Connect with us


Gaddafi : The Revolutionary Who Defied The West



Gaddafi – In the realm of enigmatic figures, few have left a more polarizing mark than Muammar Gaddafi, the former leader of Libya. While his rule was marked by authoritarianism and the stifling of opposition, Gaddafi’s influence cannot be confined to such simplistic descriptors. Behind the curtain of controversy lies a complex tapestry of economic policies, foreign relations, and a vision for Africa free from the shackles of debt. This article embarks on a journey into the later life of Gaddafi, delving into the intricacies of his economic initiatives, his audacious vision for a debt-free Africa, and the foreign policies that dared to challenge the stronghold of Western influence. Brace yourself for an exploration of Gaddafi’s enigmatic legacy, where the abstract takes shape and contradictions abound.


Gaddafi’s Idea of a Debt-Free Prosperity

Gaddafi’s emphasis on debt-free prosperity was a central aspect of his economic philosophy and vision for Libya. He staunchly believed that debt was a means through which Western powers exerted control over African nations, perpetuating neocolonialism. As a result, he pursued policies aimed at maintaining Libya’s financial independence and minimizing external debt.

During Gaddafi’s rule, Libya achieved an impressive financial position, with $150 billion in national reserves and zero debt. This achievement set Libya apart from many other countries, particularly in Africa, which often grapple with significant external debts. Gaddafi’s aversion to debt was not limited to his own country but extended to his vision for Africa as a whole. He sought to challenge the economic domination of Western powers and promote self-sufficiency among African nations.

Libya’s debt-free status played a significant role in its high standard of living during Gaddafi’s rule. The absence of debt obligations meant that a larger share of the country’s resources could be allocated towards domestic development, social programs, and infrastructure projects. This contributed to improved public services, healthcare, education, and infrastructure, benefiting the Libyan population.


While Gaddafi’s approach to governance did not conform to Western democratic norms, Libya experienced a relatively high standard of living during his tenure. The country’s wealth, primarily derived from oil revenues, was directed towards public welfare and social programs. This led to the provision of free healthcare, education, and housing for Libyans, contributing to an overall sense of well-being and prosperity.

However, it is important to acknowledge that the nature of Gaddafi’s rule and the distribution of wealth in Libya were characterized by significant inequalities. The benefits of Libya’s debt-free prosperity were not equally distributed across the population, with certain groups and regions receiving more favorable treatment than others. Gaddafi’s rule was marked by a centralized power structure, where decisions regarding resource allocation were made by a select few, including Gaddafi himself.

Furthermore, the long-term sustainability of Libya’s debt-free status and economic prosperity became a subject of debate. The heavy reliance on oil revenues, coupled with limited economic diversification, left Libya vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil prices. Additionally, the lack of economic transparency and opportunities for private enterprise hindered the development of a more dynamic and inclusive economy.

The downfall of Gaddafi’s regime and subsequent political instability following his assassination in 2011 have further complicated the assessment of Libya’s debt-free prosperity. The country’s political fragmentation and ongoing conflicts have severely impacted its economy, resulting in a decline in living standards and widespread socio-economic challenges.

Targeted by the West

The assertion that Muammar Gaddafi was targeted by the West due to his efforts towards dedollarization and a debt-free Africa is a controversial claim that has been made by many critics. While it is challenging to definitively prove or disprove these allegations, it is essential to explore the context surrounding Gaddafi’s economic policies and their potential implications for Western interests.


Gaddafi’s economic policies were indeed aimed at challenging what he perceived as U.S. imperialism and promoting financial independence in Africa. He believed that debt was a tool used by Western powers to exert control over African nations and saw dedollarization as a means to reduce this influence. Gaddafi advocated for African countries to use alternative currencies and strengthen regional financial institutions to lessen their reliance on the U.S. dollar.

These efforts were viewed with concern by some Western powers, particularly those that saw Gaddafi’s actions as a threat to their economic and geopolitical interests. The dominance of the U.S. dollar in global trade and finance is a key pillar of American economic power, and any moves to undermine this could potentially challenge Western influence.

Critics argue that Gaddafi’s push for dedollarization and a debt-free Africa threatened Western financial institutions and their control over African economies. By promoting financial independence, Gaddafi aimed to reduce African countries’ reliance on Western loans and influence, thereby potentially weakening the grip of neocolonialism.

It is important to note, however, that the motivations behind Gaddafi’s economic policies were not solely driven by anti-Western sentiment. His vision for Africa’s financial independence aligned with his broader Pan-Africanist ideology, which sought to unite the continent and promote self-sufficiency. Gaddafi aimed to create a stronger Africa that could resist external interference and establish its own economic and political destiny.

The claim that Gaddafi’s assassination by NATO was directly linked to his economic policies remains a matter of speculation and interpretation. While NATO intervention in Libya was justified by the United Nations as a response to protecting civilians during the uprising, some argue that underlying motives related to Gaddafi’s economic initiatives and challenges to Western dominance could have influenced the decision to intervene.

However, it is crucial to consider that Gaddafi’s assassination was the culmination of a complex conflict involving a domestic uprising against his regime and a range of factors beyond his economic policies. The events leading to NATO’s involvement were shaped by a combination of political, humanitarian, and geopolitical considerations.

Ultimately, the question of whether Gaddafi’s economic policies directly led to his assassination and whether Western powers specifically targeted him for his efforts towards dedollarization and a debt-free Africa remains a subject of debate. While his economic initiatives were certainly disruptive to Western interests, it is challenging to establish a direct causal link between these policies and his fate.

Interest-Free Loans to Africa and Arab Countries

During Muammar Gaddafi’s rule, Libya engaged in a significant lending initiative by providing interest-free loans to various countries, amounting to approximately $2.197 billion. These loans were extended to around 40 countries, primarily targeting nations that opposed or had strained relations with the United States. The lending program aimed to foster solidarity among African and Arab nations and counter American influence in the region.

Gaddafi’s interest-free loans were part of his broader vision to challenge Western dominance and promote self-reliance among developing nations. By offering loans without interest, Libya sought to provide financial support to countries that faced economic challenges or were grappling with debt burdens. Additionally, these lending initiatives aimed to foster economic cooperation and strengthen political ties between Libya and recipient nations.

The loans were distributed across a range of African and Arab countries. Sudan, Niger, Yemen, Mozambique, and Ethiopia were among the nations that received financial assistance from Libya. These countries were often at odds with the United States or faced economic difficulties, and Libya’s lending program aimed to provide a counterbalance to American influence in the region.

Libya’s lending initiatives were ambitious, with the loans given to support a variety of sectors and projects, including infrastructure development, agriculture, education, and healthcare. The loans were intended to enable recipient countries to invest in their economies, reduce poverty, and improve the livelihoods of their citizens. In some cases, the lending also aimed to support countries in their struggles against Western-imposed economic sanctions or other forms of pressure.

By providing interest-free loans to countries that opposed the United States, Gaddafi aimed to create alliances and strengthen solidarity among nations with shared political and economic goals. These initiatives were in line with Gaddafi’s pan-African and pan-Arab ideologies, which sought to unite African and Arab nations against what he perceived as Western imperialism and neocolonialism.

However, it is important to note that the impact and outcomes of Libya’s lending initiatives varied across recipient countries. While some nations benefited from the financial support and were able to invest in their economies, others faced challenges in repaying the loans or effectively utilizing the funds. Additionally, the political complexities and changing dynamics within recipient countries influenced the effectiveness and sustainability of the loans.

The lending program came to a halt following the downfall of Gaddafi’s regime and the subsequent political instability in Libya. The country’s internal conflicts and the loss of Gaddafi’s leadership have limited its ability to continue providing financial assistance to other nations.

Gaddafi’s Controversial Foreign Policies

Muammar Gaddafi’s foreign policy was characterized by assertiveness and a desire to challenge Western dominance in the Middle East and Africa. He pursued a range of initiatives aimed at advancing Arab unity, eliminating Israel, promoting Islam, and supporting revolutionary causes and black civil rights movements.

Gaddafi’s pursuit of Arab unity stemmed from his belief that a united Arab front would be stronger and more capable of resisting Western influence and domination. He advocated for greater collaboration and cooperation among Arab nations, envisioning a unified bloc that could assert its interests on the world stage. This aspiration for Arab unity also aligned with his broader Pan-Arab ideology, which sought to unite Arabs across national boundaries.

Another prominent aspect of Gaddafi’s foreign policy was his opposition to Israel and support for the Palestinian cause. He actively advocated for the elimination of Israel and backed organizations such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in their efforts to achieve Palestinian self-determination. Gaddafi provided financial and military support to the PLO and other Palestinian factions, seeking to counter what he perceived as Israeli aggression and Western support for Israel.

Gaddafi’s promotion of Islam as part of his foreign policy agenda was rooted in his belief in the importance of Islamic solidarity and the defense of Muslim interests. He supported Islamist movements and organizations, providing financial and logistical assistance to Islamic causes around the world. Gaddafi sought to challenge Western narratives and policies that he believed were detrimental to the Muslim world, positioning himself as a defender of Islamic values and principles.


In addition to his focus on Arab unity, Palestine, and Islam, Gaddafi actively supported revolutionary causes and black civil rights movements. He believed in the importance of liberation struggles and championed organizations such as the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa and revolutionary movements in various parts of Africa. Gaddafi saw these causes as aligned with his anti-imperialist stance and aimed to provide support to those fighting against oppression and inequality.

Gaddafi’s foreign policy decisions were motivated by his desire to challenge Western dominance and establish alternative power centers in the Middle East and Africa. He sought to counter what he perceived as Western imperialism and neocolonialism, which he believed were responsible for the subjugation and exploitation of nations in these regions. His assertive foreign policy reflected a broader vision of reshaping the global balance of power and promoting self-determination for formerly colonized nations.

However, Gaddafi’s foreign policy initiatives also faced criticism and challenges. His support for radical and militant groups, as well as his confrontational stance towards the West, resulted in Libya’s isolation from the international community. The repercussions of these policies, such as economic sanctions and international condemnation, had adverse effects on the Libyan economy and limited the country’s ability to engage with the global community.

Domestic Repression and Political Suppression

While Gaddafi focused on pursuing economic prosperity for the Libyan people, his regime was characterized by the active suppression of dissenting voices and the curtailment of political freedoms.

Gaddafi’s rule was marked by a centralized power structure and a lack of political pluralism. Dissenting voices, including opposition parties, activists, and individuals critical of the regime, were suppressed and often faced severe consequences. Political opponents were subjected to surveillance, arbitrary arrests, torture, and imprisonment. The state’s security apparatus, including the Revolutionary Committees, played a significant role in suppressing political dissent and maintaining Gaddafi’s grip on power.

Gaddafi’s alignment with Europe’s Eastern Bloc and his support for regimes like Fidel Castro’s Cuba further isolated Libya from the Western world. His association with these socialist and communist states, along with his confrontational stance towards Western powers, deepened Libya’s estrangement from the international community, particularly Western nations.

The domestic repression and political suppression under Gaddafi’s rule had a chilling effect on political activism and the exercise of free speech. The lack of democratic institutions, limited media freedom, and strict control over civil society organizations stifled political dissent and independent voices. Citizens were discouraged from openly expressing their opinions or engaging in critical political discourse, leading to an environment of fear and self-censorship.

It is important to note that Gaddafi’s regime justified its actions by citing the need for stability and the prevention of internal strife. However, this approach led to a lack of political accountability, transparency, and opportunities for democratic participation. The suppression of dissent ultimately hindered the development of a vibrant civil society, impeding the growth of democratic institutions and undermining the potential for inclusive governance.

While Gaddafi pursued economic prosperity and implemented policies that aimed to improve the standard of living for Libyans, it is essential to recognize that these achievements were accompanied by significant limitations on political freedoms. The concentration of power and the suppression of dissent created an imbalanced social and political landscape, where the benefits of economic progress were not equally distributed, and dissenting voices were marginalized.

The legacy of domestic repression and political suppression during Gaddafi’s rule continues to shape Libya’s post-revolutionary era. Following Gaddafi’s downfall, the country experienced political fragmentation, armed conflicts, and struggles to establish democratic governance. The repressive practices of the past have posed challenges to the formation of inclusive and participatory political systems and the restoration of human rights.

In conclusion, while Gaddafi pursued economic prosperity for the Libyan people, his regime was characterized by domestic repression and political suppression. The active suppression of dissenting voices, alignment with non-democratic regimes, and isolation from the Western world hindered the development of political freedoms and democratic institutions. The repercussions of this repression continue to impact Libya’s post-revolutionary trajectory.

Economic Policies Rooted in Socialism

Gaddafi’s economic policies were firmly rooted in socialism and aimed to create a Jamahiriya, or State of the Masses, in Libya. His vision for economic development centered on reducing inequality and ensuring shared prosperity among the Libyan population.

One notable aspect of Gaddafi’s economic approach was the state’s provision of financial assistance to Libyan citizens. The government subsidized a percentage of car purchases and rents, which had a direct impact on improving the standard of living for many Libyans. These measures aimed to alleviate the financial burden on individuals and families, allowing them to allocate their income towards other essential needs or investments.

The policy of subsidizing car purchases and rents not only benefited individual households but also contributed to the growth of various economic sectors. The increased demand for cars and rental properties stimulated domestic industries, creating employment opportunities and fostering economic growth. This, in turn, led to an increase in per capita income in Libya, with figures surpassing $11,000, making it one of the highest in Africa at the time.

Gaddafi’s socialist economic policies also included measures to nationalize key industries and resources, such as oil production, banking, and infrastructure. These actions aimed to ensure that the country’s wealth and resources were controlled by the state for the benefit of the Libyan people. The nationalization of industries allowed the government to have greater control over economic planning and distribution of resources, prioritizing social welfare and development projects.

Furthermore, Gaddafi’s economic policies emphasized self-sufficiency and reducing reliance on external powers. He sought to develop Libya’s domestic industries and diversify the economy beyond oil by investing in sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and infrastructure. These efforts were driven by the goal of achieving economic independence and reducing vulnerability to global economic fluctuations.

While Gaddafi’s economic policies brought certain benefits and improvements to the standard of living in Libya, they also faced criticisms and challenges. The heavy reliance on oil revenues made the country vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil prices, exposing the economy to volatility. Additionally, the centralized control of resources and lack of transparency in decision-making processes led to issues of corruption and mismanagement, hindering the full potential of economic development.

It is important to note that the successes and shortcomings of Gaddafi’s economic policies should be viewed within the context of his authoritarian rule. The lack of political freedoms and suppression of dissent limited the ability for diverse voices and alternative economic perspectives to be heard and implemented. This centralization of power and lack of checks and balances had implications for the long-term sustainability and inclusiveness of the economic policies pursued.

Downfall and Legacy

The downfall and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi represent a significant turning point in Libyan history and the broader geopolitical landscape. The tensions between Libya and the West, particularly the United States, played a crucial role in the events that led to Gaddafi’s downfall. The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks created an atmosphere of heightened scrutiny and suspicion towards countries perceived to be supporting or harboring terrorism.

The armed uprising against Gaddafi’s 42-year rule began in February 2011, inspired by the wave of protests and revolutions that swept across the Arab world during the Arab Spring. The uprising initially started as a response to long-standing grievances against Gaddafi’s autocratic regime, including political repression, economic inequality, and lack of political freedoms. However, the situation quickly escalated into a full-fledged armed conflict between Gaddafi loyalists and rebel groups seeking his removal from power.

During the uprising, NATO intervened with airstrikes and logistical support to the rebel forces, significantly impacting the dynamics of the conflict. The international community’s involvement, driven by concerns over Gaddafi’s human rights abuses and his regime’s violent response to the uprising, further tipped the scales against him. Eventually, in October 2011, Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel forces, marking the end of his reign.

Gaddafi’s legacy is multifaceted and subject to interpretation. He is remembered both for his despotic rule and his efforts to uplift Africa through economic and foreign policy initiatives. On one hand, his regime was characterized by political repression, widespread human rights abuses, and suppression of dissent. The Libyan people experienced limited political freedoms, lack of democratic institutions, and a heavy-handed security apparatus that curtailed civil liberties.

On the other hand, Gaddafi implemented economic policies that aimed to improve the standard of living for Libyans. Under his rule, Libya achieved remarkable economic prosperity, boasting zero external debt and significant national reserves. Gaddafi’s socialist-inspired economic vision, which included providing interest-free loans to African and Arab nations, aimed to challenge Western dominance and promote self-sufficiency in the region. Libya’s per capita income rose to one of the highest levels in Africa, reflecting some level of success in Gaddafi’s economic policies.

However, Gaddafi’s foreign policies and confrontational stance towards the West often resulted in Libya’s isolation from the international community. His support for revolutionary movements and organizations deemed as terrorists by Western powers, such as the African National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organization, further strained Libya’s relations with the West.

The events leading to Gaddafi’s downfall and his subsequent assassination by NATO have had a lasting impact on Libya. Following his death, the country plunged into a prolonged period of instability, characterized by political fragmentation, armed conflicts, and the rise of extremist groups. The absence of a unified and stable government has hindered Libya’s transition towards a functioning democracy and impeded efforts to rebuild the country.

In summary, Muammar Gaddafi’s downfall and legacy embody a complex mix of despotic rule, economic achievements, and confrontational foreign policies. While his economic initiatives brought some level of prosperity to Libya, his authoritarian rule and suppression of dissent ultimately led to his demise. The aftermath of Gaddafi’s downfall has left Libya grappling with ongoing challenges as it seeks to establish stability, reconcile its past, and shape its future.

Muammar Gaddafi’s rule in Libya left an indelible mark on the country and the African continent. While his economic policies promoted debt-free prosperity and challenged Western dominance, his regime was characterized by political repression and suppression of dissent. Gaddafi’s complex legacy highlights the delicate balance between achieving economic progress and safeguarding political freedoms.

For the latest news and articles, visit Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter:

Christian Maximilian, a Software Engineer with an unwavering love for writing, has transformed his passion into a full-time profession as a Political Analyst. Combining technical expertise with creative flair, he crafts compelling stories that bridge the worlds of politics and literature.

Continue Reading


African Union Takes Action: Republic of Niger Suspended Amidst Political Unrest



In a decisive move that reverberated across the continent, the African Union (AU) announced the suspension of the Republic of Niger from its membership ranks.

This momentous decision was unveiled during the African Union’s Peace and Security Council meeting held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on Tuesday, August 22.

African Union:Picture Source- Pinterest

The suspension stems from the recent political turmoil that engulfed the nation, with the African Union pointing to the coup orchestrated by Gen Abdourahamane Tchiani on Wednesday, July 26. As part of a series of sanctions imposed on the francophone West African country, the Republic of Niger faced the repercussions of its internal upheaval.

The African Union’s stance was uncompromising, as it made it clear that Western nations seeking to meddle in African affairs should refrain from interfering. This firm message was directed from the heart of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where the AU’s call for autonomy echoed loudly.

The events leading up to Niger’s suspension unfolded against a backdrop of political uncertainty and unrest. The coup in Niger, orchestrated by Gen Abdourahamane Tchiani, prompted the Afican Union to take action. Their decision to suspend Niger was not taken lightly and was ratified during the Peace and Security Council meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on August 22.

The aftermath of the military takeover in left President Mohamed Bazoum in captivity, held under the close watch of the juntas in Niger. Despite international pressure, the release of the president and his family remains elusive. This tense situation compelled the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to intervene, imposing sanctions on Niger and establishing a deadline for the initiation of military intervention by the sub-regional body’s standby forces.

The suspension of the Republic of Niger from the African Union serves as a stark reminder of the continent’s commitment to upholding stability and safeguarding democratic governance. The swift response underscores the African Union’s dedication to maintaining order and security within its member states, sending a resounding message to the global community about the importance of respecting Africa’s sovereignty.

Continue Reading


Peter Obi: “I Campaigned For Presidency Because I Can Say It Any Day, I Will Solve The Problem Of Nigeria”



In a recent tweet that has caught the attention of many, @MissPearls shares an inspiring declaration made by former Anambra state governor and Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi. According to @MissPearls, Peter Obi proclaimed, “I campaigned for Presidency because I can say it any day, I Will SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF NIGERIA. All these confusion everywhere can BE SOLVED, and I am PREPARED for it”

Peter Obi: I Campaigned For Presidency Because I Can Say It Any Day, I Will Solve The Problem Of Nigeria.

Peter Obi’s bid for the presidency in the recent elections stirred considerable excitement and garnered support from diverse quarters, particularly the youth demographic. The former governor is known for his progressive ideas and pragmatic approach to governance, which resonated with many Nigerians who sought change and effective solutions to the country’s myriad challenges.

Despite his extensive support and well-articulated vision, Peter Obi’s presidential ambitions faced formidable opponents in the election. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) released results that placed him behind the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who emerged as the winner, and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who came second. However, these results were met with skepticism due to apparent electoral irregularities that marred the integrity of the process.

In response to the controversial election outcome, both Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar filed legal challenges against the INEC’s declaration. This move underscores their commitment to upholding the democratic process and ensuring that the voice of the electorate is accurately reflected. As the election Tribunal Judges prepare to deliver their verdict, Nigeria watches with bated breath, eager to witness justice being served.

Meanwhile, the administration of Mr. Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken significant policy actions since assuming office. The removal of fuel subsidies and the decision to float the Naira have triggered mixed reactions across the nation. While these measures may be intended to foster economic stability and growth, the immediate consequences have been felt by everyday Nigerians. The cost of living has surged, and the socio-economic effects on the rich and the poor have become more pronounced.

As the Nigerian population navigates these shifts, the aftermath of the election and the ensuing governance strategies offer a critical juncture for evaluating the nation’s trajectory. The voices of discontent, expressed by citizens facing the brunt of these policies, highlight the necessity for leaders to prioritize the well-being of the populace while pursuing economic advancements. It is essential for the government to strike a balance between fiscal prudence and safeguarding the interests of the vulnerable segments of society.

The policy changes implemented by Bola Tinubu have shed light on the delicate balance between progress and the welfare of the people. As the nation waits for the tribunal’s judgment and the dust settles on the recent election, Nigeria stands at a crossroads, with the potential to reshape its future trajectory and address the systemic challenges that have held it back for far too long.

Fore more updates, follow us on Twitter @ReporteraNews.

Continue Reading


Youths in Kano Defy Police Ban to Protest Alleged Tribunal Bribery



Hundreds of determined youths in Kano took to the streets, defying a police ban, to protest what they perceive as attempts to manipulate the state election petition tribunal. This incident unfolded against the backdrop of a ban on protests by the Commissioner of Police, Usuani Gumel, following revelations of alleged plots to obstruct justice through financial inducement in legal proceedings.

Youths in kano

The rally, which unfolded outside the state government house, saw impassioned youths brandishing placards with messages that underscored their commitment to justice and the integrity of the electoral process. Their actions were sparked by concerns over an alleged plan to bribe the state election petition tribunal, casting a shadow over the fairness of the process.

The ban on protests was issued in response to recent revelations made by Justice Flora Azinge, who unveiled purported schemes by lawyers to disrupt the course of justice through financial incentives. The Commissioner of Police cited “confirmatory intelligence products” as the basis for this decision, leaving a contentious atmosphere surrounding the freedom of assembly and the right to peaceful protest.

This ban, however, failed to deter the resolute youths who carried a variety of placards conveying their strong stance against corruption, manipulation, and injustice. The slogans they chanted resonated with their determination to safeguard the sanctity of the electoral process and uphold transparency in governance.

Among the messages displayed, one placard caught the eye with its direct callout: “Gandollar, stop spoiling the name of Tinubu.” This highlights the allegation that financial impropriety is tainting the reputation of key political figures.

In a video circulated online, the enthusiastic protesters chanted slogans that echoed their deep-seated concerns. Chants of “No to corruption,” “No to injustice,” and “No to manipulation” reverberated through the crowd, embodying the youth’s unwavering commitment to fair and accountable governance.

Addressing the gathering, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf praised the peaceful conduct of the protesters and assured them that their concerns would be relayed to President Bola Tinubu. This gesture recognizes the role of the youth in shaping political discourse and underscores the importance of their voices in the pursuit of a just society.

In conclusion, the youths in Kano have seized the moment to voice their concerns and demands for an unbiased electoral process. Their defiance of the police ban serves as a reminder that public sentiment cannot be easily suppressed. As this incident unfolds, it raises important questions about the delicate balance between freedom of assembly, legitimate protest, and maintaining public order. It also underscores the critical role of the youth in shaping the political landscape and demanding accountability from their leaders.

For the latest news updates, follow us on Twitter @ReporterNews. Stay informed and engaged with evolving stories from all around the world.

Continue Reading