enrolment, enter your Application ID and Reference Number, and check your eligibility.
15. Capture your facial image and fingerprints.
16. Complete the liveness verification.
17. Pay the contactless service fee.
18. Submit your biometrics.

The Service, however, noted that not all applicants would qualify for the contactless process.

“If response is INELIGIBLE, then it means applicant should return to the landing page of the portal to book physical appointment at the Embassy/High Commission,” it stated.

See also  Jigawa sacks 22 over Ramadan feeding scam

For applicants who successfully complete the contactless biometric enrolment, the NIS said additional documents must be forwarded to the selected processing mission.

“Upon successful completion of biometrics via Contactless App, applicant should print-out the Application form, passport booklet payment, biometric payment, current Passport and enclose all in a self-addressed return envelope to the processing embassy selected during the application process,” the Service said.

It added that applicants would be able to monitor the progress of their applications after submission.

“Applicant may track successful application two weeks after submission via https://track.immigration.gov.ng or on the NIS Mobile App,” the Service added.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

PFIPC scandal: Ex-SGF Babachir Lawal suspects ‘big racket’ behind ‘fake’ agency’s budget code

Published

on

A former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, has called for a judicial inquiry into the controversy surrounding the alleged fake Presidential Fiscal and Infrastructure Projects Council (PFIPC), arguing that the scandal points to deep institutional failures rather than a simple administrative error.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday, Lawal said the circumstances surrounding the alleged agency suggested the existence of a wider network that enabled it to function within government processes despite questions over its legal status.

He insisted that an administrative investigation alone would be insufficient. “I don’t think it should even be administrative alone; it should be a judicial inquiry”, the former SGF clearly stated.

Lawal questioned claims surrounding an alleged ₦27.5bn take-off grant reportedly linked to the agency, asking how such funds could have been approved and released if the organisation had no legal basis.

“Nigerians are talking about how N1.3bn was inserted into the budget. The man himself first said the quarrel came about because he refused to part with 48% of the 27-point-something billion Naira take-off grant. That money has been spent before this budget office was looking for the budget.

“Who gave him the money? It was not appropriated for; it’s not in any budget, that N27.5bn Naira for which he says somebody demanded 48%. Who gave him the money? How did the process of generating the request for the release come up? How did it go through?

“We are just talking about the tip of the iceberg here. Down there, before we got to here, N27.5bn had already been disbursed, according to him, as a take-off grant. How did that money get to him? It was not in the budget. So this is what should frighten us. If such money can go to a fictitious organisation, we only now begin to see it when we are quarrelling about how it got into the budget. How did that money get to them?”, Babachir queried.

See also  We won’t bow to terrorists’ intimidation, Tinubu vows

The former SGF argued that the controversy only became public because of disagreements over the sharing of funds rather than because government oversight mechanisms functioned effectively.

He continued,… “So you see, that’s how we got to know this to start with. That is the reason why we got to know this on his side of the coin. It’s about the sharing of the N27.5bn. That’s why the thing came up. So it didn’t work. It should have worked before that money left the government coffers into the account of the agency.”

Lawal also alleged that the scandal reflected broader institutional weaknesses within the current administration, arguing that the Office of the SGF should have detected any irregularities before the matter progressed through official channels.

He maintained that the SGF’s office bears responsibility for identifying and flagging agencies without legal backing before their requests or budgets proceed through government.

He said, “It’s institutional compromise, because in this, I sense there’s quite a big racket going on somewhere along the line. If the agency was created by maybe one big man alone, and then he wants to go through the budget process, the budget office assigns the budget code according to the chart of accounts in GIFMIS. So, how did they manage to assign the budget code for this agency that does not exist? Who inserted it?

“Because first of all, the budget office issues a budget call circular to MDAs, and everybody starts to prepare his budget according to the budget line. They give you ceilings, and you prepare your budget and forward it to the budget office as an agency or ministry. Now, the Ministry of Budget and Planning would, in our time, call every MDA to come and defend its budget. Now, if you don’t exist, how did they recognise that you are a genuine entity? Who gave out the budget code and allowed their budget to pass?

See also  How far can Obi, Kwankwaso go in 2027?

“That’s what oversight is. The SGF should be able to know, because before it gets to the National Assembly, that budget goes through the SGF. Unless there’s a dereliction of duty by the SGF’s office, the responsibility to flag that this is a fake agency would have come from them.”

Lawal further criticised the National Assembly, accusing lawmakers of failing to thoroughly scrutinise budget proposals.

“It is a legislative oversight. This government—this National Assembly—has no interest in scrutinising the budget that comes before them. Most of the legislators just go in there to earn their salaries and collect allowances and go. They don’t scrutinise the budget line by line. We all know how this particular government works. There are some people that when they talk, nobody else has the authority to contravene.”

He also suggested that public attention should focus not only on the agency’s legal status but on the individuals who allegedly enabled its operations.

“Why are you interested in N27.5bn that had already been collected and spent? We are talking about an agency that we are claiming doesn’t exist. Maybe it exists, but it doesn’t have a legal framework for its existence. But it exists. And there are a lot of powerful people that make sure it exists in that form.

“Those are the people we need to expose. The Chief of Staff, in particular, is so powerful. The SGF is there, just reneging on his responsibilities. And nothing has happened now”, he concluded.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

 

See also  Tears Flow As Lt. Samson Haruna Who Was Allegedly K!lled By His Wife Is Finally Buried

Continue Reading

News

Fake Agency Scandal: Gbajabiamila threatens Adeyemi with N10bn defamation suit

Published

on

Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, ha threatened to initiate legal steps against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, and demand N10 billion in damages over allegations linking him to murder, bribery and other criminal activities.

The move was conveyed in a letter dated July 6, 2026, signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kemi Pinheiro, on behalf of Pinheiro LP, the Chief of Staff’s legal representatives.

The dispute stems from a press conference held by Adeyemi on June 25, during which he accused Gbajabiamila of seeking a share of the alleged take-off funds of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), receiving money through intermediaries, abusing his office and participating in efforts to conceal wrongdoing.Death & Tragedy

During the briefing, Adeyemi also referred to the Chief of Staff as “a murderer” and “an assassin”.

The Presidency has consistently maintained that the PFIPC is a fictitious organisation, despite its appearance in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers dismissed all the allegations as entirely false and defamatory, saying they were intended to damage his reputation.

The letter stated: “not only false but gravely defamatory,” adding that the allegations were “designed to portray our client as corrupt, dishonest, criminally culpable, morally bankrupt, administratively incompetent, a murderer and unfit to occupy public office.”

According to the legal team, Adeyemi is already standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026, FRN v. Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew & Ors, over allegations including forgery of an appointment letter bearing Gbajabiamila’s purported signature and the alleged counterfeiting of Presidential letter-headed papers to present himself as a government official.Nigeria Investment Guide

See also  I’ll protect Yoruba’s interest if elected president – Atiku

The lawyers further rejected Adeyemi’s claims that Gbajabiamila demanded 48 per cent of a purported N27.4 billion take-off grant for the council, amounting to about N12.5 billion, or that he received N400 million through proxies connected to appointments within the organisation.

Other allegations dismissed in the letter included claims that the Chief of Staff intimidated individuals and media organisations, manipulated budget processes, attempted to misuse security agencies and performed official duties while under the influence of intoxicating substances.Trending News Feed

Gbajabiamila also denied ever having any relationship with Adeyemi.

“You have never at any time met, interacted with, communicated with, or had any form of personal or official dealing whatsoever with him,” the lawyers wrote, adding that the decision to “fabricate and publish allegations against a person with whom you have had absolutely no relationship or interaction underscores the reckless, baseless and malicious nature of your publication.”

The legal team also criticised the timing of the allegations, noting that they were made after criminal proceedings had already been instituted against Adeyemi.

“It is even more disturbing to our client that you resorted to defaming him through your press statements after a criminal Charge had been filed against you,” the letter stated.

It added, “Trial by media remains unknown to Nigerian law and cannot be a substitute for due process.”Nigeria Investment Guide

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers demanded that Adeyemi immediately stop making further defamatory statements, remove all related videos, recordings and transcripts from every platform, issue a full retraction and apology in at least five national newspapers and across all social media platforms used to circulate the claims, and provide a written undertaking that he would refrain from making further allegations.

See also  US, Iran exchange fire despite Trump ceasefire claims

The letter warned that failure to comply would result in both criminal defamation proceedings under the laws of the Federal Capital Territory and a civil lawsuit seeking N10 billion in aggravated and exemplary damages. The damages, it said, would be donated to a charity chosen by Gbajabiamila. The legal action would also seek a perpetual injunction and a court order compelling the publication of an apology.

The controversy centres on the PFIPC, which was listed in the 2026 Appropriation Act under the title Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and received more than N1.3 billion in budgetary allocations, including about N803 million for personnel, N200 million for overhead and N300 million for capital expenditure.

Adeyemi had argued during his June 25 press conference that an agency included in a budget signed by the President could not be regarded as non-existent.

However, the Presidency insists the council is fraudulent and has no legal existence.

Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Femi Falana has argued that the Presidency lacks the constitutional authority to clear anyone involved in the dispute and has called for an independent investigation into the allegations against both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi.

Adeyemi is scheduled to appear before the Federal High Court on July 27, 2026.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending