Author: user user

Royal Caribbean Nigeria has unveiled its Summer 2026 Mediterranean sailings aboard Legend of the Seas, the newest addition to its Icon Class fleet, offering Nigerian travellers an opportunity to explore multiple Mediterranean destinations on a single cruise.

The summer itinerary is designed to appeal to a wide range of travellers, including families, couples, honeymooners, solo travellers, corporate groups, schools, churches and first-time cruisers. Guests can work with Royal Caribbean Nigeria to choose itineraries, stateroom categories and optional experiences that suit their travel preferences.

A spokesperson for Royal Caribbean Nigeria said the cruise line is committed to providing personalised experiences for every category of guest.

‘Whether they are families, couples, solo travellers or large groups, guests can sail on the same ship and enjoy experiences tailored to their individual needs and interests,’ the spokesperson said.

The cruise welcomes guests of all ages, from infants to senior citizens, with dedicated facilities and activities for children, teenagers and adults. Families can enjoy shared experiences while children participate in age-appropriate programmes and adults take advantage of pools, fitness centres, live entertainment, wellness facilities and destination excursions.

The ship also offers accessible staterooms and facilities for guests with mobility challenges. Dietary requirements, allergies and religious meal preferences, including halal, kosher, vegetarian, vegan and gluten-free options, can be accommodated when requested in advance.

Guests will have access to a variety of complimentary dining venues serving multiple meals daily, alongside included beverages such as coffee, tea, juices, pizza and soft-serve ice cream. Premium restaurants, specialty dining, Wi-Fi and selected onboard experiences are available at an additional cost.

Legend of the Seas is also positioned as an ideal venue for group travel and special occasions, including birthdays, anniversaries, honeymoons, graduations, retirements and family reunions. Groups booking a minimum of eight staterooms may qualify for coordinated dining, accommodation and activity arrangements, subject to applicable terms.

Royal Caribbean Nigeria also offers travellers the option of booking complete holiday packages that include flights, hotel accommodation, airport transfers, travel insurance and shore excursions.

To encourage bookings, Fidelity Bank Visa Credit Card holders will receive a discount on cruise fares when they pay with their cards, providing additional value for Nigerians planning Mediterranean holidays during the Summer 2026 season.

The company said the new sailing combines multiple destinations, family-friendly experiences, diverse dining and entertainment with flexible travel options to deliver a memorable Mediterranean cruise holiday for Nigerian travellers.

Before the first ball was kicked at the 2026 FIFA World Cup, FIFA compelled Haiti, making its first appearance in the tournament, to alter its World Cup kit because it featured an illustration of the 1803 Battle of Vertières. The reason, FIFA argued, is that the war scene violated its regulations prohibiting political, religious or personal messages or slogans. Yet what FIFA, or the rule, ignored is that the World Cup is the ultimate theatre for nationalism, geopolitics and even religious expressions. If anything, this World Cup demonstrated that perhaps more than previous ones.

FIFA’s attempt to sanitise football from politics rests on a contradiction. The World Cup is not merely a football tournament. It is a gathering of nations. It begins with flags, anthems and national symbols. It stirs patriotism unlike almost any other global event. Politics is not an intrusion into the World Cup. It is woven into its fabric.

History proves as much. FIFA has frequently ignored human rights concerns and lent itself to sportswashing, the practice where dictators and tyrants use FIFA-organised events (or other sporting events) to launder their image. It awarded the hosting rights to Italy in 1934 because the country’s fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, wanted to whitewash his despotic regime. They had no problem with the 1978 World Cup being used by the Argentine junta to launder its image. This is an organisation that awarded the FIFA Under-20 World Cup to Nigeria under Abacha, first in 1995, before withdrawing the rights at the last minute over health concerns, and again in 1999. It was glaring that Abacha wanted to use that event to sportswash his regime. Sadly, he died suddenly months before the 1999 event and never got to achieve his goals. He did leave Nigeria with some decent usable stadiums that quickly fell into ruin. Even the 2022 Qatar World Cup was awarded against the backdrop of corruption allegations and human rights concerns in the Middle Eastern country.

It is therefore remarkable that the 2026 World Cup is being talked about in the same breath as the one in Qatar four years ago, and the previous one in Russia in 2018, with human rights concerns, corruption allegations and serious questions about the geopolitics of the host country. This one was dogged by questions of whether Iran, which legitimately qualified for the tournament, would be allowed to enter the United States. While Trump bullied the Iranian national team, denied some of their officials visas, FIFA stood aside and watched, offering paperweight platitudes with no consequence. In the end, Iran was allowed to play, but they were tossed about so much it was clear that the United States was using a FIFA event to torment a team FIFA itself had invited to participate in a tournament for which it had legitimately qualified.

The irony, then, is that FIFA chooses to police symbolism when it is politically inconvenient while ignoring politics when it serves commercial or institutional interests.

The final between the brilliant Spain and the outclassed Argentina was a ballet played out to the musical score of global geopolitics, much of it external to the players taking to the pitch. The Israel-Palestine war took centre stage, with Israel’s propaganda openly declaring for Argentina because the Spanish government and many Spaniards have been outspoken about Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Images of Spanish star Lamine Yamal hoisting the Palestinian flag during Barcelona’s title celebration in May, and of Lionel Messi visiting Jerusalem’s Western Wall in 2013 or being pictured with Benjamin Netanyahu, became central to the conversation.

However, the narrative ignored Messi’s photographs with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas from the same visit, ‘The Peace Tour’ organised by FC Barcelona, featuring Messi and the club’s other players. It ignored that he held a football clinic for Palestinian and Israeli children to promote peaceful coexistence. It ignored that Messi and the Argentine national team cancelled a friendly with Israel in 2018 for political and safety reasons.

Ignoring obvious facts is not new to the World Cup. While in this case it has largely come from fans, or if one is to believe the allegations, from an orchestrated disinformation campaign against Argentina, FIFA itself has long entrenched a culture of ignoring inconvenient facts for mercantile reasons. In December 2025, FIFA decided to ignore the war rhetoric coming from the United States, and the country’s role in the genocide in Gaza, to award a completely made-up ‘FIFA Peace Prize’ to President Donald Trump, who exactly a month later would attack another FIFA member country, Venezuela, and kidnap its president.

There was politics in the treatment of Iran, which FIFA condoned. Which makes it ironic that it decided to ban Haiti’s kit or threatened to sanction Argentina for holding up a banner claiming the Falkland Islands, which it has long contested with England, after defeating the Three Lions in the semi-final. Clashes such as England versus Argentina and the United States versus Iran will always carry politics, not as an undertone, but as the very stage upon which such games are played.

Football may be the beautiful game, but it has always been tied to ugly politics. So, while FIFA claims to sanitise the game from politics, it continues to embed politics in some of the controversial decisions it makes. When Russia invaded Ukraine, football leagues across Europe made political statements. They banned Russian teams, displayed Ukrainian flags and illuminated stadiums in blue and yellow. When the conflict in Gaza began, that solidarity and overt display became noticeably muted.

Which raises uncomfortable questions. If Lamine Yamal had, in that moment of youthful defiance and celebratory euphoria, raised a Ukrainian flag instead of a Palestinian one, would the world have batted an eye? Would the English national team, which lit Wembley Stadium in Ukraine’s colours, have been outraged that Argentina raised a banner about a matter with profound historical significance for its own country?

The decision by many Africans not to support South Africa, and even to celebrate its elimination, is rooted in the politics of migration and xenophobia playing out in that country. This politics of identity is woven so deeply into the fabric of football and the fan experience that it cannot be separated from it and the banter that drives the sport-Argentina has too many white players, France has too many blacks.

FIFA’s feeble attempts to divorce politics from football will always fail because FIFA itself is political. It acts on certain political provocations, endorses others and quietly ignores others, largely because of the inconvenience of those views or its own mercantile considerations. After all, FIFA is perhaps the world’s most powerful government that nobody voted for.

Politics is inherent in human nature. FIFA can ban Haiti’s jersey, prohibit an armband or threaten sanctions over a banner. What it cannot do is remove the politics that gives international football its emotional force. The World Cup is not football interrupted by politics. It is football played on the grand stage of politics itself.

On June 1, operatives of the State Security Service (SSS) detained and later released renowned U.S-based Nigerian writer Okey Ndibe at the Murtala Mohammed International Airport in Lagos. The SSS later denied arresting or detaining him, insisting that they had an interaction with him, as part of a routine process to remove his name from a long-standing watch list.

Ndibe, like many government critics, opposition figures, and journalists, had been on the SSS watch list. For him, it’s been since 2013. His case, according to the secret police, has now been reviewed and downgraded as part of an ongoing exercise to reassess and sanitise old Watch-List Actions (WLAs).

This development should mark a turning point. If the SSS is indeed sanitising its watch list, then the priority must shift from monitoring activists and journalists to populating the list with the names of bandits, terrorists, and other non-state actors who continue to destabilise Nigeria.

That was why it came as a welcome development when, three weeks ago, that Nigeria’s security operatives have arrested seven suspected members of Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP). The suspects had returned from the 2026 Hajj through the Umaru Musa Yar’Adua International Airport in Katsina State when they were detained.

The Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, who announced this, said the suspects were handed over to the SSS. He attributed the success of the arrests to improvements in Nigeria’s integrated digital identity and border management system, noting that the country’s biometric identity database now communicates with immigration records and international security platforms.

For many Nigerians, the news was both a relief and a source of concern. Relief because the country is safer with the extraction of seven dangerous criminals who, hopefully, will face justice for their atrocities. Again, the deployment of technology, and specifically the use of the National Identity Management Commission’s (NIMC) ID, a system Nigerians have long advocated for in tracking criminals, is now coming to fruition.

But there are also concerns. The question many have asked is how terrorists slipped through the country’s security, departing on an international trip without being flagged by security screening? How many in the real sense departed the country and how many slipped back without detection? Most worrisome is whether these terrorists simply went for Hajj or met with other terrorist cells outside the shores of Nigeria.

There are too many questions and not many answers at the moment. The government is equally yet to disclose the identities of the seven suspects, but their arrest is a reminder that terrorists are not confined to forests. They blend into society, exploit religious and cultural opportunities and move across borders.

Therefore, the lesson from the Katsina arrests is clear: Nigeria’s security agencies must increase vigilance. They must be more proactive and technologically driven. The arrest of the suspects is proof that when deployed intentionally and appropriately, the National Identification Number (NIN) can play a decisive role in identifying and apprehending criminals.

But for this to work, there must be synergy among all government and law enforcement officials, especially state governments, the SSS and Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS). State governments, particularly in northern Nigeria, must exercise caution in the release of huge sums of money for Hajj sponsorship. While this is not an indictment, there is a possibility that in states ravaged by banditry and where authorities sometimes negotiate with these criminal groups, such sponsorships could inadvertently benefit terrorists or their relatives.

Yes, monitoring of terrorists must extend to their relatives. Again, we do not advocate for the arrest of innocent relatives of criminals, as Nigeria’s law prohibits the arrest or detention of one person in place of another. But security agents must keep a close watch on these relatives, especially since terrorists also have families; they visit them, communicate with them, and in some instances, share vital information with them.

While these surveillances are ongoing, we call for more collaboration among the various state pilgrim agencies, the National Hajj Commission and Nigeria’s security forces in the screening of every intending pilgrim. We also urge the National Assembly to exercise stronger oversight over the management of Nigeria’s watch lists and biometric systems while committees on security and interior affairs must demand regular reports to ensure accountability.

Nigeria must also deepen cooperation with international partners, particularly Saudi Arabian authorities and Interpol, to track extremists who exploit religious pilgrimages or international travel. If Nigeria is to defeat terrorism, it must strengthen inter-agency synergy, legislative oversight, and global collaboration.

ýUnited States Senator Ted Cruz has accused Nigerian officials of responding to international concerns over alleged persecution of Christians by launching a public relations campaign instead of addressing the underlying security and religious freedom issues.

ý

ýCruz made the remarks in a post published on his verified X (formerly Twitter) account on Wednesday while reacting to recent developments surrounding U.S. congressional action on Nigeria.

ý

ý’Nigerian officials have created an environment that facilitates mass violence against Christians and religious minorities by imposing blasphemy and Sharia laws and looking the other way at jihadist atrocities,’ the Republican lawmaker wrote.

ý

ý’The U.S. government knows the Nigerian officials responsible for these policies. I have been pushing my bill to sanction them, and President Trump has even ordered military action.’

ý

ýCruz also alleged that rather than addressing concerns raised by the United States, Nigerian authorities opted for a communications campaign.

ý

ý’Instead of responding to American concerns, Nigerian officials waged a public relations campaign against critics,’ he wrote.

ý

ý’They were confident in that campaign and in their ability to continue the status quo, and I am heartened that the House has just definitively proven them wrong,’ he added.

ý

ýMeanwhile, the Nigerian government has consistently denied accusations that it condones or sponsors religious persecution.

ý

Daily Trust had reported ýhow the Federal Government hired a United States lobbying firm under a $9 million contract to strengthen Nigeria’s engagement with U.S. officials over allegations of attacks on Christian communities.

The Federal Government’s expenditure tracking platform, GovSpend, also showed how the Presidency spent N500 million in 2025 on what was described as an emergency strategic communications campaign.

ý

ýThe payment record stated that the funds were released to the Office of the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Policy Communications for ’emergency Strategic Communications and Global Media Engagement to counter coordinated Western propaganda against FGN on alleged Christian persecution.’

ý

ýThe spending formed part of a broader government effort to respond to growing international criticism over insecurity and allegations of religious persecution.

ý

ýDocuments filed under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) showed that the firm was retained through Aster Legal on behalf of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu.

ý

ýAccording to the agreement, DCI Group was contracted to help communicate Nigeria’s efforts to protect Christian communities and maintain U.S. support for countering jihadist groups and other destabilising elements in West Africa.

ý

ýThe contract provides for monthly payments of $750,000, with an initial $4.5 million six-month retainer.

ý

ýNigeria has come under increasing international scrutiny over attacks by insurgents, bandits and other armed groups.

ý

ýCruz has been among the most vocal members of the U.S. Congress calling for tougher action against Nigerian officials over alleged violations of religious freedom.