International

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Republic of Türkiye has denounced the deadly terrorist assault on Woro and Nuku communities in Kaiama Local Government Area of Kwara State, expressing grief over the casualties recorded in the incident.

In a statement released on Thursday through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Turkish government said it was “deeply saddened by the loss of lives caused by the terrorist attack that took place in Nigeria’s Kwara State.”

“We strongly condemn this heinous attack and extend our condolences to the families of those who lost their lives and to the people of Nigeria. Türkiye will continue to support Nigeria in its fight against terrorism,” the statement read.

Meanwhile, Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters (DHQ) in Abuja said the attackers struck after residents rejected attempts to subject them to ideological indoctrination.

In a separate statement signed by the Director of Defence Information, Major General Samaila Uba, the military described the incident as a “cowardly terrorist attack.” It also conveyed sympathy to bereaved families and affected communities.

Reports indicated that more than 170 residents lost their lives during the Tuesday onslaught.

According to the DHQ, the assailants had earlier approached Woro village seeking approval to “conduct preaching and indoctrination sessions,” a request the villagers declined.

Troops were deployed to the area after security agencies received intelligence about the threat. Military patrols and surveillance operations continued for about two weeks.

“However, weeks after the troops withdrew, the cowardly terrorists returned to kill innocent citizens in protest and in a bid to terrorise inhabitants and others,” the statement said.

The Armed Forces of Nigeria commended residents of the affected communities for standing firm despite threats. It praised their refusal to abandon their beliefs and constitutional loyalty.

“The AFN mourns with the families of those who have lost loved ones in these and other similar brutal attacks on defenceless citizens defending community values and freedom across Nigeria,” the military said.

The DHQ urged Nigerians to remain resolute and resist extremist indoctrination. It warned that violent groups aim to impose “twisted beliefs through terror and intimidation.”

Citizens were also encouraged to cooperate with security agencies. The military stressed that unity and resilience remain vital in confronting terrorism.

It added that security forces, in collaboration with other agencies, have intensified efforts to identify and prosecute those behind the Kwara attack and related acts nationwide.

Amnesty International also reacted to the wave of violence. The organisation condemned what it called a troubling rise in killings and abductions across the country.

It described Tuesday, February 3, 2026, as a “Bloody Tuesday,” following coordinated assaults in several locations.

“Alarming escalation of attacks, abductions for ransom and frequent killings across Nigeria have left people feeling more unsafe, showing utter failure of the Nigerian authorities to protect lives and properties,” Amnesty International had said.

The group cited attacks in Woro and Nuku in Kwara State, Doma Tafoki in Katsina State and Abande in Benue State, where many residents were reportedly killed.

The incident has drawn both local and international concern, with renewed calls for stronger security measures to curb terrorism and protect vulnerable communities.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has expressed regret over his past association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as renewed attention surrounding recently released Epstein files stirs fresh controversy.

The latest disclosures have revived public and political interest in Epstein’s network of high-profile contacts. Among those facing renewed scrutiny are former US President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who have both been named in the documents and have agreed to testify before a House committee examining Epstein’s activities.

Gates addressed the issue publicly after allegations surfaced in newly released records. Reports claimed he concealed a sexually transmitted disease from his former wife, Melinda French Gates, following alleged encounters with “Russian girls.” Epstein was also alleged to have suggested that Gates attempted to secretly administer antibiotics to his wife.

Gates’ office rejected the accusations, describing them as “absolutely absurd and completely false.” Speaking during an interview with Australia’s Channel 9News, the billionaire dismissed the claims and accused Epstein of attempting to damage his reputation or pressure him.

“Apparently, Jeffrey wrote an email to himself. That email was never sent. The email is false,” Gates said.

“I don’t know what his thinking was there. Was he trying to attack me in some way? Every minute I spent with him, I regret, and I apologise that I did that.”

Melinda French Gates also spoke about the renewed attention during an appearance on NPR’s Wild Card podcast. She said the resurfacing details had reopened painful memories from their 27-year marriage, which ended in divorce in 2021.

“For me, it’s personally hard whenever those details come up, right? Because it brings back memories of some very, very painful times in my marriage,” French Gates told the radio network’s Wild.

She continued: “Whatever questions remain there of what – I can’t even begin to know all of it – those questions are for those people and for even my ex-husband. They need to answer to those things, not me.”

Gates confirmed that he met Epstein in 2011 and shared dinners with him on several occasions. He said the meetings centred on efforts to mobilise wealthy donors for global health projects. He denied visiting Epstein’s private Caribbean island and rejected claims of sexual relations with women linked to the financier.

“The focus was always, he knew a lot of very rich people, and he was saying he could get them to give money to global health. In retrospect, that was a dead end,” Gates said.

“I was foolish to spend time with him. I was one of many people who regret ever knowing him. The more that comes out, the more clear it will be that, although the time was a mistake, it has nothing to do with that kind of behaviour.”

Reflecting on the broader scandal, Melinda French Gates described the situation as a societal reckoning and lamented the trauma suffered by victims.

“No girl should ever be put in the situation they were put in by Epstein and whatever was going on with all of the various people around him. It’s beyond heartbreaking,” she said.

“I remember being those ages the girls were, I remember my daughters being those ages.”

She added that learning about allegations connected to her former husband left her with “just unbelievable sadness,” though she emphasised that her concern remains with those directly affected. “What they went through is unimaginable,” she said.

Political reaction has also emerged. Republican congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina disclosed that she had requested House Oversight Committee chair James Comer to subpoena Gates.

“Mace wrote on X, that she has questions for Bill Gates about Epstein, saying she supported Melinda French Gates’s assertion that her ex-husband must answer lingering questions.

Epstein died by suicide in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Despite his death, investigations and document releases tied to his activities continue to generate global attention and draw prominent figures back into public focus.

By Iranloye Sofiu Taiye

The world has entered a phase in which power no longer feels compelled to wear moral disguises. From Eastern Europe to the Middle East, from East Asia to Latin America, coercion has re-emerged as an acceptable instrument of statecraft, and sovereignty has become increasingly conditional, least respected when convenient and violated when costly restraint disappears.

The Russia–Ukraine war, China’s posture towards Taiwan, Israel’s war in Gaza, and the long-standing pressure campaign against Venezuela are not isolated crises. They are symptoms of a systemic transition: the erosion of post–Cold War restraint and the reassertion of raw power politics in a crowded, mistrustful, and increasingly multipolar international system.

For Africa, this moment is not abstract. It is existential. The same forces reshaping Europe, Asia, and Latin America are already present on the African continent through resource competition, security outsourcing, debt diplomacy, sanctions regimes, proxy alignments, and political conditionality. The difference is that Africa often confronts these forces without a unified strategy, relying instead on appeals to history, morality, or international goodwill. That approach is no longer sufficient.

Realist theory, as articulated by thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau and John Mearsheimer, offers a brutally honest diagnosis of the international system. It reminds us that global politics is characterised by anarchy, not law; that survival, not virtue, motivates states; and that power, not rhetoric, ultimately determines outcomes.

Recent conflicts confirm realism’s core claims: Russia acted in Ukraine not because of moral failure but because it perceived a narrowing window to secure its sphere of influence. China’s pressure on Taiwan is driven less by ideology than by long-term assessments of capability, timing, and strategic opportunity. Israel’s conduct in Gaza reflects the logic of overwhelming deterrence in an insecure regional environment. The United States’ treatment of Venezuela illustrates how economic warfare substitutes for direct military intervention in an era of reputational constraints.

In each case, capability trumped legality, and vulnerability invited pressure. Yet realism, while accurate in diagnosing power behaviour, becomes dangerous when treated as destiny. Taken to its logical extreme, it suggests that weaker states have only three options: submission, alignment, or destruction. This is analytically lazy and politically paralysing.

History and current global practice demonstrate that survival is not reserved for the strongest but for the most strategically positioned. The key distinction between states that withstand pressure and those that collapse is not moral standing but strategic architecture.

Ukraine did not survive Russia’s invasion because it matched Moscow militarily. It survived because it transformed a bilateral war into a multilateral stake. By embedding its security dilemma within NATO, the EU, and global norms, Ukraine increased the cost of Russian victory beyond the battlefield.

Taiwan’s resilience lies not only in its arms but also in its economy. Its centrality to global semiconductor supply chains converts any military action into a worldwide economic crisis. Invasion becomes irrational not because it is impossible, but because it is prohibitively disruptive.

Palestine commands unprecedented global sympathy yet remains structurally vulnerable. Without credible security guarantees, economic leverage, or institutional power, moral legitimacy alone has not translated into sovereignty.

Venezuela’s leadership adopted confrontational rhetoric without building defensive alliances, diversified economic networks, or institutional shields. The result has been isolation, sanctions, and internal fragility, confirming that outrage without insulation invites coercion. The lesson is stark: states do not survive because they are right; they survive because they are costly to dominate. Afghanistan’s resilience is a case study. 

Africa today occupies a paradoxical position. The continent is: Central to the global energy transition (critical minerals), demographically pivotal, geopolitically courted by rival powers, and numerically powerful in multilateral institutions; alas, Africa remains strategically fragmented. Most African states still approach global politics through the language of gratitude, alignment, or moral appeal rather than through calculated leverage. The continent’s diplomatic posture is often reactive rather than anticipatory.

This is dangerous in a world where: aid is weaponised, debt is politicised, sanctions are normalised, and security assistance comes with strategic strings. Africa risks becoming the quiet theatre of the next great-power contest, not because it is weak, but because it is insufficiently coordinated.

What Africa requires is neither idealism nor cynicism, but strategic realism with agency a doctrine that accepts power politics while refusing subjugation.

Such a doctrine would rest on five pillars.

1. Strategic Indispensability: Africa must move beyond raw resource exportation toward value-chain centrality. Countries that control processing, logistics, and industrial ecosystems are harder to coerce than those that merely supply inputs.

2. Networked Sovereignty: Sovereignty in the 21st century is not isolationist. It is embedded on favourable terms through regional blocs, trade regimes, and security compacts that dilute unilateral pressure.

3. Institutional Power, Not Institutional Faith: Africa must stop treating international institutions as moral referees and start using them as arenas of contestation. Voting blocs, agenda-setting, and procedural leverage matter.

4. Strategic Non-Alignment, Not Passivity: Non-alignment must evolve from rhetorical neutrality into active hedging, diversifying partnerships, avoiding dependency traps, and exploiting multipolar competition without becoming a proxy.

5. Continental Coordination: No African state, regardless of size, can negotiate effectively alone in a hardened global system. Continental coherence in economic, diplomatic, and security-related is no longer aspirational; it is existential.

Conclusively, power will not wait for Africa to be ready; the defining feature of the emerging world order is not chaos, but selective constraint. Power will be exercised where resistance is weak, fragmented, or sentimental and restrained where costs are high, and consequences diffuse. Africa cannot afford another century of learning this lesson too late. The continent must abandon the illusion that shared history, moral standing, or international sympathy will shield it from coercion. Those narratives did not protect Ukraine, Palestine, or Venezuela. They will not protect Africa.

What will protect Africa is a strategy: the ability to anticipate pressure, restructure vulnerability, and convert relevance into leverage. In a world where power has shed its disguises, survival belongs not to the loudest protester, but to the most strategically prepared.

Iranloye Sofiu Taiye is a policy analyst and wrote via iranloye100@gmail.com.

By Ibrahym El-Caleel

Jeffery Epstein, despite being a MOSSAD agent who successfully lured high profile individuals and world leaders into his web to obtain their dirty secrets, was afraid of Nigerians scamming him in oil deal.

Epstein is afraid of Nigerians. Hehe.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to officially tell you that I am also afraid of Nigerians from now going forward.

But jokes aside, Nigerians are a special breed. If a Nigerian decides to settle for anything, he ensures that he masters it to the best of his or her ability.

In the wake of the US’s disregard for Nigeria’s sovereignty in December last year, I read a post on X made by a security analyst. The handle is @GallantDaletian, and he opined that yes, the US military might have the tech, air power, and naval dominance, but when it comes to guerrilla and asymmetric warfare, the Nigerian military is a force to be reckoned with!

He said, the US may have advanced technology, drones, and aircraft carriers, but Nigeria’s military has mastered the art of unconventional warfare, leveraging local knowledge and intelligence to outmaneuver adversaries.

It’s not about comparing strengths, but acknowledging different areas of expertise. Nigeria’s focus on regional security, counter terrorism, and peacekeeping has earned it respect, while the US excels in global reach and high tech warfare.

Clearly Jeffery Epstein, despite his notoriety, believes that the fear of Nigerians is the beginning of wisdom. Sharp guy.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Ukraine’s sports minister has criticised Fifa president Gianni Infantino over comments suggesting that world football’s governing body could reconsider the ban placed on Russia, describing his remarks as “irresponsible” and “infantile.”

Russian national teams and clubs were suspended by Fifa and Uefa in February 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a decision that has kept the country out of major tournaments, including the 2022 World Cup, Euro 2024 and the 2026 World Cup.

Despite the ongoing war, Infantino said the ban “has not achieved anything” and “has just created more frustration and hatred,” adding that “having girls and boys from Russia being able to play football games in other parts of Europe would help.”

Reacting in a post on social media, Ukraine’s sports minister, Matvii Bidnyi, said: “Gianni Infantino’s words sound irresponsible – not to say infantile,” adding that they “detach football from the reality in which children are being killed.”

Bidnyi stated that more than 650 Ukrainian athletes and coaches, including over 100 footballers, have been killed since the start of the war, and added: “War is a crime, not politics,” insisting that Russia’s flag and national symbols “have no place among people who respect values such as justice, integrity and fair play.”

Serhii Palkin, chief executive of Ukrainian club Shakhtar Donetsk, also condemned Infantino’s comments, saying they “represent a complete detachment from reality” and amount to “an attempt to pretend that war and aggression do not exist.”

He warned that football cannot ignore events outside the pitch, stating: “Football cannot exist outside reality and it has no right to turn a blind eye to evil,” while stressing that any move to reintegrate Russia would carry “responsibility for complicity in the silencing of war crimes.”

Although Russia has played matches against some non-Western nations outside the Fifa and Uefa framework, the ban remains in place, even as Ukraine continues to oppose any steps toward Russia’s return to international sport.

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Libya’s former leader Muammar Gaddafi, has been killed in the western Libyan town of Zintan, according to local authorities and sources close to the family.

He was reportedly shot after armed men stormed his residence, disabling security cameras before opening fire. The circumstances surrounding the attack remain unclear, and no group has claimed responsibility so far.

Once seen as his father’s political heir, Saif al-Islam became a central and controversial figure following the 2011 uprising that ended the Gaddafi regime. He was captured that year, later sentenced to death in absentia for war crimes, and released in 2017 under an amnesty law.

In recent years, he had sought a return to politics, including an unsuccessful attempt to run in Libya’s postponed presidential election.

Libya’s Attorney General has announced an investigation into the killing. Analysts say his death could have political implications in a country still struggling with deep divisions and instability more than a decade after the revolution.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

African men searching for work are being misled, pressured and pushed into combat roles in Russia’s war in Ukraine, leaving many dead, injured or missing, according to accounts from victims, returnees and families.

For Anne Ndarua, the pain is constant. Tears fill her eyes whenever she speaks about her only son, Francis Ndung’u Ndarua, a 35-year-old Kenyan who travelled to Russia six months ago after being promised employment as an electrical engineer. Today, she does not know whether he is alive.

Anne said she last spoke directly with Francis in October. Since then, there has been no contact, apart from disturbing videos that later circulated online and revealed what several African families now describe as a lethal recruitment scheme.

According to a CNN report, Anne received a video in December from an unknown Kenyan number. In the footage, Francis warns fellow Africans against travelling to Russia in search of work. He says job seekers are being forced into the Russian military and sent to fight in Ukraine.

“You’ll end up being taken to the military even if you’ve never served in the military, and you’re taken to the frontline battle. And there are true killings,” he says in the video. “Many friends have died in the name of money.”

About a week later, another video appeared online. It shows Francis in military uniform with what appears to be a landmine strapped to his chest. He looks visibly terrified while a Russian-speaking man shouts racist insults and says Francis will be used as a “can-opener” to break through Ukrainian positions.

“It’s so traumatising,” Anne told CNN. She said she could not watch the clip after her daughter described it to her. Anne explained that speaking publicly was her last hope of prompting action from authorities in Kenya and Russia.

“I’m appealing to the Kenyan and Russian governments to work together to bring those children home,” she said. “They lied to them about real jobs and now they’re in war with their lives in danger.”

Before leaving Kenya, Francis lived with his mother in a small settlement outside Nairobi and had no job. Anne said he paid about $620 to a local agent who claimed he could arrange legitimate work in Russia. She later became alarmed when her son reported that he had been pushed into military training shortly after arriving.

Anne said Francis spent only three weeks in basic training before being deployed to the front lines in Ukraine.

A broader CNN investigation points to widespread recruitment of African men by agents linked to Russia. These recruiters allegedly promise civilian jobs, high wages and Russian citizenship, yet many recruits end up conscripted into one of the world’s deadliest conflicts.

CNN reviewed hundreds of chat messages, visas, military contracts, flight records and hotel bookings, and interviewed African fighters and those who managed to return home. The findings describe deception, pressure, unpaid salaries, racism and extreme risk.

Although precise numbers are unknown, governments in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and Botswana have confirmed that dozens, and possibly hundreds, of their citizens have been drawn into Russia’s war. Media reports across Africa tell similar stories, which have led several governments to warn citizens against suspicious job offers linked to Russia.

Russia’s Defence and Foreign Ministries did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment. The Russian embassy in Nairobi also declined to comment.

CNN spoke with 12 African fighters still in Ukraine, from Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda. All said recruiters initially offered civilian roles such as drivers, factory workers, technicians or security guards. They were promised signing bonuses of up to $13,000, monthly pay of up to $3,500 and Russian citizenship after completing service.

Instead, they said they were forced into the army on arrival, given minimal training and sent to combat zones. Several said they were compelled to sign contracts written only in Russian, without translators or legal advice. Many also reported that their passports were seized.

Despite Russian law requiring foreign recruits to understand the language, none of the Africans interviewed said they spoke Russian.

Several fighters said promised payments never arrived. Some accused recruiters or fellow soldiers of stealing money from their bank accounts.

“One Russian soldier forced me at gunpoint to give him my bank card and PIN,” one African fighter told CNN anonymously. “Nearly $15,000 was withdrawn. I’ve been here seven months, and I haven’t been paid a single cent.”

He added that four men who travelled to Russia with him have since died.

Documents examined by CNN indicate that the contracts are far more restrictive than advertised. They include open-ended combat duties, strict loyalty clauses and financial penalties for leaving. The contracts also allow authorities to restrict movement, seize passports and impose long-term secrecy obligations. Promises of retraining or civilian employment are only available after at least five years of service and under limited discharge conditions.

On social media, a different message circulates. In one popular video, a Nigerian man in Russian military uniform encourages Africans to enlist, describing the process as “very, very easy and very good, no stress.” Other clips appear in Igbo, Swahili, Twi and Pidgin English. Ghanaian soldier Kwabena Ballo boasts in one TikTok video: “My salary can feed your father, mother and whole family for two or three years.”

Most African fighters interviewed by CNN reject this portrayal. They described constant danger, racial insults from commanders, unpaid wages and bodies of fellow Africans left on the battlefield for months. Some spoke of colleagues who lost limbs without compensation and suffered severe psychological distress.

“The war here is very hot, and many people are dying on both sides,” said the only African fighter who told CNN he intended to complete his contract. “This was not what these guys expected.”

Despite such accounts, Russian state media continues to highlight African recruits as honoured volunteers. Lawmakers praise them publicly, while televised citizenship ceremonies present Russia as inclusive.

Patrick Kwoba, a 39-year-old Kenyan carpenter, said he believed the online images. After seeing an African friend in the Russian army appearing prosperous on social media, he paid an agent $620 and was promised a $23,000 signing bonus.

“I thought I was going to be a security guard, not a combatant,” Kwoba said in Nairobi after escaping.

He described his four months in Ukraine as “hell.” After three weeks of training, he was sent to the front and later injured during a Ukrainian drone and grenade attack.

“When I asked for first aid using the code ‘3-star,’ my Russian partner chased me away and started shooting at me,” he said.

Kwoba escaped during recovery leave in St. Petersburg and made his way to the Kenyan embassy in Moscow. Embassy officials helped him return home with temporary travel papers.

“So long as you’ve stepped in the Russian military, you escape or you die,” he said. “If you finish your contract, they still force you to stay.”

Kwoba still needs surgery to remove shrapnel from his body and says he is lucky to be alive.

Another returnee, 32-year-old Kenyan photographer Charles Njoki, applied through a Russian army recruitment portal to support his pregnant wife. He sold his car to fund the journey and arrived in Russia within a week. While he was in training, his wife miscarried, news he learned days later because recruits’ phones had been taken away.

Njoki was injured in a drone strike and now lives with permanent damage to his hand and spine. He believes African fighters were deliberately placed in the most dangerous positions.

“They tell you that you’ll guard places, not fight,” he said. “But you end up on the front line.”

Newly released documents have revealed email exchanges between late financier Jeffrey Epstein and an associate, David Stern, over a possible business venture involving Nigeria’s crude oil.

The materials are reportedly part of a broader set of records made public by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

According to Premium Times in Nigeria, an email dated 20 September 2010 showed Mr Stern informing Mr Epstein of what he described as a lucrative opportunity in brokering or flipping Nigerian crude oil.

The correspondence said a contact identified as “PA” suggested meetings with individuals who had access to buy the oil and resell it to China, with projected profits running into millions of dollars.

“PA has asked me to see a guy who has access to Nigerian oil, and when selling it to China (or somebody else), F. can make around $6m.”

Despite the promise of high returns, doubts were clearly expressed in the exchange.

“This seems very fishy (as my boss JEE would say),” Mr Stern wrote.

Nigeria, which remains Africa’s largest oil producer, has long battled problems of opacity in its oil sector. Illegal trading on the black market has persisted for decades, while attempts by successive governments to enforce transparency have recorded limited success. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited only began publishing audited accounts in recent years.

The email conversation between Mr Epstein and Mr Stern was among several communications uncovered in the newly released files. Before his death in July 2019, Mr Epstein exchanged messages with members of his wealthy and influential circle on business interests, investment prospects, and planned visits. Nigeria featured in several of these discussions.

In another exchange from 2010, Mr Epstein received a message from George Reenstra, founder of Aircraft Service Group, an American aircraft servicing firm. Mr Reenstra informed him of an urgent trip to Nigeria to meet then-President Goodluck Jonathan.

“I unexpectedly must leave this evening for Nigeria. I have tried hard to delay this trip but it is with the the country President and I have no alternative,” Mr Reenstra wrote on 27 September 2010, about four months after Mr Jonathan assumed office. There is no confirmation that the meeting with the Nigerian president eventually took place.

Mr Reenstra also assured Mr Epstein that arrangements for their ongoing business discussions had been delegated.

“I have passed all the documentation to my partner, Jon Parker, and he will be able to assist you in completing the transaction. I will have email access but not the ability to open attachments. Hopefully we can resolve the contract issues and get the funds into deposit early this week per our telephone and e-mail exchanges of last week,” he added.

Mr Epstein was awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, to which he pleaded not guilty, when he died in custody in 2019. His death, ruled a suicide, intensified public pressure for the release of records detailing his activities and associations.

The calls grew louder after President Donald Trump returned to office, as many believed the public deserved a full account of the financier’s network. The latest documents indicate that several figures linked to Mr Trump had interacted with Mr Epstein over the years. Mr Trump has acknowledged knowing Mr Epstein but insists he severed ties long before the financier’s arrest.

The files also reference prominent global figures, including former US President Bill Clinton, technology billionaire Elon Musk, and Britain’s Prince Andrew, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Mr Epstein maintained close ties with many wealthy and powerful individuals.

Among the documents is correspondence showing an invitation for Mr Epstein to dine at Buckingham Palace. In another exchange, he offered to introduce Prince Andrew to a 26-year-old Russian woman. Photographs in the files appear to show the prince kneeling over an unidentified woman lying on the floor.

Prince Andrew previously claimed he had no contact with Mr Epstein after a visit to the financier’s New York residence in December 2010. However, the documents indicate emails were exchanged in February 2011.

Mr Musk’s name also appeared multiple times, including messages from 2012 to 2013 in which he discussed the possibility of visiting Mr Epstein’s Caribbean island. In 2019, the Tesla chief publicly distanced himself from Mr Epstein, describing him as “obviously a creep” who “tried repeatedly to get me to visit his island.” He said he declined the invitations.

The records further revealed that the current US Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, arranged a visit to Mr Epstein’s island in 2012. They also showed cordial exchanges between Mr Epstein and Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Mr Trump.

In a January 2019 email, Mr Epstein asked Mr Bannon if he had received an Apple Watch sent as a Christmas gift. Days later, he invited him to “come join” him in New York.

The latest disclosures have renewed scrutiny of Mr Epstein’s far-reaching connections and the extent of his dealings across business, politics, and international networks.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The European Union has dismissed Iran’s decision to classify European armies as terrorist organizations, insisting that diplomatic engagement with Tehran must remain part of its foreign policy, Anadolu reports.

Responding to the announcement, EU spokesperson Anouar El Anouni told the European Commission’s midday press briefing on Monday, “We reject the announcement of listing of EU armies as such and the accusation of terrorism altogether.”

El Anouni added that the EU expects diplomatic channels to continue functioning despite rising tensions following the bloc’s decision to list Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity. He cited remarks by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, saying, “We expect diplomatic channels to remain open after the decision of listing IRGC as part of the EU terror list,” and stressed that “maintaining open channels with Iran must also be part and remain part of our toolbox, as part of our engagement when it is required with our counterparts.”

On the matter of Iran summoning EU ambassadors to Tehran, El Anouni described the action as “a diplomatic practice that is part of the Vienna Convention,” adding, “I will not here go into details in terms of what member states, when and how.”

Iran announced the designation of European armies as terrorist groups in retaliation after the EU applied the same label to the IRGC over its crackdown on recent protests prompted by worsening economic conditions. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on Sunday that the decision was taken under “Article 7 of the Law on Countermeasures Against the Declaration of the IRGC as a Terrorist Organisation.”

The EU has maintained that engagement with Iran is necessary, even amid disputes, to ensure continued dialogue and diplomatic relations.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

French prosecutors have raided the Paris headquarters of Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, and summoned the tech billionaire and the company’s former chief executive for questioning as part of an expanded cybercrime investigation.

The Paris prosecutor’s office confirmed the development in a post on X on Tuesday, stating: “A search is under way by the cybercrime unit of the Paris prosecutor’s office, the national police cyber unit and Europol.” The office added that it would no longer publish content on the platform.

In a separate statement, prosecutors said Musk and former X chief executive Linda Yaccarino had been invited for voluntary questioning “in their capacity as de facto and de jure managers of the X platform at the time of the events.” Yaccarino stepped down from her role in July last year.

According to the prosecutor’s office, investigators are examining “alleged complicity” in several offences linked to activities on the platform. These include the spread of child abuse images and sexually explicit deepfakes, the denial of crimes against humanity, and the manipulation of an automated data processing system within an organised group.

The investigation began in January last year after a complaint was filed by a centre-right French MP, Éric Bothorel. He alleged that biased algorithms on the platform may have distorted its data processing system and influenced the type of content recommended to users.

Bothorel had earlier raised “deep concern” over “recent algorithm changes” and “apparent interference in [X’s] management” following Musk’s takeover of the company in 2022. Other complaints claimed the changes triggered an increase in what was described as “nauseating political content.”

Prosecutors later widened the scope of the inquiry after reports criticised the conduct of X’s artificial intelligence chatbot, Grok. The reports alleged that the chatbot engaged in Holocaust denial and circulated sexually explicit deepfakes.

X was approached for comment following Tuesday’s raid. The company had previously stated last summer that it did not plan to comply with the demands of French authorities linked to the inquiry, which it described as “politically motivated.” It also rejected claims of algorithm manipulation and “fraudulent data extraction.”

The platform further argued that the investigation was “distorting French law to serve a political agenda, and ultimately restrict free speech.” It said it remained committed to “defending its fundamental rights, protecting user data and resisting political censorship.”