Mopane Worm And Termite Sales Relieve Poverty In Rural South Africa – Studies Explore The Impact

Larvae of the mopane moth (Gonimbrasia belina), on a mopane tree (Colophospermum mopane). By SAplants - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, CC BY

BY NDIDZULAFHI INNOCENT SINTHUMULE

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF

JOHANNESBURG

South Africa’s Limpopo province borders Zimbabwe, Botswana and Mozambique. It is one of the poorest provinces in the country. This is due to a combination of historical underdevelopment, a high unemployment rate, heavy reliance on government grants and a rural-based economy with limited industrial diversification.

It’s an interesting place for a geographer like me. My work brings together the themes of traditional ecological knowledge, environmental geography, conservation and society. My research looks at sustainable environmental outcomes by recognising the role of local culture, sacred sites and community practices in managing natural resources in southern Africa.

In two recent studies I explored how local communities in Limpopo are commercialising the harvesting of local insects to manage extreme poverty.

In one I explored the process involved in the commercialisation of mopane worms. Mopane worms (Gonimbrasia belina) are a nutritious, high-protein seasonal delicacy for many communities in Limpopo.

In a similar study, I turned to the harvesting and commercialisation of termite alates in Limpopo.

These resources are important for food security and poverty relief. Mopane worms and alate termites offer both high-quality nutrition and substantial income-generating opportunities for rural households. Both foods are traded in local and regional, formal and informal markets.

This enterprise is largely driven by unemployment, economic hardship, and the need for cash income in rural areas.

My research shows clearly that these resources play an important part in rural households and it’s important to manage them sustainably. One way of ensuring this happens is to tap into local knowledge.

As a separate study I did shows, traditional knowledge can help manage scarce resources by integrating customary rules, taboos and seasonal monitoring to prevent over-exploitation.

Mopane harvesting and trade

The mopane worm study took place in June and July 2023 in Muyexe and Nsavulani villages, Mopani District, Limpopo. The area is dominated by mopane woodlands, trees which are the main food of mopane worms (caterpillars). These villages have not benefited from development in the past and people depend heavily on natural resources for survival.

The processing of mopane worms (from harvesting to a marketable commodity) involves a series of traditional, manual steps to ensure quality. They are degutted (squeezing the caterpillar to remove stomach contents or frass), washed, boiled and dried to allow them to be stored for long periods. They are then graded and sold at home or in towns.

I chose 161 households in Muyexe village and 82 households in Nsavulani village as respondents, and interviewed villagers using a questionnaire. The questions covered:

the socio-economic profile of respondents

the availability and procurement, processing, marketing, trading and livelihood benefits of mopane worms.

The study found that most of the harvesters in Muyexe (69%) and Nsavulani (59%) villages were women. Almost all processed the worms at home. They collected the worms for both household consumption and trade. Those who traded worms reported making between R1,000 (US$54) and R3,000 (US$163) per season. There are two mopane seasons in Limpopo: November to January and April to May.

The study found that 55% of households in Muyexe village and 70% in Nsavulani village derived income only from mopane worm sales. (Individuals were under 60 and didn’t qualify for a social grant, or administered grants for children, nor for themselves.) Although the income earned from the sale of mopane worms is seasonal, communities appreciate it. Commercialising mopane worms contributed significantly to rural livelihoods. It is a crucial source of food security and cash income. This helps alleviate poverty and improves the lives and livelihoods of those involved in the business.

Termite harvesting and trade

In a similar study, I turned to the harvesting and commercialisation of termite alates in Limpopo. I interviewed 71 respondents in Thohoyandou and Sibasa towns (who came mainly from villages), as well as Mukula and Tshidzivhe villages, and found that these insects were harvested to eat at home and to sell.

Women of all ages were more involved than men in this enterprise, making up 75% of the respondents. Almost half had secondary education and 23% had tertiary education; 63% were self-employed. The majority lived below the upper bound poverty line of R1,558 (about US$95) per person per month. About 31% of the traders indicated that over the selling season (October to December), alates contributed up to 100% of the income in their households.

Management for the future

While commercialisation puts pressure on resources, traditional rules and local management protect the trees. In the study on traditional ecological knowledge, I found that the communities imposed rules that:

prohibited cutting of green branches

restricted harvesting during specific seasons to allow for maturity

prohibited tree damage during the mopane worm harvest.

Traditional ecological knowledge regulated the timing of harvest, protected host tree health, and ensured long-term livelihood security for local communities.

This shows that integrating local traditional ecological knowledge into harvesting practices is crucial for managing these resources sustainably.

Management strategies should be integrated into local and regional planning efforts. Efforts should also be made to communicate these strategies to relevant authorities to foster cooperation and raise awareness about the importance of mopane trees for all user groups.

To ensure the sustainable future of this woodland species, I recommend that the government work with traditional leaders and communities to support and enforce existing traditional practices.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

China Surpasses US In Research Spending – The Consequences Extend Far Beyond Scientific Ranking And Clout

In a span of a few years, China has outstripped the U.S. in scientific publications, spending and patents. AP Photo/Andy Wong

BY CAROLINE WAGNER

PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

China’s rapid rise in science has hit a milestone. The country’s investment in research and development has reached parity with – and by purchasing power measures has surpassed – that of the United States, according to a March 2026 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Both nations have crossed the US$1 trillion threshold on research spending.

For 80 years, the U.S. operated the most productive scientific and technological enterprise in human history. Breakthroughs and advances that came from American labs included the internet; the mRNA vaccine; the transistor and its children, semiconductors and microprocessors; the Global Positioning System; and many more.

U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II.

In contrast, China had previously spent little to nothing on research and development. Some estimates show that China was among the lowest research spenders worldwide in 1980.

As a policy analyst and public affairs researcher, I study international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public and foreign policy. I have tracked China’s rise across every major database for more than a decade.

The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question.

China’s systematic and unrelenting rise

China’s R&D spending milestone caps a series of achievements that have arrived in rapid succession.

In 2019, China surpassed the U.S. in its share of the top 1% most-highly cited papers – what some call the Nobel class of research. By 2022, it had taken first place globally in most-cited papers overall.

In 2024, China overtook the United States in total scientific publications – the first time any nation has displaced American dominance since the U.S. itself surpassed the United Kingdom in 1948. Researchers found that China overtook the United States in scientific output even earlier. That same year, China pulled ahead in the Nature Index, which tracks publications in the world’s most selective scientific journals, posting a 17% advantage over the U.S. in outlets long considered the gold standard of scientific excellence.

In 2024, Chinese entities also filed roughly 1.8 million patent applications, compared to the U.S.’s 603,191 applications.

Given these milestones, it’s possible to argue that China is quickly taking the lead in global science and technology. These are not isolated data points. They mark a structural shift in where the world’s scientific frontier is being built.

More science is good – the problem lies elsewhere

China’s ascent is, in one sense, good news. More knowledge, generated by more researchers across more institutions, expands the global pool of discovery from which everyone can draw. The world benefits when science thrives.

The problem is not that China is investing, but that the U.S. is not.

First, the U.S. is divesting from basic, open science. Federal R&D spending in the U.S. peaked in 2010 at roughly $160 billion and fell by more than 15% over the following five years. Federal investment in research and development has been in a long, slow slide – from a peak of 1.86% of gross domestic product in 1964 to about 0.66% in 2021.

The federal government is no longer the largest spender in R&D: It funded about 40% of basic research in 2022, while the business sector performed roughly 78% of U.S. R&D. While not a problem in itself, industry has simultaneously withdrawn from open scientific publication over the past four decades, shifting from research toward development. The result is a shrinking pool of openly shared scientific knowledge precisely as public investment in it also contracts.

Under the second Trump administration, U.S. government science agencies have been slow-walking proposals for new research. Current budget cuts from the White House threaten to deepen cuts to government spending significantly.

The second is the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.

I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect.

Disinvestment cuts deeper than it appears

The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.

Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.

A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access.

Talent compounds the problem. The U.S. built its scientific dominance partly by being the destination of choice for the world’s most ambitious researchers. The U.S. leads the world in Nobel Prizes, but, notably, 40% of the Nobel Prizes in chemistry, medicine and physics that were awarded to Americans since 2000 were won by immigrants. The flow of foreign talent is not guaranteed. It follows opportunity, funding and openness.

Researchers who might once have come to American universities are finding welcoming alternatives in Europe, China and elsewhere.

A decision point, not a trend line

China’s milestone in research funding arrives at a moment when the U.S. is deciding whether to maintain its scientific leadership.

Scientific infrastructure does not decline gradually and recover on demand. Doctoral scientists represent a decade or more of training; tacit laboratory knowledge lives in working research groups, not in documents. Once talented young researchers leave the pipeline – or international talent redirects to other countries – the capacity is very hard to rebuild. Early warning signs are already visible in the U.S. system: thousands of NIH grants terminated, a collapse in international applications and an exodus of early-career scientists.

What is at stake is not a ranking. It is whether the U.S. maintains the institutional capacity – the universities, the federal laboratories, the graduate pipelines, the culture of open inquiry – that made those returns on scientific investment possible in the first place.

China’s rise did not create this decision point, although it brings it into sharp relief. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.

That is a lot to lose.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Ending Malaria In Africa: 5 Essential Reads On Gains And Challenges

A nurse prepares a dose of vaccine against malaria at a district hospital in Cameroon. Xinhua News Agency/Getty Images

BY WALE FATADE

Malaria, a life-threatening disease spread to humans by some types of mosquitoes, is preventable and curable. The World Malaria Report 2025 shows that in 2024, there were an estimated 282 million malaria cases and 610,000 malaria deaths in 80 countries. Africa carries a disproportionately high share of the global malaria burden.

In 2024, Africa accounted for 95% of malaria cases (265 million) and 95% (579,000) of malaria deaths. Children under five accounted for about 75% of all malaria deaths in the region. Over half of all deaths in Africa occurred in three countries: Nigeria (31.9%), the Democratic Republic of Congo (11.7%) and Niger (6.1%).

But there have been some positive developments. One is the first malaria treatment for babies and very young children of two months up to five years. This was approved for use by a Swiss agency for therapeutic products, Swissmedic, in July 2025. Another is the rollout of malaria vaccines in 17 endemic countries in 2024. These countries, with roughly 70% of the global malaria burden, now offer malaria vaccines through their routine childhood immunisation.

To mark World Malaria Day 2026, whose theme is “Driven to End Malaria: Now We Can. Now We Must”, we’re sharing some of the articles our authors have contributed in the past.

Floods increase the risk of malaria

When flood occurs, the most visible damage is immediate: homes washed away, crops destroyed, clinics disrupted, families displaced. These images dominate headlines and humanitarian appeals. As communities clear debris and try to rebuild livelihoods, they are also entering the most dangerous window for malaria transmission.

Tiaan de Jager and Taneshka Kruger show that frequent climate-driven floods not only wash away infrastructure, they are reshaping malaria risk in ways that entrench poverty and threaten fragile progress towards malaria elimination. Floods leave behind an increased risk of malaria transmission, as standing water and disrupted control programmes create ideal conditions for the disease to spread.

Gut bacteria to fight malaria

Researchers in Africa are not left out in the battle to eliminate malaria; they are busy in their laboratories. One of these efforts is research to find the right bacteria that can be used to help stop the spread of malaria.

Chia-Yu Chen and Shüné Oliver have found that different types of mosquitoes carry different sets of bacteria. They have also found that there are several anti-parasitic bacteria in mosquitoes that do not spread malaria well. Since these bacteria can boost the immune system of the mosquito, they could help to prevent the insects from transmitting the malaria parasite.

The thinking is that if we understand exactly which bacteria are involved, they can be used as biocontrol. These candidates could be given to a malaria-transmitting mosquito through a blood-meal (that contains the bacteria) or through genetic modification.

Shrinking funds and rising threats

In 2021, nearly half of the sub-Saharan African countries relied on external financing for more than a third of their health expenditure. But donor fatigue and competing global priorities, such as climate change and geopolitical instability, have placed malaria control programmes under immense pressure. These funding gaps now threaten hard-won progress and ultimately malaria eradication.

Taneshka Kruger and Tiaan de Jager argue that there’s a need to think smarter about funding. This is because it’s far cheaper to prevent malaria than to treat it. The total cost of procuring and delivering long-lasting insecticidal nets typically ranges between US$4 and US$7 each and the nets protect families for years. In contrast, treating a single case of severe malaria may cost hundreds of dollars and involve hospitalisation.

Two new malaria vaccines

Since 2019 more than 2 million children in Ghana, Kenya and Malawi have been vaccinated with the RTS,S malaria vaccine.

The world’s first routine vaccine programme using the RTS,S started in Cameroon in January 2024. The country is offering the vaccine free of charge to all infants up to the age of six months. It could change Africa’s public health history. Two vaccines are currently available for prevention of malaria. The second is R21/Matrix. It is a second-generation RTS,S vaccine, developed by Oxford University’s Jenner Institute and approved by the WHO in October 2023.

Jaishree Raman says the vaccines are a welcome addition to the malaria elimination toolbox. They should ideally be used together with other control strategies like long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets, rapid diagnosis, and treatment with an effective antimalarial.

First malaria treatment for babies

The absence of effective malaria treatment options specifically tailored for newborn babies left a significant gap in care for the most vulnerable children. Children’s bodies and physiological needs differ greatly from those of adults.

But in July 2025, the first malaria treatment for babies and very young children of two months up to five years was approved for use. Fortunate Mokoena says “this approval is profoundly important” and will help in achieving the WHO’s ambitious and visionary goal to end malaria by 2030.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

How The War In Iran Has Brought European Countries Closer Together – Without Trump

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz met in Paris to discuss the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Michel Euler/AP/AAP

BY ROMAIN FATHI

The United States under President Donald Trump and the European Union have a complicated relationship. On one hand, European countries and the US have built some of the strongest alliances since the end of the second world war. On the other, since the start of Trump’s second term in 2025, they have openly clashed on significant issues: tariffs, NATO contributions, Palestinian statehood, Israel’s interventionism, Ukraine support levels and Greenland’s sovereignty.

Trump’s sudden war on Iran is the latest of these clashes, but it is distinctive because it is shaking the world’s economy. The US war on Iran, alongside Israel’s war on Lebanon, is accelerating a notable reshaping of European alliances and strategic thinking about the union’s future.

The EU has more than 450 million inhabitants, and its GDP is nearly on par with that of the US or China. Despite its polymorphic nature, and in fact perhaps because of it, it is a world player that can exercise considerable sway over international affairs.

European leaders are now attempting to drive a lasting ceasefire, and perhaps even peace, between the US and Iran, with the aim of reopening the strait of Hormuz as soon as possible.

A non-UN/NATO sanctioned conflict

EU countries believe in the rules-based order and international institutions. This is not only because of their democratic constitution and values, but also because they offer them better protection than “might makes right”.

Trump’s unilateral war on Iran sits well beyond international conventions. It was neither sanctioned by a UN mandate or resolution, nor approved by NATO. As a result, European leaders have refused to contribute.

Spain and Italy have outwardly refused to allow US weapon-carrying planes bound for the Iran conflict to use their bases. Meanwhile, France is taking a more case-by-case approach in authorising or declining use of its airspace as part of operations linked to the conflict.

Spain, Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom have also refused to send direct military support to contribute to Trump’s war. However, France and the UK are willing to deploy within a peace or maritime security framework once the war is over.

Europe united, at last?

Trump’s war on Iran has accelerated a much deeper, more significant process: the coordination of European leaders on central issues such as European strategic independence in defence, diplomacy and energy.

Since Trump’s return to the Oval Office, there has been a subtle but important diversification of the EU’s diplomatic and military agreements with regional partners. Six such agreements have been signed by the EU, followed by a dozen more bilateral agreements of its member states with other countries.

This greater European coordination is being validated and reinforced by the war in Iran. The global disruption in the production and circulation of petro-based products generated by the near total closure of the Straight of Hormuz is prompting urgent European responses.

On April 17, in Paris, UK and French leaders Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, flanked by their German and Italian counterparts Friedrich Merz and Giorgia Meloni, co-presided over a conference on navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. They were joined by 49 other countries, with more than half of the EU’s member states present alongside representatives of EU institutions and international organisations.

The meeting proposed the “full, immediate, and unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz”. The leaders agreed to start planning, from London next week, a neutral mission to guarantee safety and free passage in the strait.

The war in Iran and Trump’s criticisms of the pope have ruptured Trump’s relationship with Meloni, whose electoral base has grown worried about the US president’s unpredictability.

A shifting tide

For a time, Trump and the MAGA movement had worked hard, and somewhat successfully, to drive a wedge between European leaders. They supported the far right in Germany, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Meloni in Italy.

But, just three days before Meloni arrived in Paris, Orbán faced an enormous electoral defeat. During the 16 years of his iron-fist rule in Hungary, the pro-Russian Orbán had been a critic of Europe, creating considerable headaches for the EU by blocking a range of initiatives and providing sensitive information to his friend Vladimir Putin. His replacement by a more moderate leader, Péter Magyar, has sparked significant hope in European chancelleries for greater unity.

The internal divisions that Trump relied on to deal with Europe are eroding.

Furthermore, his threats to acquire Greenland only months ago were met by immediate European reactions such as putting a commercial agreement with the US on ice, launching operation “Arctic Endurance”, and affirming Danish and European sovereignty. The EU has once again shown its ability to resist Washington’s pressures and affirm its strategic autonomy.

Where now for Europe?

These episodes in national and international affairs have prepared the ground for a more united approach to the current crisis. European leaders, so often hampered by divisions exacerbated by Russia and the US, are now in a unique position to weigh in on the current Iran crisis and the shock it is delivering to the global economy.

This is because the concerns that unite them – energy security, potential inflation and unemployment – overrule any ideological affinity towards Moscow or Washington.

Besides greater diplomatic integration of European member states, the current crisis is also a catalyst for the European Commission to accelerate its efforts to limit consumption of fossil fuel, safeguard supply networks and accelerate the electrification of Europe’s economies through nuclear and renewables.

Paradoxically, the Iran and Hormuz crises have – as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did in 2022 – driven further European integration. This renewed faith in a European voice is happening both between member states and between European institutions such as the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council.

This rapprochement between European leaders is starting to yield outcomes beyond the Iranian crisis. Visiting Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on April 20, Macron declared he was “reasonably optimistic” for a “new era in Europe”, starting with more support for Ukraine, previously vetoed by the departed Orban.

The significant disruptions created by Trump’s attack on Iran may well have the side effect of a more autonomous and sovereign Europe. Despite the tensions between the US and European states, all have an interest in a peaceful Iran – and Ukraine.

For some in Europe, the war in Iran may be resolved amicably if further collaboration is achieved through US support in Ukraine.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

6 African Thinkers Who Help Us Understand The World – New Book

BY CHRISTOPHE PRIMAT

PROFESSOR, CANADIAN AND CULTURAL

STUDIES, STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY

Who counts as an intellectual? In many traditions, the figure of the intellectual is tied to the search for truth, social critique and public engagement. From the Dreyfus Affair (a political scandal in 1894 in France that mobilised writers and thinkers to defend justice) to postcolonial debates, intellectuals are those who intervene in society, not just to interpret the world, but to challenge it.

In the African context, this role takes on particular urgency. Intellectuals on the continent and in the diaspora have long navigated a complex terrain shaped by colonial legacies, political constraints and global inequalities. They are not simply producers of knowledge. They are mediators between worlds, engaged in a struggle over meaning, identity and historical narrative.

As a scholar of cultural studies and postcolonial thought, I’ve sought, in a new French book, to analyse their paths not as isolated figures, but as part of a broader constellation of what we’ve called “African intellectual sensibilities”.

These are ways of thinking that are at once critical, situated and globally engaged. This approach highlights how African thinkers contribute not only to debates about Africa, but also to the redefinition of knowledge production itself.

So, identifying African thinkers is not just an exercise in recognition. It’s part of a broader effort to rebalance an intellectual history that has too often marginalised or misrepresented African contributions. As Congolese philosopher Valentin-Yves Mudimbe famously argued, Africa has often been constructed as an object of knowledge rather than a subject producing it.

From this perspective, here are six intellectuals whose work helps us rethink Africa and the world.
The famous

1. Valentin-Yves Mudimbe (1941-2025)

Mudimbe is one of the most influential African philosophers of the late 20th century. His seminal work The Invention of Africa dismantles what he calls the “colonial library”, the body of western knowledge that has historically defined Africa from the outside.

Rather than simply rejecting western thought, Mudimbe proposes a critical archaeology of knowledge. His work invites us to rethink how Africa can be known and, crucially, how it can speak for itself. He shifts the question from what Africa is to who has the power to define it.

His contribution goes further. By drawing on thinkers like Michel Foucault from France, he shows that knowledge is never neutral. It’s embedded in structures of power. This allows Mudimbe to expose how academic disciplines, from anthropology to history, have participated in constructing a distorted image of Africa.

His work opened the way for a generation of scholars who now seek to produce knowledge from within African perspectives rather than about Africa as an external object.

2. Achille Mbembe (born 1957)

A major voice in contemporary global theory, Cameroonian historian Mbembe explores how power operates in postcolonial societies. In works such as On the Postcolony and Critique of Black Reason, he analyses the afterlives of colonial violence and their impact on subjectivity.

Mbembe also emphasises the need for Africa to produce its own narratives. For him, intellectual work is inseparable from historical trauma, but also from the possibility of reinvention.

One of his key contributions is the concept of “necropolitics”, which examines how modern forms of power determine who may live and who must die. This framework has been widely used to analyse conflicts, borders and inequalities far beyond the continent.

At the same time, Mbembe insists on moving beyond victimhood. His work points toward what he sees as an emerging African future, shaped by mobility, creativity and new forms of belonging in a globalised world.

The fascinating

3. George Ayittey (1945–2022)

Ghanaian economist and thinker Ayittey stands out for his uncompromising critique of postcolonial African elites. While acknowledging the impact of colonialism, he argues that many of Africa’s problems today stem from internal governance failures such as corruption, authoritarianism and institutional decay.

One of his most influential ideas is the distinction between “cheetahs” and “hippos”. Cheetahs are a new generation of reform minded Africans, hippos are entrenched elites resistant to change. This captures a broader critique of political stagnation and elite capture.

Ayittey also insists on the importance of indigenous African institutions as resources for political renewal. His work is therefore not only critical, it is also programmatic, calling for a reconstruction of governance.

4. Kwasi Wiredu (1931-2022)

Ghanaian philosopher Wiredu is one of the most important figures in African philosophy. His central project, conceptual decolonisation, aims to free African thought from uncritically adopting western philosophical categories.

For Wiredu, language plays a crucial role. Philosophical problems are often shaped by the language they’re formulated in. By returning to African languages, he shows that debates about truth, personhood or political organisation can be reframed in very different ways.

His work on consensus-based political systems, inspired by Akan traditions, is particularly influential. Rather than relying on majoritarian democracy, Wiredu explores forms of deliberation that include agreement and social cohesion. In the process, he does not reject universality. He redefines it from within African intellectual traditions.

5. Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyěwùmí (born 1957)

Nigerian sociologist and gender scholar Oyěwùmí’s work offers a powerful critique of western ideas being applied to the rest of the world. In The Invention of Women, she argues that gender, as understood in western societies, was imposed on Yoruba social structures through colonialism.

Her research demonstrates that social organisation in Yoruba society was not originally structured around gender in the same way.

Rather than gender serving as the main axis of social difference, other markers such as age and status played a more central role. This challenges the assumption that categories such as man and woman are universally foundational.

More broadly, her work invites us to question how knowledge travels and how it can distort the realities it claims to describe.
The rising

6. Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni (born 1967)

Zimbabwean historian Ndlovu-Gatsheni is a leading voice in decolonial theory. His work focuses on coloniality, understood as the persistence of colonial patterns of power long after formal independence.

He criticises the global division of intellectual labour, where African scholars are often confined to producing data while the theory is developed elsewhere. For him, the issue is about who has the authority to produce knowledge.

His work calls for African perspectives to be put in the centre of global debates and for a transformation of the structures that continue to marginalise them.
Beyond a list

African intellectuals are not a uniform group. They operate across disciplines such as philosophy, history, economics, sociology and literature, and across spaces around the world.

What unites them is a shared engagement with a central question. How can Africa be thought critically in a world still marked by unequal power relations?

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

NATO’s Internal Cohesion Is Being Threatened (Again) – But In Pushing For Support On Iran, Trump May Risk Eroding US Influence On The Alliance

BY MICHAEL A. ALLEN, CARLA MARTINEZ MACHAIN AND MICHAEL E. FLYNN

Soon after the Israeli-U.S. war in Iran began on Feb. 28, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump called upon NATO allies to help support the effort. The response of European leaders was at first mixed. Some, like the United Kingdom, offering limited or qualified support. Others — chief among them Spain — refused to assist the U.S. at all.

NATO members’ opposition to getting involved with the conflict hardened further after the alliance decided to sit out the subsequent U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

The extent of the division between Washington and other members is such that European leaders have quietly begun considering a plan B should Trump make good on his threats to pull out of NATO altogether.

As experts on foreign policy, overseas military bases and security cooperation, we believe that even though historical tensions within NATO are not new, the recent divisions nonetheless pose a major challenge for the long-term viability of the alliance, particularly in an increasingly fragile U.S.-led international order.
The divisions that preceded Iran

Beyond the recent disagreements over Iran, 2026 has also seen the possibility of conflict between NATO members themselves.

In January, long-standing Trump designs over Greenland seemed closer than ever, with the U.S. verbally, at least, suggesting it was prepared to use economic and military coercion to acquire the territory from Denmark, a NATO ally. Despite tensions having since subsided, Denmark has released unprecedented details about how it prepared to defend against military action by its longtime ally.

While the extent of the Trump-originated rifts are new, NATO member nations disagreeing – sometimes vociferously – is not.

In the 1960s and ‘70s, when the U.S. was embroiled in the Vietnam War, members of Congress called on NATO members to contribute more to their own defense. Those were demands that the first Trump administration would later repeat.

In 2003, the U.S. push to invade Iraq also divided NATO. While some members, like the U.K. and Poland, joined the U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq, others, such as France and Germany, opposed the invasion. Turkey, another NATO member, notably denied the U.S. use of bases in its territory in the lead-up to the campaign.

The increasing tensions led the NATO secretary-general at the time, George Robertson of Britain, to downplay the growing divide and assure the world that NATO members still supported the United States.

NATO countries have even come close to war with each other in the past. Most notably, Turkey and Greece came to blows several times, usually over their still-unresolved territorial conflict over Cyprus in the Mediterranean.
NATO’s evolving mission

Reducing tensions among European nations was always part of the NATO project. With the two world wars driven in large part by French-German rivalry, reducing intra-alliance conflict was central to NATO’s purpose. The first secretary-general of NATO, Lord Lionel Hastings Ismay, famously described NATO as aimed at “keeping the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.”

With the fall of the Soviet Union, one of NATO’s core pillars collapsed.

In the 1990s, the organization’s mission shifted from an anti-Russian defense pact to promoting European regional security. During this period, NATO took part in conflicts in the Balkans from 1992 to 1999. It still maintains a peacekeeping presence there.

In 2001, when launching its war against Afghanistan, the U.S. invoked Article V, NATO’s collective defense clause, for the first and, to date, only time. This led NATO member nations to become militarily active well beyond Europe’s borders, including operations in Pakistan, the coast of Africa, Libya and Iraq.

The 1990s and early 2000s also saw NATO expand to include several former Soviet republics, a move that Russia opposed as hostile to its interests. In fact, post-Cold War NATO expansion into East Europe has long been one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s chief grievances against U.S. foreign policy in Europe.

The Russian invasions of Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine in 2022 led to a renewed focus on Russia and Europe’s eastern borders, with NATO member nations coordinating on sanctions and military aid in support of Ukraine’s government. The war also led to another round of expansion, with Finland joining the alliance in 2023 and Sweden in 2024.
Trump’s opposition to NATO

While NATO has grown and its mission focus has changed over time, the Trump administration’s call to action against Iran is not an obvious extension of the organization’s evolved focus.

The war is geographically removed from Europe, and Trump has largely been unsuccessful in making the case for why Iran posed an imminent threat to NATO nations. The United States’ motivations and war aims also remain unclear and have been prone to change.

European countries largely agree on issues like preventing Iran from pursuing an unlimited nuclear program. But they have long preferred diplomatic initiatives – like the 2015 nuclear accord deal with Iran brokered during the Obama Administration – to military strikes.

Part of the disconnect now is how the U.S. under Trump views multilateral institutions compared with his predecessors. While past U.S. presidents have viewed NATO as an extension of the United States’ global interests, they also tended to value the alliance as a whole, despite Washington not always getting its preferred outcomes from it. For Trump, it is far more transactional.

Indeed, the Trump administration has framed the lack of support from NATO nations as evidence of the alliance’s decreased utility to the U.S.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently echoed that position, questioning the use of the alliance after several NATO members refused to allow the U.S. to use their airspace to conduct military operations in Iran.

During his first term, Trump also openly questioned NATO’s purpose. And he has repeatedly pressured allies to increase their defense spending, suggesting that allies were cheating the U.S. by an overreliance on American military strength.
The specter of unintended consequences

Even before Trump’s threats during his second term, Europe had already decided to change course. After the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the increasing fragility of the United States’ involvement in NATO, European countries began increasing military spending; NATO allies have also set targets for further increases in the coming years.

Germany aims to increase its military personnel by 50% in the next 10 years, and it has created its first permanent military deployment abroad – in Lithuania – since World War II. France has likewise announced plans to expand its nuclear arsenal and use it for extended deterrence for the rest of Europe.

Ironically, more spending may increase the chance of tensions between the Trump administration and NATO members.

Over time, the U.S. has reaped some benefits when allies spend less on their own defense. That’s because the U.S. has historically provided security guarantees for countries in exchange for more say over their foreign policies – something scholars refer to as the security–autonomy trade-off.

However, as the U.S. moves further away from a shared vision with European countries and U.S. policy becomes more volatile, American security guarantees may be less reliable in the eyes of many Europeans. Increased European defense budgets will therefore mean NATO members have more opportunities to assert their preferences against those of the U.S.
A changing role for NATO?

The world for the past 80 years has been characterized largely by U.S. political and military dominance. While it is clear that that world is changing, it is less clear what will replace it.

But understanding NATO’s history and its possible paths forward can give us some clues as to what that world will look like. And contrary to Trump’s short-term aims in nudging NATO allies to rebuild their militaries, a more powerful Europe likely means less U.S. influence in the long term, not more.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Nigeria’s New Election Law Leaves Gaps: 5 Reforms For Free, Fair And Credible Polls

Voters queue to vote in 2023 elections, Lagos, Nigeria. NurPhoto/Getty Images

BY EMMANUEL REMI AIYEDE

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS,

GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC POLICY,

UNVERSITY OF IBADAN

Nigeria’s new Electoral Act, passed in February 2026, is a significant attempt to overhaul the country’s electoral framework.

The act establishes a dedicated funding framework and requires that election funds be released no later than six months before a general election.

Technology will be the only method allowed for voter accreditation, and results will have to be transmitted electronically.

There will be stricter penalties for electoral misconduct such as falsifying results and manipulating or buying votes.

Political parties must maintain a digital membership register and submit it to the electoral commission at least 21 days before their primaries.

With these and other provisions, the act provides a stronger foundation for Nigeria’s elections than its predecessor. It helps in the push for technological integration and financial autonomy for the electoral commission.

However, laws alone do not guarantee credible elections.

It’s my view, as a scholar of electoral systems and governance in Nigeria, that the act doesn’t tackle some of the real problems of electoral governance. There are deeper structural issues that should be addressed to improve electoral integrity.

I submit that Nigeria needs five urgent reforms to create a free and fair voting system. These are:

strengthening the independence of the electoral commission

improving the candidate selection process

enhancing electoral transparency

addressing voter apathy

ensuring severe punishment for vote-buying.

My recommendations are based on the gaps in the recently enacted legislation and the historical context of Nigeria’s democratic journey.

Democracy in Nigeria is the primary mechanism for managing the country’s diversity and ensuring that its resources translate into shared prosperity rather than elite enrichment. Nigeria has a history of military rule, secessionist attempts, and inter-ethnic mistrust. Free, fair and credible elections are crucial for resolving political competition without violence.

1. Strengthen the electoral commission

The credibility of any electoral process is tied to the independence and capacity of the electoral management body. The Electoral Act 2026 takes a crucial step by establishing a dedicated fund for the Independent National Electoral Commission.

However, analysis of Nigeria’s electoral reforms since 1999 shows that administrative success is linked to the commission’s ability to exercise political independence. Its leadership appointments should be more transparent and insulated from presidential discretion.

The 2026 act expands the commission’s authority to review questionable result declarations made under duress. To solidify this reform, leadership must be insulated from partisan interference. Only persons with impeccable credentials and a proven record of non-partisanship should be considered.

The president should not be the one to appoint the head of the commission. Several suggestions have been offered, including the one by the Uwais committee that it be done by the National Judicial Council or a multi-stakeholder appointment committee. What matters is that the process be competitive and open. The election focused NGO Yiaga Africa has suggested that the president should publish the list of potential nominees for public scrutiny before sending a name to the National Assembly. An appointment committee should represent various interests, including professional bodies like the Nigerian Bar Association, Nigeria Union of Journalists, and civil society organisations.

2. Strengthen democratic candidate selection

Since 1999, primaries – internal processes through which political parties choose their candidates for public office – have been dominated by money and a small cabal of delegates. Both undermine the will of ordinary party members.

The 2026 Electoral Act confronts this issue by abolishing indirect primaries, which limit voting to selected party delegates. Now, all registered members of a political party will be able to vote in choosing the party’s candidate, except in the case of consensus.

Section 77 mandates that political parties keep a digital register of members and submit it to the electoral body at least 21 days before any primary, congress, or convention. The success of this hinges on the integrity and accuracy of the new registers.

3. Enhance transparency

The 2023 general elections exposed weaknesses in collating and sending results. This erodes public trust.

The 2026 act seeks to address these weak spots by making technology mandatory. Section 47 mandates the use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System to check that the person casting a vote is who they claim to be. Section 60(3) makes the electronic transmission of results to the viewing portal compulsory.

A loophole remains. The act permits the use of a manual form to send results where the electronic technology fails. The law does not define what “failure” is, nor does it establish an independent process to certify such failures.

This ambiguity recreates the discretion that led to the widespread failures of 2023, where only a fraction of results were uploaded in a timely manner.

4. Address voter apathy

The steady decline in voter turnout from 52.3% in 1999 to an alarming 26.72% in the 2023 general elections is a threat to Nigeria’s democratic legitimacy. It’s not a problem of civic laziness or voter fatigue. In my view it reflects an erosion of trust in the electoral process itself. When the electoral body failed to deliver on its promise of real-time electronic result transmission in 2023, it was a betrayal of citizens.

Restoring voter confidence requires showing that votes count, through electronic transmission of results. Electoral offenders must be prosecuted. Judicial decisions must respect voter intent rather than technicalities.

Immediate practical reforms are possible. They include introducing early voting for the over one million essential workers, security personnel, election officials, journalists and observers who can’t vote on election day. The 15 million Nigerians in the diaspora should be able to vote too, through provisions already adopted by 40 African nations.

5. Criminalising vote buying

Widespread poverty and inequality make Nigerian voters susceptible to vote buying. This reduces elections to auctions rather than choices. Without aggressive enforcement, the secret ballot becomes a commodity. Then democracy becomes a market for the highest bidder, keeping corrupt politicians in office.

Moving forward

Electoral reform is not a single event but a continuous democratic project. Its success will be measured not by statutory text, but by the integrity of the 2027 elections and beyond.

It requires sustained citizen engagement, civil society vigilance, and political determination to build an electoral system that commands the trust and participation of all its people.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Motown Girl Group Martha And The Vandellas Not Only Recorded An Anthem For The Civil Rights Era – They Fought For Fair Pay And Proudly Called Themselves Divas

BY AUSTIN MCCOY

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY,

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

The CBS television show “It’s What’s Happening Baby” aired a music video featuring Martha and the Vandellas performing their hit song “Nowhere to Run” to kick off its national broadcast dedicated to Detroit on June 28, 1965.

In the video, the Detroit-based trio sang about how they could not escape missing an ex-lover after a breakup while sitting in a white Mustang moving slowly down the assembly line in the Ford Motor Co.’s River Rouge plant.

As a cultural and labor historian, I see the “Nowhere to Run” video as an iconic testament to Detroit’s reputation as the “Motor City” and the role of the autoworker in the American imagination.

Motown founder and CEO Berry Gordy, Jr. worked on the Ford assembly line and used it as inspiration for Hitsville U.S.A., the famed headquarters and music recording studio that served as a space to train performers and perfect the “Motown sound” for the masses.

Martha and the Vandellas were part of Motown’s illustrious roster of artists in the 1960s. Initially comprised of Martha Reeves, Rosalind Ashford and Annette Beard, and with members changing over the next three decades, they helped establish the Black “girl group.” They presented themselves as working class in videos like “Nowhere to Run.”

Their classic anthem “Dancing in the Street” reflected the revolutionary mood of civil rights protesters, especially Black Americans in the 1960s. As lead singer, Reeves also emerged as a pioneering R&B “diva,” helping pave the way for Black female solo vocalists like Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson, Mary J. Blige and Beyoncé.

A patient path to stardom

Martha Reeves was born in Eufaula, Alabama, on July 18, 1941. Soon after, her family moved to Detroit’s east side. Music occupied a central place in her life from childhood.

Reeves writes in her 1994 memoir, “Dancing in the Street: Confessions of a Motown Diva,” about her father serenading her mother with his guitar while she was pregnant with Martha. Her mother, Ruby, also sang. Reeves’ parents passed their love for music to her, and she sang in her church choir and aspired to a life of performance.

“At that young age I was already hooked on pleasing the crowd with my singing,” Reeves wrote.

Reeves graduated from Northeastern High School. As a teenager, she used fake IDs to get into night clubs to watch singers perform, and she sang in open mics and talent shows. She scored her first break after earning a three-night performance at the 20 Grand, a popular Detroit night club located on 14th Street and Warren Avenue.

It was after one of those performances when she met William Stevenson, Motown Records’ executive for discovering new talent. Stevenson invited Reeves to the label’s headquarters.

Reeves came to the studio, but she didn’t audition for reasons that aren’t entirely clear today. Instead, Stevenson told her she could answer the phones. That’s how she got a job in the A&R Department and began working with other Motown artists.

In 1957, Reeves joined her first group, the Del-Phis. Formed by Edward “Pops” Larkins, the Del-Phis also included leader Gloria Jean Williamson, Rosalind Ashford and Annette Beard.

Reeves soon caught another break. In September 1962, Stevenson called for her to fill in for Mary Wells in a Marvin Gaye studio session. Reeves enlisted the other Del-Phis, and they performed so well that they became the supporting vocal group for Gaye.

After the Del-Phis toured with Gaye and recorded “I’ll Have to Let Him Go,” Gordy offered Reeves, Beard and Ashford a recording contract. The group also took on a new name, Martha and the Vandellas.

Martha and the Vandellas enjoyed commercial success soon after, with songs like “Come and Get These Memories,” “Quicksand” and “Heatwave.”

An anthem for revolution set to a groove

“Dancing in the Street,” written by Gaye, Stevenson and Ivy Jo Hunter, was released in the summer of 1964 and became a signature hit for Martha and the Vandellas.

Reeves wrote in her autobiography that she did not like “Dancing in the Street.”

However, she made it her own, and Reeves later acknowledged that the song embodied the spirit of civil rights protests.

“It became the anthem of the decade,” Reeves wrote.

She was right.

At the time of the song’s release, the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing. Black Americans in Harlem took to the streets to protest the killing of 15-year-old James Powell by an off-duty New York Police Department officer.

The 1960s set off a string of “long, hot summers” as racial tensions intensified. Black folks in the Watts neighborhood in Los Angeles in 1965 protested in the streets in response to police violence.

More than 100 protests were organized in response to Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination in 1968, from Chicago to Washington and Baltimore.

Detroit erupted a year earlier, in July 1967, after Detroit police officers raided a “blind pig,” or an unlicensed bar, on 12th Street.

The iconic opening lines of “Dancing in the Street” announced a new attitude among Black folks: “Calling out around the world/ Are you ready for a brand new beat?”

The high-octane, optimistic song is laced with slogans interpreted as invitations to take action. Martha and the Vandellas’ declaration that “Summer is here and the time is right for dancing in the street” reflected Black Americans’ willingness to not only march, but to take measures in their own hands and fight for equality and justice.

Battle for fair pay and recognition

The late 1960s and early 1970s were a time of transition for Reeves and the Vandellas. The Supremes were on the rise and threatened to displace them as the most prominent girl group on the Motown label. Reeves also experienced creative differences with Motown executives and struggled with drug addiction. Then, in 1972, Gordy moved Motown to Los Angeles so he could try his hand at filmmaking.

Martha and the Vandellas broke up later that year after the release of their album, “Black Magic.” However, Reeves continued as a solo artist, releasing five albums, including her self-titled debut “Martha Reeves” in 1974, “The Rest of My Life” in 1976 and “We Meet Again” in 1978, among others.

Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, along with many Motown artists, experienced a resurgence in popularity during the 1980s. Motown Records’ 25th anniversary show in Pasadena, California, in 1983 launched them back into the mainstream. The group reunited and started performing again in 1989.

Also, Reeves and the group sought to resolve their old conflicts with Motown Records. Reeves and various members of the Vandellas sued Gordy and Motown in 1989 for unpaid royalties. Motown Records settled the suit in 1991 for an undisclosed amount.

Four years later, the B-52s inducted Reeves and the Vandellas into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

The diva archetype

Martha and the Vandellas played a vital role in laying the foundation for future all-Black female groups like En Vogue, TLC, SWV and Destiny’s Child.

They helped set the standard for turning songs about the trappings of love and heartbreak into anthems. Reeves embraced being an “R&B Diva” long before music critics applied the persona to singers like Mary J. Blige and Beyoncé. Reeves was not just a larger-than-life vocal presence; she showed future generations of Black female vocalists that, to be a diva, one must have control of one’s own career.

“We became the Vandellas and with me being the only lead singer, my name was put out there because I did all the work,” Reeves said in a 2020 interview. “I did all the singing … I managed to just come up with my own destiny, with my own future in show business.”

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

FELA KUTI: ROCK & ROLL HALL OF FAME 2026 INDUCTEE

Fela and Egypt 80 Band performs inside the shrine. Image: William F. Campbell, 1983

"The Shrine

The Rituals.

The Banter, Yabis Night.

The Audience.

The Protest Songs. Related Activism

Societal ills

Politicians and widespread Scandals of Bribery and Corruption

The junta, dictatorship and absolute shutdown of Press Freedom

No one else could have done it"

Afro Beat legend will be presented with the 'Early Influence Award' at the 2026 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction on November 14, 2026 at the Peacock Theater in Los Angeles.

A Justice Department Opinion Arguing The Presidential Records Act Is Unconstitutional Could Revert The Nation To A Time When Presidents Freely Burned Their Papers

President Jimmy Carter, seen here at his Oval Office desk, signed legislation in 1978 that he said would ‘ensure that Presidential papers remain public property after the expiration of a President’s term.’ Corbis/Getty Images

BY AUSTIN SARAT

WILLIAM NELSON CROMWELL

PROFESSOR OF JURISPRUDENCE AND

POLITICAL SCIENCE, AMHERST COLLEGE

Prior to 1978, U.S. presidents could do what they pleased with the records from their time in office. They owned them.

But in 1978, the Presidential Records Act established new rules for the official records of a president. Passed in the wake of Watergate, when President Richard Nixon tried to keep incriminating materials from being made public, the law changed who legally owned the papers: It was now the American public.

Under the act’s terms, “all records must be furnished to the White House Archivist and ultimately made subject to public disclosure … and the President may not discard or destroy records without the express agreement of the Archivist.”

When he signed the act, President Jimmy Carter heralded it as a way to “make the Presidency a more open institution” and ensure “that our Government … merits the trust of the people from whom a President and his Government derive their power.”

But now the Trump administration wants to undo the reform that put presidential papers in the hands of the public.

On April 1, 2026, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, known as the OLC, released an opinion claiming that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional. Its opinion says that Congress lacks authority to regulate what happens to documents maintained in the executive branch and, as a result, the Presidential Records Act violates the separation of powers.

Public interest groups and some historians responded to the OLC memo with alarm. The watchdog group American Oversight called the Presidential Records Act a bulwark against the possibility that presidents will “hide evidence of corruption, abuse of power, and misconduct from the public …” On April 6, 2026, the group filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the president from acting on the OLC memo.

Whether the Trump administration or American Oversight is right about the Presidential Records Act is likely to be determined by a judge. In the meantime, the significance of the OLC’s opinion cannot be overstated.

That’s because the Office of Legal Counsel is “the Executive Branch’s preeminent legal advisor,” wrote federal judge Florence Pan in 2025. “Executive Branch agencies treat OLC’s legal conclusions as binding.”

I’ve written about secrecy in government, and the argument about the Presidential Records Act has a familiar ring. It is the latest version of an ongoing conflict about how much transparency is necessary and desirable in American government.

Neglected, burned, sold, vanished

Throughout most of U.S. history, presidential records have been treated as the president’s personal property. They could dispose of them as they wished.

The Indiana University library’s Guide to Presidential Papers, Congressional Papers, and Classified Materials says, “Sometimes the Library of Congress purchased a president’s papers from his heirs, as in the case of George Washington. Sometimes the president’s heirs sold off or donated various parts of the collection to different collectors and organizations.”

Some presidential materials were neglected and vanished. And one president, Martin Van Buren, burned some of his papers.

The idea that presidential papers had some public value began to emerge in the 20th century. In 1934, Congress passed legislation establishing the National Archives. It charged the new agency with preserving the official records of the federal government.

However, that legislation did not require that the president turn over his records to the archives. So in 1955, Congress passed the Presidential Libraries Act.

That law was designed to encourage presidents to turn over their records to the federal government. It also provided funding for presidential libraries to provide places to keep presidential records and make them available to the public. But here again, there were no teeth: The law did not require a departing president to give anything to the government, nor to build a library to house his papers.

All that changed in the wake of the Watergate scandal. That’s when it became clear that, but for the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1974 United States v. Nixon case, Nixon intended to cover up what had happened and would have gotten rid of his incriminating White House tapes.

The passage in 1978 of the Presidential Records Act was a response to the Nixon scandal. Yet as attorney Sara Worth writes in a blog post for Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, Congress “declined to include an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance,” instead envisioning “future Presidents’ good-faith cooperation with the statutory mandate.”

DOJ: It’s a negotiation

After the FBI raid on his Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022 uncovered a trove of classified documents that had been removed from government premises, then former-President Trump argued that the Presidential Records Act didn’t apply to what he had done. He said he was actually complying with the act by refusing to relinquish presidential records.

In March 2023, Trump told Fox News that the law is “very specific”: “It says you are going to discuss the documents. You discuss everything – not only docu– everything – about what’s going in NARA, et cetera, et cetera. You’re gonna discuss it. You will talk, talk, talk. And if you can’t come to an agreement, you’re gonna continue to talk.”

Trump apparently meant that there would be negotiation over what constituted a presidential document that could be kept by the former president and what didn’t. That view is hard to reconcile with one of the Presidential Records Act’s unambiguous provisions: “Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.”

Now, the Office of Legal Counsel is telling Trump that he can ignore that provision.

In addition, in its consideration of the Presidential Records Act, the OLC embraced Trump’s expansive view of presidential power. It argued that the Presidential Records Act is “unconstitutional for two independent but interlocking reasons: It exceeds Congress’s enumerated and implied powers, and it aggrandizes the Legislative Branch at the expense of the constitutional independence and autonomy of the Executive.”

The Justice Department’s lawyers appealed to history and tradition to buttress their conclusion: “Over the first two centuries of the American experiment in self-government, Presidents owned and controlled presidential papers, and Congress obtained such papers through political negotiation and interbranch accommodation, rather than as a matter of right. That historical practice was interrupted by the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act.”

‘Let the people know the facts’

The idea that citizens have a right to access information of the kind made possible by the Presidential Records Act can be traced back to the Enlightenment. American revolutionary Patrick Henry observed in 1788, “The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”

Seven decades later, Abraham Lincoln echoed Henry when he said, “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe.”

In our era, that is what laws like the Presidential Records Act make possible. The Presidential Records Act plays an important role in preserving the liberty and security that Henry and Lincoln spoke about.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE