https://www.facebook.com/284504135052665/

Jurisdiction, Abuja (2026)

07/08/2026

Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Constitutional Principle Reaffirmed
-----------
Birthright citizenship has long been a cornerstone of American constitutional law. Its legal foundation lies in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, which provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The amendment was enacted primarily to overturn the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to people of African descent. By embedding birthright citizenship in the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment established a broad guarantee that citizenship would be acquired by birth on U.S. soil, subject only to a handful of narrow historical exceptions.

The scope of this constitutional protection was definitively addressed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legally residing in the United States but were ineligible for naturalization under the laws of the time. After returning from a trip abroad, he was denied re-entry on the grounds that he was not an American citizen.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument. In a landmark 6-2 decision, it held that a child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of the nationality of the parents, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court recognized only limited historical exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats or enemy forces occupying U.S. territory.

For well over a century, Wong Kim Ark has served as the leading authority on the meaning of the Citizenship Clause and has been repeatedly relied upon by courts, scholars and successive administrations.

Although the Constitution provides this protection, it is equally true that Congress retains the constitutional authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. If lawmakers wished to alter or restrict birthright citizenship, the proper constitutional avenue would be through the amendment process set out in Article V of the Constitution, which requires approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Such a change cannot be accomplished through ordinary legislation where it conflicts with the Constitution, nor can it be achieved unilaterally by presidential action.

That constitutional principle was reaffirmed in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. Barbara (2026). The Court held that the President lacked the constitutional authority to redefine the scope of birthright citizenship through executive action and reaffirmed that the Citizenship Clause protects children born in the United States, including those born to parents who lack lawful immigration status or are present on temporary visas. The Court emphasized that the established interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, rooted in Wong Kim Ark, could not be displaced by executive order.

In light of that ruling, any subsequent executive order that attempts to exclude from citizenship a class of U.S.-born children falling within the category protected by the Court would almost certainly invite immediate constitutional challenges. Such an order would likely be scrutinized not only for its consistency with the Fourteenth Amendment but also for whether it conflicts with the Supreme Court's authoritative interpretation of that provision. While a President may direct immigration enforcement or target visa fraud, including commercial "birth tourism" schemes, executive action cannot override constitutional rights as interpreted by the judiciary.

The debate over birthright citizenship therefore remains one of constitutional law rather than executive policy. Unless the Constitution itself is amended through the rigorous Article V process, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause remains binding. Any attempt to circumvent that interpretation through executive orders would face formidable legal obstacles and would be expected to be challenged promptly in the federal courts.

- Precious Anamelechi, LL.B, LL.M

06/08/2026

When the Hunter Becomes the Hunted
-------------
There's an old equitable maxim: "He who comes to equity must come with clean hands."
------
President Trump's lawyers have reportedly filed an emergency motion to block the BBC from obtaining financial records linked to his trust. Whether that request succeeds is for the courts to decide, and he is fully entitled to challenge it through the legal process.

But here's the irony.

For years, Trump championed investigations and demanded transparency from his political opponents. If accountability was the standard then, it should remain the standard now.

The law should apply equally to everyone, with equity, especially those who hold or seek public office. Transparency and accountability cannot be selective.
-------------

— Precious Anamelechi, LL.M

02/08/2026

Did you know that a bank closed hundreds of Trump Organization accounts after an anti-money laundering review?
----------------
Capital One's disclosure that it closed hundreds of Trump Organization accounts following an anti-money laundering review marks a remarkable moment in American financial governance. Whatever one's political persuasion, compliance obligations must apply equally to every customer, including businesses associated with the President of the United States.

If a financial institution genuinely believes there are anti-money laundering risks, it has both a legal and regulatory duty to act. Choosing not to do so simply because the accounts are connected to the President would expose the institution to potentially serious consequences if its decisions were later scrutinized by regulators or auditors. The rule of law cannot yield to political influence.

This should also serve as a reminder to every financial institution that integrity cannot be selective. Banks and other entities must stand on their own two feet, uphold their legal obligations, and resist improper pressure wherever it arises. Institutions that compromise those duties today may ultimately be judged not only by regulators and the courts, but also by posterity.

The credibility of the financial system depends on one principle above all: no individual, however powerful, should be beyond the reach of compliance, accountability, and the law.

02/08/2026

When the Government Gets It Wrong: Should There Be Accountability?
---------------
The Department of Justice's decision to dismiss the criminal indictment against Olympic gold medallist David Hearn marks more than the end of a failed prosecution. It raises an uncomfortable question about accountability when the immense power of the state is brought to bear against an individual without a substantial factual foundation.

According to court filings, prosecutors abandoned the case after newly produced documents demonstrated that the damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was not the result of vandalism, but rather of defects stemming from a rushed contractor installation. The very premise upon which the indictment rested had effectively collapsed.

For David Hearn, however, the dismissal comes only after enduring what few would dispute is a significant personal and professional ordeal. Criminal indictments carry consequences long before a jury ever hears a case. They can damage reputations, strain finances, disrupt careers, and impose emotional burdens that cannot simply be erased by a court order dismissing the charges.

This naturally invites discussion of whether Hearn should pursue a malicious prosecution claim against the federal government.

The answer, legally speaking, is far from straightforward.

American law deliberately sets a high bar for malicious prosecution claims, particularly against federal prosecutors. The reason is understandable. Prosecutors must be free to make difficult charging decisions without fearing personal lawsuits whenever a case ends in acquittal or dismissal. If every unsuccessful prosecution exposed government attorneys to civil liability, the criminal justice system would become paralysed by defensive decision-making.

Accordingly, prosecutors enjoy immunity for actions taken in their role as advocates before the courts. Moreover, the existence of a grand jury indictment generally serves an evidence that probable cause existed to bring the charges in the first place.

Yet those protections exist to shield good-faith prosecutorial judgment and not to excuse investigative failures or the withholding of exculpatory evidence.

If government officials possessed documents demonstrating that contractor defects, not criminal conduct, caused the damage before the indictment was sought, difficult questions inevitably arise. Why were those documents not uncovered sooner? Were investigators aware of them? Were prosecutors misled by incomplete investigative files? Or was this simply a case of bureaucratic incompetence rather than misconduct?

The criminal justice system operates on an extraordinary imbalance of power. The government commands investigators, forensic experts, subpoena powers, and virtually unlimited resources. Ordinary citizens possess none of these advantages. That imbalance places a corresponding responsibility on prosecutors and investigators to ensure that every reasonable effort has been made to uncover the truth before accusing someone of a crime.

When that process fails, the consequences extend beyond the accused. Public confidence in the justice system itself is weakened.

Whether Hearn could ultimately prevail in a malicious prosecution lawsuit remains uncertain. He'd face formidable legal hurdles, including proving an absence of probable cause and overcoming doctrines that grant prosecutors broad immunity. A dismissed indictment alone does not establish that prosecutors acted maliciously or unlawfully.

But even if no court ever awards damages, this episode should serve as a reminder that accountability within the justice system cannot end when charges are quietly dropped.

Every failed prosecution deserves careful examination, not because mistakes alone justify liability, but because understanding why those mistakes occurred is essential to preventing them from happening again.

The measure of a justice system is not simply how vigorously it prosecutes the guilty. It is how seriously it confronts its own errors when it prosecutes the innocent.

In David Hearn's case, the dismissal may have closed the criminal file. It should not close the conversation.
----------
- Precious Anamelechi, LL.B, LL.M

02/08/2026

Did a Spanish Supreme Court Judgment Change the Calculus for Irregular Migration into Ceuta?
--------------
On 29 June 2026, the Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo), Administrative Chamber (Fifth Section), Judgment No. 814/2026, ruled that migrants intercepted at sea while attempting to swim into the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta or Melilla cannot be subjected to Spain's summary "hot return" procedure (devolución en caliente). Instead, they must be processed through the ordinary return procedure, which affords procedural safeguards including an individual assessment, a reasoned decision, access to legal representation, and interpreter services where necessary.

The case arose from an Algerian migrant intercepted while swimming towards Ceuta in November 2024 who was immediately returned to Morocco. The Supreme Court concluded that Spain's special border rejection regime applies to attempts to cross the land border infrastructure and not to persons intercepted at sea.

Then came an extraordinary development.

Less than one month after the judgment, Ceuta experienced the largest sea-borne migrant influx in its history, with reports indicating that around 50,000 migrants entered the Spanish territory by swimming or wading from Morocco within a single day. Spanish authorities subsequently suggested that people-smuggling networks and social media had circulated the message that migrants arriving by sea could no longer be summarily returned.

This sequence of events raises important questions.

Did the Supreme Court's judgment become a motivating factor, whether accurately understood or not, for thousands contemplating the dangerous swim into Ceuta? Did criminal networks exploit the ruling by portraying it as a guarantee against immediate return? More broadly, should courts weigh the potential operational consequences of expanding procedural guarantees in the unique context of mass irregular migration, or is that solely the responsibility of legislators?
---------

- Precious Anamelechi, LL.B, LL.M

01/08/2026

Prediction markets can only work if participants play by the same rules.

The recent CFTC settlement involving former Congressman George Santos is a timely reminder that accountability must keep pace with financial innovation.

The allegation wasn't simply that Santos traded on a prediction market. It was that he allegedly traded on an event over which he had personal influence, whether he himself would attend the State of the Union address. Unlike ordinary traders, he was in a position to affect the very outcome on which the market was based.

That strikes at the heart of market integrity.

Whether the market is for stocks, commodities, or prediction contracts, the principle is the same: no participant should have an unfair advantage by controlling or influencing the outcome while trading on it. Markets function because people trust that prices reflect genuine expectations, not the private decisions of someone who can determine the result.

Importantly, the case also demonstrates that regulators are paying close attention to emerging financial markets. As prediction markets continue to expand, questions surrounding conflicts of interest, market manipulation, and insider advantages will become increasingly important.

George Santos agreed to pay $35,000 to settle the CFTC's allegations and accepted a three-year ban from trading on prediction markets, while neither admitting nor denying the findings.

Regardless of one's political views, this case reinforces an important principle: the integrity of financial markets depends on accountability. Innovation should be encouraged, but never at the expense of fairness, transparency, and public trust.

01/08/2026

Is Ceuta really part of the Schengen Area? Let's clear up the confusion.
----------------
Following the recent influx of thousands of irregular migrants into the Spanish city of Ceuta, I've seen a number of conflicting claims about whether Ceuta is actually part of the Schengen Area. The debate has become so widespread that even my own wife recently asked me to clarify the issue after reading a publication online claiming that Ceuta was outside Schengen.

Naturally, that prompted me to go beyond headlines and secondary sources. I decided to read the law itself.
-------------------
The pertinent piece of legislation here would be Article 41 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, better known as the Schengen Borders Code.

This regulation does not exclude Ceuta and Melilla from the Schengen but rather preserves special rules applicable to those cities, because of Spain's accession arrangements to the Schengen Convention.

The existence of a derogation or special regime does not mean that the underlying legal framework ceases to apply

So what are these "special rules"?

They exist because Ceuta and Melilla occupy a unique geographical position on the African continent, sharing land borders with Morocco. One of the most significant derogations is the long-standing local border regime which appears to allow residents of the neighbouring Moroccan provinces of Tétouan (for Ceuta) and Nador (for Melilla) to enter those cities without first obtaining a Schengen visa, provided they remain within Ceuta or Melilla and do not continue onward into mainland Spain or the wider Schengen Area.

Conversely, Spain is obligated to carry out identity and document checks on persons travelling from Ceuta or Melilla to mainland Spain or other Schengen States.

These are precisely the kinds of special rules preserved by Article 41.

In other words, the derogation is not an exemption from the Schengen acquis itself. Rather, it is an exception created within the Schengen framework to accommodate the unique circumstances of Ceuta and Melilla.

The European Commission's own interpretation reinforces this position.

In 2022, a Member of the European Parliament submitted a written question entitled "Admission of Ceuta and Melilla into the Schengen Area." The question itself assumed that the cities were outside Schengen and asked whether Spain intended to seek their admission.

Replying on behalf of the European Commission, Commissioner Ylva Johansson stated:

"The Schengen acquis already applies in full to the whole territory of Spain, including the cities of Ceuta and Melilla. The borders of Ceuta and Melilla with Morocco are also the external borders of the Schengen area. There is therefore no need for the Spanish Government to make such a request."

This also explains why I believe there is so much confusion.

Many people see the passport checks when travelling from Ceuta to mainland Spain or the visa-free local border regime for residents of Tétouan and Nador and understandably conclude that Ceuta must be "outside Schengen."

Those measures are special derogations preserved by Article 41, not evidence that the Schengen acquis does not apply.

If there is an EU Regulation, a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or another authoritative legal source demonstrating that my interpretation is incorrect, I'll have no hesitation in withdrawing this position publicly.

Until then, based on the legislation currently in force and the European Commission's own interpretation, the primary legal sources appear to support the conclusion that Ceuta and Melilla are territories to which the Schengen acquis applies, albeit subject to special derogations preserved by Article 41 of the Schengen Borders Code.
--------------------
You may access EU's written response here (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-000911-ASW_EN.html)

- Precious Anamelechi, LL.B, LL.M

01/08/2026

Should Ceuta Be Returned to Morocco?
-----------------
The unprecedented scenes unfolding in Ceuta should prompt a broader conversation about the enclave's long-term future. In recent days, tens of thousands of migrants have crossed into the Spanish city from neighbouring Morocco, overwhelming local authorities and exposing the vulnerability of one of Europe's most unusual borders. Reports indicate that many hoped to use Ceuta as a stepping stone to mainland Spain and other European countries.

Ceuta is geographically located on the African continent and shares its only land border with Morocco. While Spain has administered the city for years, Morocco continues to claim sovereignty over it. The latest migration crisis raises a legitimate policy question: if the enclave has become a recurring flashpoint for irregular migration and diplomatic tension, is it time to reconsider whether Spanish sovereignty over Ceuta remains the most practical long-term arrangement?

This is not to ignore the wishes of Ceuta's residents, whose views would be central to any discussion about the city's future. Nor is it to dismiss Spain's longstanding legal and historical position. Rather, it is to ask whether a territory that is geographically embedded in Morocco but politically part of Europe will continue to generate the same pressures year after year. As migration intensifies and geopolitical tensions evolve, the debate over Ceuta's future is unlikely to disappear.
------
Udo diri unu!

31/07/2026

Freedom of Speech Doesn't End Where Government Egos Begin
-------------
The dismissal of Kash Patel's lawsuit against a blogger who mocked him with insults such as "googly-eyed" and "chud" is another reminder of a fundamental principle in any free society: public office comes with public scrutiny. In this instance, the case was reportedly dismissed on jurisdictional grounds rather than on the truth or falsity of the insults themselves.

No public official, regardless of political affiliation, is immune from ridicule.

Barack Obama was routinely called everything from "socialist" and "tyrant" to far worse. Donald Trump has been labelled "fascist," "clown," "orange man," and countless other derogatory names. Joe Biden has been called "Sleepy Joe," "senile," and other insults. George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ron DeSantis, Kamala Harris, the list goes on. Political discourse, particularly in the age of social media, is often crude, satirical, and deeply unflattering.

That does not mean every insult is admirable. Civility is worth striving for. But the First Amendment was never designed to protect only polite speech. It exists precisely because speech that offends, mocks, exaggerates, or ridicules those in power is often the speech most in need of protection.

The legal standard for defamation has long recognised that public figures must tolerate a much wider range of criticism than private individuals. Mere name-calling, rhetorical hyperbole, satire, and opinion are generally not the same as making a false statement of fact. Courts have repeatedly distinguished between protected opinion and actionable defamation, recognising that robust political debate inevitably includes harsh rhetoric.

If government officials could successfully sue every citizen who called them an unflattering name, political speech would be chilled overnight. Citizens would begin to self-censor out of fear of expensive litigation rather than because they lacked an opinion.

Whether you support Kash Patel, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or any other political figure is beside the point. The principle must be applied equally. If we defend free speech only when it benefits people we agree with, then we are not defending free speech at all, we are defending partisanship.

A healthy democracy demands thick skin from those who seek power. Public officials wield extraordinary authority over citizens' lives. In return, they should expect extraordinary criticism, even when that criticism is unfair, sarcastic, or offensive.

Freedom of speech is tested not by speech we like, but by speech we dislike. And if that freedom means anything, it means that ordinary citizens remain free to criticise, even harshly, the people who govern them.

24/07/2026

When the Rich Ask to Pay More, We Should Listen
-------------------
I've just come across a report by DW, one of Europe's leading international news outlets, stating that more than 120 British millionaires have signed an open letter to the United Kingdom's new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, asking to be taxed more.

At first glance, this may seem counterintuitive. Why would people voluntarily ask to pay more tax? Yet, to me, it represents one of the highest forms of civic responsibility. It is an acknowledgment that extraordinary wealth brings with it not only extraordinary privilege, but also an extraordinary responsibility to contribute to the society that made such success possible.

What makes this particularly remarkable is the contrast with a growing trend among the ultra-wealthy. For years, tax advisers have marketed offshore structures, tax havens, and even second citizenships or residency-by-investment programmes as legitimate ways for wealthy individuals to minimise their tax liabilities. Many high-net-worth individuals have openly acknowledged relocating or acquiring another nationality largely for tax advantages. While these arrangements are often entirely lawful, they are ultimately driven by one question: How can I contribute less?

The millionaires behind this letter are asking the opposite question: How can we contribute more?

That reversal of mindset is extraordinary. In an age where tax avoidance is often portrayed as financial ingenuity, voluntarily asking to shoulder a greater share of the public burden is an act of genuine civic virtue. It reflects an understanding that immense wealth is made possible not in isolation, but within societies that provide security, infrastructure, functioning markets, an educated workforce, and the rule of law.

Let me be clear: this is not an argument for higher taxes on ordinary workers, the middle class, or small businesses. They already bear a significant share of the tax burden. Nor is it an attack on entrepreneurship or success. Those who create businesses, innovate, invest, and generate employment deserve to be rewarded.

It is, however, an argument that those with extraordinary wealth should contribute their fair share; particularly where legal loopholes, preferential treatment of certain forms of income, or sophisticated tax planning enable some of the wealthiest individuals to pay proportionally less than those who earn their living through wages.

A few years ago, reports based on Donald Trump's tax returns alleged that he paid just $750 in U.S. federal income tax in both 2016 and 2017 despite being a billionaire, a claim he disputed. Regardless of the specifics of that case, it reignited an important debate about how some of the world's wealthiest individuals can legally end up paying far less tax than many ordinary working people.

Consider the irony. A teacher, health worker, mechanic, or police officer may pay thousands each year in income tax and social contributions from their salaries. Yet someone worth hundreds of millions, or even billions, may, through perfectly legal mechanisms, end up paying proportionally less because much of their income is derived from investments, capital gains, or carefully structured financial arrangements.

A tax system should not reward the ability to avoid contributing. Nor should it place a heavier relative burden on those who simply work for a living.

Taxation should be guided by fairness. A healthy society depends on functioning courts, quality education, healthcare, infrastructure, public safety, and institutions that protect property rights, enforce contracts, and maintain economic stability. These are the very foundations upon which businesses grow and fortunes are built.

We often celebrate philanthropy as the highest expression of generosity. Yet there is something arguably even more profound about asking to contribute more through a fair tax system. Charity is voluntary and allows the donor to choose the cause. Taxation, by contrast, is an investment in the common good. It helps fund the roads we all drive on, the schools that educate future generations, the hospitals that save lives, the police who keep communities safe, and the courts that safeguard justice and the rule of law.

When some of the wealthiest members of society themselves acknowledge that they have the capacity, and the responsibility, to contribute more, perhaps we should pay attention. They understand that sustainable prosperity is measured not only by how much wealth one accumulates, but also by how much one is willing to invest in the society that made that wealth possible.

Perhaps the difference between self-interest and civic responsibility can be captured in two simple questions:

One asks: "How can I keep more of what I have?"

The other asks: "How can I give more back to the society that made my success possible?"

The millionaires who signed that letter chose the latter. They were not asking for higher taxes on nurses, teachers, factory workers, or struggling families. They were asking for higher taxes on people like themselves, those with extraordinary wealth and the greatest capacity to contribute.

Whether one agrees with every aspect of their proposal or not, there is something profoundly admirable about voluntarily asking to bear a greater share of the public burden rather than seeking ways to reduce it.

A fair society is not one where everyone pays more tax. It is one where everyone pays their fair share. Those living from modest wages should not be squeezed further. But those who have benefited the most from the opportunities and protections society provides should also be willing to invest proportionately more in preserving and strengthening it.

That is not class warfare. It is merely a commitment to fairness, shared responsibility, and justice. And when that call comes from the wealthy themselves, it is a conversation worth taking seriously.
-----------------
- Precious Anamelechi, LL.M

Jurisdiction

07/08/2026

06/08/2026

02/08/2026

02/08/2026

02/08/2026

01/08/2026

01/08/2026

01/08/2026

31/07/2026

24/07/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request