International
JUST IN: Wikileaks founder freed after five years in prison

After a years-long legal saga, Wikileaks says that founder, Julian Assange has left the UK after reaching a deal with US authorities that will see him plead guilty to criminal charges and go free.
Mr Assange, 52, was charged with conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information.
For years, the US has argued that the Wikileaks files – which disclosed information about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – endangered lives.
He spent the last five years in a British prison, from where he was fighting extradition to the US.
Mr Assange also faced separate charges of rape and sexual assault in Sweden, which he denied.
He spent seven years hiding in Ecuador’s London embassy, claiming the Swedish case would lead him to be sent to the US.
Swedish authorities dropped the case in 2019 and said that too much time had passed since the original complaint, but UK authorities later took him into custody. He was tried for not surrendering to the courts to be extradited to Sweden.
According to CBS, the BBC’s US partner, Mr Assange will spend no time in US custody and will receive credit for the time spent incarcerated in the UK.
Assange will return to Australia, according to a letter from the justice department.
On X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Wikileaks said that Mr Assange left Belmarsh prison on Monday after 1,901 days in a small cell.
He was then “released at Stansted airport during the afternoon, where he boarded a plane and departed the UK” to return to Australia, the statement added.
Video shared online by Wikileaks appear to show Mr Assange, dressed in jeans and a blue shirt, being driven to Stansted before boarding an aircraft.
His wife, Stella Assange, tweeted thanks to his supporters “who have all mobilised for years and years to make this come true”.
She later told the BBC’s Today programme that the days running up to the US deal had been “touch-and-go” and “non-stop”, and that she was feeling “a whirlwind of emotions”.
The deal – which will see him plead guilty to one charge of the Espionage Act – is expected to be finalised in a court in the Northern Mariana Islands on Wednesday, 26 June.
The remote Pacific islands, a US commonwealth, are much closer to Australia than US federal courts in Hawaii or the continental US.
Stella said she was very limited in what she could say about the deal ahead of her husband’s court appearance. “I don’t want to jeopardise anything”, she said.
“The important thing here is that the deal involved time served – that if he signed it, he would be able to walk free. He will be a free man once it has been signed off by a judge.”
She said the priority for her husband is to “get healthy again”, be in touch with nature, and for the family to have “time and privacy”.
Stella also confirmed that the couple’s two children are in Australia with her, but she has not yet told them that he is to be freed, only that they were going to visit family and that there was “a big surprise” waiting for them.
“We’ve been very careful because obviously no one can stop a five and a seven-year-old from, you know, shouting it from the rooftops at any given moment,” she said.
Agence France Press quoted a spokesperson for Australia’s government as saying that the case had “dragged on for too long”.
His attorney, Richard Miller, declined to comment when contacted by CBS. The BBC has also contacted his US-based lawyer.
Mr Assangee and his lawyers had long claimed that the case against him was politically motivated.
In April, US President Joe Biden said that he was considering a request from Australia to drop the presecution against Assange.
In a victory the following month, the UK High Court ruled that Mr Assange could bring a new appeal against extradition to the US, allowing him to challenge US assurances over how his prospective trial would be conducted and whether his right to free speech would be infringed.
After the ruling, Stella told reporters and supporters that the Biden administration “should distance itself from this shameful prosecution”.

US prosecutors had originally wanted to try the Wikileaks founder on 18 counts – mostly under the Espionage Act – over the release of confidential US military records and diplomatic messages related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Wikileaks, which Mr Assange founded in 2006, claims to have published over 10 million documents in what the US government later described as “one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States”.
In 2010, the website published a video from a US military helicopter which showed more than a dozen Iraqi civilians, including two Reuters news reporters, being killed in Baghdad.
One of Mr Assange’s most well-known collaborators, US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, was sentenced to 35 years in prison before then-president Barack Obama commuted her sentence in 2017.
Even amid long-running legal battles, Mr Assange has rarely been seen in public and for years has reportedly suffered from poor health, including a small stroke in prison in 2021.
Courtesy: BBC
International
Trump Might Shut Down US Embassies in Africa — Report
A CNN report on Wednesday, citing an internal US State Department document, states that the embassies in the Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Lesotho, and South Sudan are among those proposed for closure.

The Donald Trump administration might shut down nearly 30 United States embassies and consulates around the world, including several in Africa, as part of a sweeping plan to reduce the country’s diplomatic presence abroad.
A CNN report on Wednesday, citing an internal US State Department document, states that the embassies in the Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Lesotho, and South Sudan are among those proposed for closure.
A US consulate in South Africa may also be shut down.
“The list also includes five consulates in France, two in Germany, two in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one in the United Kingdom, one in South Africa, and one in South Korea,” the report stated.
International
UK Supreme Court rules definition of ‘woman’ based on sex at birth and not by transgender

The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender-critical campaigners.
Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).
In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, the court decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.
It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and prompt calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.
The UK government said the ruling “brings clarity and confidence” for women and those who run hospitals, sports clubs and women’s refuges.
A spokesperson said: “We have always supported the protection of single sex spaces based on biological sex. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”
John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, posted on social media: “The Scottish government accepts today’s supreme court judgment. The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster.
We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”
Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.
That affected policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.
In a verbal summary of the decision, he said: “Interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of man and woman in the EA and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way.
It would create heterogeneous groupings.
“As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination, and especially those relating to pregnancy and maternity and to protection from risks specifically affecting women, can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.”
Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision.
The campaign group Scottish Trans said: “We are really shocked by today’s supreme court decision, which reverses 20 years of understanding of how the law recognises trans men and women with gender recognition certificates.
“We will continue working for a world in which trans people can get on with their lives with privacy, dignity and safety. That is something we all deserve.
”Ellie Gomersall, a trans woman in the Scottish Green party, called on the UK government to change the law to entrench full equality for trans people.
Gomersall said: “I’m gutted to see this judgment from the supreme court, which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are able to be, for almost all intents and purposes, recognised legally as our true genders.
“These protections were put in place in 2004 following a ruling by the European court of human rights, meaning today’s ruling undermines the vital human rights of my community to dignity, safety and the right to be respected for who we are.”
The gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, said the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.
Maya Forstater, a gender critical activist who helped set up the campaign group Sex Matters, which took part in the supreme court case by supporting For Women Scotland, said the decision was correct.
“We are delighted that the supreme court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish government.
The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork.”
Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said it believed the position taken by the Scottish government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission that people with gender recognition certificates did qualify as women, while those without did not, created “two sub-groups”.
This would confuse any organisations they were involved with. A public body could not know whether a trans woman did or did not have that certificate because the information was private and confidential.
And allowing trans women the same legal status as biological women could also affect spaces and services designed specifically for lesbians, who had also suffered historical discrimination and abuse.
In part of the ruling that could have sweeping implications for policymakers in the sports world and sports centres, he said some services and places could “function properly only if sex is interpreted as biological sex”.
“Those provisions include separate spaces and single-sex services, including changing rooms, hostels, medical services, communal accommodation, [and] arise in the operation of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty and the armed forces.”
Hodge urged people not to see the decision “as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.
He said all transgender people had clear legal protections under the 2010 act against discrimination and harassment.
Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which had intervened in the case to support the Scottish government’s stance, said it would need time to fully interpret the ruling’s implications.
However, the commission was pleased it had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces.
“We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.”
Crime
JUST IN: IDF eliminates terrorist behind January West Bank shooting

Israeli security forces on Wednesday morning killed Muhammad Zakarna, a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, during a counterterrorism operation near Jenin.
Zakarna was identified as one of the terrorists involved in the deadly shooting attack in the West Bank village of al-Funduq in January.
According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Zakarna, a resident of Qabatiya, was among three gunmen who opened fire on civilians in al-Funduq on January 6, killing Master Sgt. Elad Yaakov Winkelstein, an off-duty Israeli police officer, and civilians Rachel Cohen and Aliza Raiz.
The IDF said Zakarna was located in a cave near the village of Misilyah following intelligence provided by the Shin Bet security agency.
During the attempted arrest by Yamam, the Israel Police’s elite counterterrorism unit, and IDF troops, a gun battle broke out between the forces and the suspects.
The military said the forces used shoulder-launched missiles during the exchange.
Zakarna and another Islamic Jihad member, Marooh Hazima, also from Qabatiya, were killed.
Hazima had previously been released from Israeli prison in the November 2023 ceasefire-hostage deal with Hamas and had since resumed terrorist activity, the IDF said.
A number of weapons and military gear were recovered from the scene. Several accomplices were also detained and found to be in possession of handguns.
The IDF confirmed that the other two terrorists behind the al-Funduq attack, Qutaiba al-Shalabi and Mohammed Nazal, both affiliated with Hamas — were previously killed in an Israeli operation in Qabatiya on January 23.
-
Crime3 days ago
BREAKING: Many feared dead as suspected herdsmen attack Benue community
-
Business2 days ago
EFCC and Interpol Hunt for CBEX fraudsters
-
Business2 days ago
FIRS Targets N25.2tr Revenue in 2025
-
Sports2 days ago
Ex-Man Utd star Bastian Schweinsteiger ‘splits from wife’
-
News2 days ago
Sanwo-Olu Opens Lagos State Commercial Court
-
International2 days ago
UK Supreme Court rules definition of ‘woman’ based on sex at birth and not by transgender
-
Business2 days ago
Top Ten Ponzi Schemes That Have Stolen From Nigerians
-
News2 days ago
Kogi Govt Applauds President Tinubu for Appointments of Indigenes to Strategic National Roles