Equatorial Guinea on travel ban for visa overstays, says US official

The Trump administration has banned citizens from the African nation of Equatorial Guinea from entering the US on account of the high number of nationals overstaying their visas, the US ambassador said on Thursday.
Equatorial Guinea is among seven African countries on the list of 12 included in the administration's travel ban. The others include Chad, Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Somalia, Libya and Sudan.
Ambassador David Gilmour said in a statement posted on X that around 70% of students from Equatorial Guinea overstay their visas, along with 22% of business travellers and tourists.
The directive comes as the administration is cracking down on illegal immigration. The travel ban will take effect on June 9, 2025 at 12.01am EDT (4.01am GMT). Visas issued before that date will not be revoked.
"If you know someone who is presently in the United States without a valid visa, tell them to return to Equatorial Guinea immediately," Gilmour said.
The government in Equatorial Guinea did not immediately comment on the ban.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

eNCA

2 hours ago

• eNCA

World Bank and IMF climate snub 'worrying', says COP29 presidency

BONN - The hosts of the most recent UN climate talks are worried international lenders are retreating from their commitments to help boost funding for developing countries' response to global warming. Major development banks have agreed to boost climate spending and are seen as crucial in the effort to dramatically increase finance to help poorer countries build resilience to impacts and invest in renewable energy. But anxiety has grown as the Trump administration has slashed foreign aid and discouraged US-based development lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from focussing on climate finance. Developing nations, excluding China, will need an estimated $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 in financial assistance to transition to renewable energy and climate-proof their economies from increasing weather extremes. Nowhere near this amount has been committed. At last year's UN COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, rich nations agreed to increase climate finance to $300 billion a year by 2035, an amount decried as woefully inadequate. Azerbaijan and Brazil, which is hosting this year's COP30 conference, have launched an initiative to reduce the shortfall, with the expectation of "significant" contributions from international lenders. But so far only two -- the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank -- have responded to a call to engage the initiative with ideas, said COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev. "We call on their shareholders to urgently help us to address these concerns," he told climate negotiators at a high-level summit in the German city of Bonn this week. "We fear that a complex and volatile global environment is distracting" many of those expected to play a big role in bridging the climate finance gap, he added. - A 'worrisome trend' - His team travelled to Washington in April for the IMF and World Bank's spring meetings hoping to find the same enthusiasm for climate lending they had encountered a year earlier. But instead they found institutions "very much reluctant now to talk about climate at all", said Azerbaijan's top climate negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev. This was a "worrisome trend", he said, given expectations these lenders would extend the finance needed in the absence of other sources. "They're very much needed," he said. The World Bank is directing 45 percent of its total lending to climate, as part of an action plan in place until June 2026, with the public portion of that spilt 50/50 between emissions reductions and building resilience. The United States, the World Bank's biggest shareholder, has pushed in a different direction. On the sidelines of the April spring meetings, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the bank to focus on "dependable technologies" rather than "distortionary climate finance targets." This could mean investing in gas and other fossil fuel-based energy production, he said. Under the Paris Agreement, wealthy developed countries -- those most responsible for global warming to date -- are obliged to pay climate finance to poorer nations. Other countries, most notably China, make voluntary contributions. - Money matters - Finance is a source of long-running tensions at UN climate negotiations. Donors have consistently failed to deliver on past finance pledges, and have committed well below what experts agree developing nations need to cope with the climate crisis. The issue flared up again this week in Bonn, with nations at odds over whether to debate financial commitments from rich countries during the formal meetings. European nations have also pared back their foreign aid spending in recent months, raising fears that budgets for climate finance could also face a haircut. At COP29, multilateral development banks (MDBs) led by the World Bank Group estimated they could provide $120 billion annually in climate financing to low and middle income countries, and mobilise another $65 billion from the private sector by 2030. Their estimate for high income countries was $50 billion, with another $65 billion mobilised from the private sector. Rob Moore, of policy think tank E3G, said these lenders are the largest providers of international public finance to developing countries. "Whilst they are facing difficult political headwinds in some quarters, they would be doing both themselves and their clients a disservice by disengaging on climate change," he said. The World Bank in particular has done "a huge amount of work" to align its lending with global climate goals. "If they choose to step back this would be at their own detriment, and other banks like the regionally based MDBs would likely play a bigger role in shaping the economy of the future," he said. The World Bank declined to comment on the record.

Mail & Guardian

5 hours ago

• Mail & Guardian

International Atomic Energy Agency resolution was weaponised against Iran

Iranian missiles hit Jerusalem earlier this week. (X) The perversion of multilateral institutions using seemingly benign resolutions as quasi-declarations continues. Consequently, the multilateral system is slowly collapsing. The election of Donald Trump as United States president has further complicated the situation. Trump has pulled the US out of a number of multilateral agreements, including the Paris Accord on climate change. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is accused of selective justice when it comes to the prosecution of those charged with crimes against humanity — of only targeting African leaders and ignoring Western leaders who are accused of similar crimes. The ICC ignored calls to charge former British prime minister Tony Blair and former US president George Bush for crimes against humanity when they falsely asserted that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution that Iran was in breach of its proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years was a precursor to Israel's attack on Iran. The resolution was adopted by the IAEA's board of governors on 10 June; three days later Israel attacked Iran. The resolution was passed by 19 votes in favour, three against and 11 abstentions. The timing of the report and the speed with which Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, acted on it has raised questions. When did he know about the resolution? How did he manage to prepare Israel's attacks on Iran in such a short space of time? Was he given prior knowledge about the content of the resolution? Netanyahu, who has always scorned talks with Iran, took advantage of the resolution and the changes in the Middle East since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023. Israel has always claimed that Iran poses an existential threat to it. This follows a statement made by Iran's former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in 2012 at the United Nations. Ahmadinejad said Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be 'eliminated'. He was criticised for uttering an inflammatory statement and ignoring a UN's warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session. Netanyahu has been beating the war drum against Iran ever since, arguing that 'Iran has to be stopped on its tracks before it is too late'. There are 191 countries that are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), making it one of the most widely adhered-to arms control agreements. But four nuclear weapons states — India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — are not signatories to the treaty. The treaty's objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to achieve nuclear disarmament. The IAEA, an agency of the UN, is responsible for monitoring nuclear activities and obligations of countries party to the treaty. South Africa has a nuclear power station generating 5% of the country's electricity. The country ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in February 2019 and was the first country to have disarmed its nuclear weapons. Fearing that these could end up in the wrong hands, South Africa ended its nuclear weapons programme, which began during the 1970s, in 1989. The decision was executed just months before negotiations on ending apartheid between the National Party (NP) and the ANC started. It was an important decision which facilitated a smooth political transition in South Africa. Otherwise, global powers could have delayed or derailed the political transition. According to Ali Mazrui, a Kenyan intellectual, the NP was under pressure from various quarters to prevent what he referred to as the 'Black Bomb' from being transferred to an unknown black political leadership. (Graphic: John McCann/M&G) Back to the Middle East. Who is presenting an existential threat to other nations in the Middle East? Who possesses nuclear weapons in the region? There is a wide belief that Israel has nuclear weapons. The estimates are that it has nuclear stockpiles of between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads. According to political analyst Msano Zive, it is Israel that poses an existential threat in the region. The manner in which Israel has continued with the genocide in Gaza, its willingness to starve and suffocate civilians in Gaza and its disproportionate response to the attacks on 7 October 2023 has never been experienced in modern times. Israel is intent on committing the same atrocities in Iran. The destruction of property in Gaza and the number of deaths, including those still lying under the rubble, resemble a country that was struck by an atomic bomb, Zive argues. Israel has not ratified the non-proliferation treaty, meaning that the IAEA's monitors have no access to its nuclear programme. The world should be concerned. Israel has continually violated national sovereignty and security of its neighbours. Other than continuing to commit genocide in Gaza, it is relentlessly bombing Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and now Iran. Netanyahu's political survival and avoiding jail time is dependent largely on the continuation of the war in the region. Israel's failure to destroy Hamas in Gaza has led to Netanyahu to search for new targets. Iran has been the low-hanging fruit for a long time, given the national sentiments on Iran in Israel. The IAEA has to ensure a nuclear weapon-free and responsible world. Importantly, it also has to ensure that those who possess nuclear weapons and run nuclear related programmes act responsibly and adhere to the basic rules and regulations of the treaty. Importantly, the role of the IAEA of encouraging a nuclear weapons-free world has to be promoted. It is important therefore how the IAEA deals with Iran; it has to be seen to be fair. Iran ratified the non-proliferation treaty voluntarily. Why is it then harassed by a country known to possess nuclear weapons that refuses to ratify the treaty and scrutiny by the IAEA? The continuation of these double standards is likely to encourage other countries in the world who intend to produce nuclear weapons from being open about their plans. Thembisa Fakude is a senior research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues and a director at the Mail & Guardian.

IOL News

9 hours ago

• IOL News

Why Pride Month is a protest for LGBTQ+ rights

Sandton Gay Pride went ahead as planned despite a terror warning by the US embassy in this file photo. South Africa is not only one of the only pro-queer African nations to date, but it is also the only country to have legalised same-sex marriage, and only the fifth in the world to have done so. Image: Timothy Bernard/African News Agency (ANA) IN South Africa, June is not only Youth Month, it is also the international Pride Month. This is a commemorative month-long observance dedicated to the celebration of LGBTQ+ pride, celebrating the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people in local and international cultures and communities. South Africa is not only one of the only pro-queer African nations to date, but it is also the only country to have legalised same-sex marriage, and only the fifth in the world to have done so. Although, contemporary, other African nations have decriminalised same-sex relationships, South Africa is the only nation to fully legalise and enshrine the protections of queer people under our Constitutional laws. Legal progress for South Africa's LGBTQ+ community has not translated into lived safety: violence against gay and queer individuals remains rampant. The names Siphamandla Khoza, Andile 'Lulu' Nthuthela, Nathaniel 'Spokgoane' Mbele, Lonwabo 'Jack', and many others, echo loudly in discourses around South Africa's homophobia and violences against queer communities. Mere months ago, fearless advocate for queer Muslims and the world's first openly gay imam, Muhsin Hendricks, was murdered in a targeted attack near Gqeberha on February 15th. The 57-year-old cleric ran a mosque in Cape Town intended as a haven for gay and other marginalised Muslims. The car he was travelling in was ambushed as he made his way to officiate an interfaith marriage — an act symbolic of his mission to build bridges in the face of hate. Mere months before that, the remains of Lazarus Ikaneng Thomas, a 50-year-old gay man from Galeshewe in Northern Cape, were found after he was mutilated in a targeted homophobic attack. It was reported that Thomas had been strangled and had acid poured all over his body. Thomas's death was not just a horrifying murder — it was a savage and deliberate act of hatred. It reflects the cruel, barbaric violence still directed at queer bodies in a country that claims to uphold human rights. South Africa is internationally revered for having the best Constitution in the world. It is oftentimes praised for its progressive legal framework: same-sex marriage is legal, discrimination based on sexual orientation is constitutionally prohibited, and LGBTIQ+ people are, on paper, fully protected citizens. Still, queer lives are targeted, violated, and taken — often without consequence. Violence against queer people persists not just because of hate, but because our systems allow it to happen without punishment, letting perpetrators walk free under the cover of institutional neglect. Pride Month is a time meant to honour resilience and demand justice for all, despite gender and sexual orientation. The brutal murders of Hendricks, Thomas, and so many other vulnerable victims' murders serve as a searing reminder of the gap between legal recognition and lived experience. Laws may exist, but they have little weight when queer people are afraid to walk home, afraid to love openly, or to simply exist in peace. The violence in our society is not random; it is enabled by societal apathy, cultural prejudice, and the failure of institutions that are meant to protect our people. Queer people in our society still face oppressions and unspeakable violences, to the point of being dangerously normalised. According to the Mamba Online, 622 queer people were murdered in the span of just three months. From hate crimes and violences such as corrective rape, to various forms of institutional biases, queer people grapple with challenges such as unemployment, gender pay parities, exclusion in leadership, and more, purely because of their sexual orientation. This, being imposed in a constitutional democratic society, is an absolute travesty. This Pride Month, South Africa must look inward. The problem is not a lack of solid legislation, it is the deep-rooted stigma that festers in families, in religious communities, in townships, in schools, and in our justice system. Police still mock victims of queerphobic violence, and even refuse to acknowledge them. The SAPS has, in the past, been severely criticised for its harsh, dismissive attitude towards homophobic crimes. Courts drag their feet, sidelining homophobic violence and atrocities for more sensational — often political — cases. In addition to this, only 28.6% of Home Affairs branches had marriage officers who were willing to marry same sex couples. This is deplorable and shows that our government institutions don't take constitutional rights seriously. Politicians pay lip service to inclusion while staying silent when queer people are brutally murdered. Pride cannot be reduced to rainbow logos and corporate hashtags; it must be a genuine call to action. The era of empty promises is long gone. Legal protections mean nothing without moral conviction. Equality can't be legislated into existence alone. Our nation must reckon with the values it claims to uphold and confront the prejudices it still tolerates in its homes, churches, schools, streets, and beyond. What is required now is transformation at the level of mindset, culture, and conscience. Until queer lives are valued not just in law books but in everyday interactions, in homes, and in the hearts of our fellow citizens, our democracy remains incomplete. Pride means nothing if it leaves the most vulnerable among us behind. South Africa's youth — particularly during Youth Month — are uniquely positioned to be the driving force behind real change. Unburdened by some of the rigid prejudices of older generations, many young people are boldly challenging homophobia, transphobia, and the silence that surrounds queer issues in their communities. From student-led movements, to social media activism, the youth are demanding that queer rights be treated not as optional, but as essential to a just and inclusive society. They are reshaping cultural norms, holding institutions accountable, and creating spaces where queer identities are affirmed rather than erased. In a country where legal protections already exist, it is this generational shift, powered by the courage, creativity, and a refusal to settle for performative partnerships, that can transform SA from just a nation of progressive laws into a truly liberated society. This was the very essence of the national liberation movement: freedom and the entrenchment of equal human rights across our entire society. It is Section 9 of our Bill of Rights that explicitly stipulates the right to sexual orientation and prohibits discrimination in its entirety. South Africa is the First Nation ever to enshrine these protections in the Constitution. South Africa's youth have always been at the forefront of change — from the June 16 Soweto Uprising to #FeesMustFall. Today, they continue to breathe life into our constitutional promises. Young people have an undeniable, unyielding sense of justice, and their commitment to queer rights is critical to the advancement of Pride in our post-democratic society. The youth are not only defending human rights in our society, but expanding the meaning of freedom for future generations. They are holding institutions accountable and demanding that the values enshrined in the Constitution become lived realities for all, including queer communities. In South Africa, everyone in our society knows the fight for freedom, human rights and true liberation — past and present. True Pride means more than survival. If Pride is to mean anything in South Africa, it must move all of us, from law to culture, from silence to solidarity. This means dignity, safety, and freedom for all queer people. We owe it to Hendricks, Thomas, and to the innumerable lives taken by rampant, inhumane queerphobia, to demand nothing less than true justice. It is evident that: 'To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.' Until South Africa confronts the hatred that lives beyond its laws, Pride will remain a protest, not a celebration. * Tswelopele Makoe is a gender and social justice activist and editor at Global South Media Network. She is a researcher, columnist, and an Andrew W Mellon scholar at the Desmond Tutu Centre for Religion and Social Justice, UWC. The views expressed are her own. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.