News
US President-Elect, Joseph R. Biden Jr, Shaped By Tragedy, Tradition
Thirty-three years ago, he was the fast-talking junior senator from Delaware with a chip on his shoulder, desperate to prove his gravitas during a brief, ill-fated presidential run.
The next time around, in 2008, he was the seasoned foreign policy hand and veteran lawmaker who strained to capture the imagination of Democratic presidential primary voters.
As he weighed a third attempt at the presidency last year, many Democrats feared he was too late. Too old, too moderate, too meandering to excite ascendant voices in his party, too rooted in the more civil politics of the past to nimbly handle Donald Trump.
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ran anyway. He ran as a grieving father who connected with a country in pain. As a relative centrist who emphasized character, stability and belief in bipartisanship over the particulars of a policy agenda. As a flawed, uneven campaigner whose vulnerabilities were ultimately drowned out by his opponent’s outsize weaknesses, and eclipsed by the seismic issues at stake, as the nation confronted the ravages of a deadly pandemic.
In many ways, he ran as the politician he has always been. And for one extraordinary election, that was enough.
“They’re not so much saying, ‘I’m investing in Joe Biden because of his philosophy,’” said former Senator William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine, who served with Mr. Biden and supported him this year. “They’re invested in Joe Biden because of him, of who they see as being a human being.”
Mr. Biden’s victory on Saturday is the culmination of a career that began in the Nixon era and spanned a half-century of political and social upheaval. But if the country, the political parties and Washington have changed since Mr. Biden, now 77, arrived in the Senate as a 30-year-old widower in 1973, some of his attitudes — about governing and about his fellow Americans — have hardly changed at all.
He still reveres institutions, defiantly champions compromise and sees politics more in terms of relationships than ideology. He has insisted that with Mr. Trump out of office, Republicans will have an “epiphany” about working with Democrats — a view that elides the fact that Republicans were rarely interested in working with the Obama administration when Mr. Biden was vice president.
Those beliefs, coupled with his reputation as an empathetic and experienced leader, made Mr. Biden acceptable to a broad coalition of Americans this year, including independents and some moderate Republicans.
Now, Mr. Biden’s convictions about how to unite the country and move forward will be tested as never before.
He will take the helm of a nation devastated by a health crisis, reeling from an economic downturn and divided over virtually every major political matter of the day, from how and even whether to confront climate change and racial injustice, to baseless questions from some of Mr. Trump’s supporters about the very legitimacy of free and fair election results.
His first priority, Mr. Biden has said, will be to bring the coronavirus under control, as he also works to invest in infrastructure and to promote economic growth. Mr. Biden has released a series of policy plans around all of those issues, and has made clear that a national emergency calls for urgent and ambitious action.
But the president-elect, a 36-year veteran of the Senate who has never embraced the most far-reaching progressive proposals, is also well aware that the partisan makeup of Washington may limit the scope of his agenda. He is unlikely to press for rapid, transformational change of institutions like the Supreme Court or to embrace the boldest proposals in the Green New Deal.
Yet for all of his instincts for consensus-building, he will face enormous and conflicting pressures when he returns to Washington.
Progressives who papered over their differences with Mr. Biden in the name of defeating Mr. Trump will quickly turn to fighting for their priorities, which may not always align with Mr. Biden’s goals or timeline.
“Where the progressive energy will really turn angry is if we see Biden really compromising on core principles,” warned Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Even his closest allies believe there are elements of his long record that should be reconsidered from the White House, including the legacy of the crime bills passed during his tenure in the Senate. Mr. Biden for years served as a tough-on-crime Democrat, and he has sometimes struggled to account for his leading role in the 1994 crime bill, which many experts now associate with mass incarceration.
“He needs to put together a commission or a committee to study the 1986 and 1994 crime bills,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking Black official in Congress, describing mass incarceration as an unintended consequence. “We’ve got to rectify.”
And Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the powerful Republican leader, has a relationship with Mr. Biden — but he is unlikely to be moved by encomiums to bipartisanship and civility.
“Joe is a peacemaker — he’s always tried to get along with Republicans,” said Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and the former Senate majority leader.
But he was skeptical that Republican leaders in Congress would feel similarly about curbing divisiveness in Washington.
“I just hope Joe’s right and I’m wrong,” he said, “but I don’t see that coming to an end.”
Mr. Biden was a mediocre student with big ambitions, a gregarious young football player from an Irish Catholic family who overcame a stutter and dreamed of running for president.
In the meantime, he settled for school politics, serving as class president at his Catholic high school and adopting an approachable manner that he would deploy decades later on the campaign trail.
“The joke was, if Joe stood next to a light pole, he’d strike up a conversation,” said Bob Markel, a childhood friend of Mr. Biden’s. “You were talking to him for 20 seconds, he’d put out his hand and say, ‘Joe Biden.’”
He came from a line of politically engaged Pennsylvanians on his mother’s side, with a great-grandfather who served as a state senator. His father was a dignified man who had struggled financially, “a student of history with an unyielding sense of justice,” Mr. Biden said in his eulogy. Joseph R. Biden Sr., who moved the family from Scranton, Pa., to Delaware when Mr. Biden was 10, shaped his son’s moral compass and instilled in him a strong sense of identity; his story looms large in Mr. Biden’s efforts today to connect with working-class Americans.
Mr. Biden enrolled at the University of Delaware, where he threw himself into politics as freshman class president. He participated in the occasional high jinks, though even then he was fairly conservative in his personal manner.
“It’s the same style that I think we’ve seen since he was a teenager,” Mr. Markel said. “That moderation can be seen when he was in his teens. He was a fun-loving guy, certainly outgoing, but he didn’t do crazy things.”
For all of his political ambitions, he was at a remove from the antiwar activism taking hold among his peers in the caldron of the 1960s, and he was not one for protesting. After graduating from law school, he followed a path into institutional Democratic politics: young lawyer, part-time public defender and rising star within the Delaware party establishment.
At the end of that decade, party elders suggested he try his hand at a seat on the New Castle County Council.
“I spent most of my time in heavily Democratic precincts,” Mr. Biden recalled, describing the race in a memoir. “But I also spent a great deal of time going door to door in the middle-class neighborhoods like the one I grew up in. They were overwhelmingly Republican in 1970, but I knew how to talk to them.”
At the age of 30, Mr. Biden was moving swiftly in his political career. But personally, he was a broken man.
In a day, he had gone from a married father of three who won a startling victory in the 1972 Senate race to a widower with two toddlers in the hospital after a car crash killed his wife, Neilia, and their baby daughter, Naomi.
For months, he struggled to adjust to the Senate job he had wanted so badly.
Decades later, one of his surviving sons, Beau, would die of brain cancer. Mr. Biden, by then vice president, would be shattered anew.
Yet those staggering personal losses, friends say, shaped Mr. Biden’s uncommon ability to empathize — perhaps his greatest strength.
On the campaign trail, he never spoke with deeper authority than when he promised a grieving voter that one day, the memory of a loved one would bring a smile before a tear. His skill at connecting with voters in pain, allies say, uniquely prepared him to run for president amid a pandemic that has killed more than 237,000 people in the United States and upended the lives of many others on Mr. Trump’s watch.
“He understood the emotional trauma that Trump has inflicted on the country in a way that most of the other candidates didn’t,” said Shailagh Murray, who was a top aide to Mr. Biden as vice president.
After the 1972 accident, Mr. Biden slowly began rebuilding his life, later marrying Jill Jacobs and having a daughter, Ashley.
And eventually, he settled into Washington, too, where his early instincts for bipartisanship and working within the system were reinforced by mentors like Mike Mansfield, the longtime Senate majority leader.
Mr. Biden rose to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. He advanced signature policy achievements like the Violence Against Women Act and an assault weapons ban, and he developed relationships with leaders around the world. He torpedoed the nomination of Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court, a setback that some Republicans remain bitter about to this day, and championed the confirmation of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
His tenure in the Senate is also associated with what many Americans see as the mistreatment of Anita Hill before his committee during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas; with his vote for the Iraq war and his opposition to busing; and with his leading efforts on the 1994 crime bill that troubled some voters throughout the campaign.
As he navigated Congress, Mr. Biden built relationships with similarly consensus-minded Republicans like Senators Bob Dole, Arlen Specter and John McCain.
But Mr. Biden, who has said he was motivated to run for office in part by a belief in civil rights, was also willing to work with even the most virulent segregationist senators. And perhaps, the most controversial speech he has given was his eulogy for Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.
“At least there was some civility,” Mr. Biden said at a fund-raiser in June 2019, citing James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman E. Talmadge of Georgia. “We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done.”
Under fire, Mr. Biden ultimately expressed regret for the way he invoked segregationist former colleagues.
He did not apologize for the instinct.
The stature Mr. Biden gained in the Senate did not always translate on the presidential campaign trail.
His 1988 race ended in humiliation amid a plagiarism controversy.
In 2008, Mr. Biden struggled to stand out in a talented and crowded field that included Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He dropped out after Iowa, after cementing his reputation for verbal gaffes by referring to Mr. Obama as “articulate and bright and clean.”
But as Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden was in many ways back in his element.
“Every time we had a trouble in the administration, who got sent to the Hill to settle it? Me,” Mr. Biden said at that 2019 fund-raiser. “Because I demonstrate respect for them.”
Sometimes that approach got him results — he helped secure three Republican votes for the economic stimulus bill in 2009, for example.
On other occasions — including a major gun control effort after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut — it ultimately did not.
Mr. Biden, like many of his fellow Democrats, was enraged by the Trump presidency and fearful about the corrosive effects of four more years of extraordinary divisiveness.
But he was also closely attuned to moderate, older Black primary voters and had carefully followed which Democrats won in the toughest districts in the 2018 midterm elections. As Mr. Biden mulled a third presidential bid, he was skeptical of tacking far to the left in response to Mr. Trump and his Republican allies. And he was convinced, based on his own experiences, that he could help find common ground.
“Through very difficult periods in the country’s history, he believes he has been able to bring people together,” said Mike Donilon, Mr. Biden’s chief strategist, citing the 2009 stimulus bill and his efforts on a sweeping health measure at the end of 2016. “Beyond the politics, there are also just fundamental judgments about how to treat people, how to talk to them.”
Throughout his campaign, Mr. Biden has championed that approach, sometimes with a touch of performative defensiveness.
“We need to revive the spirit of bipartisanship in this country,” he said in a speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, last month. “I’m accused of being naïve. I’m told, ‘Maybe, that’s the way things used to work, Joe, but they can’t work that way anymore.’”
“They can and they must if we’re going to get anything done,” he said.
Mr. Biden, of course, has a policy agenda too, one that he has addressed often in recent months.
He ran on a platform of expanding health care access through a public option, and promoting the middle class. He promised to tackle climate change and to combat racial injustice, acknowledging that America has “never lived up” to the promise that all Americans are created equal. After the pandemic hit, he grew increasingly open to more ambitious social and economic proposals.
But more than anything, he ran as himself, with all of the convictions and the flaws he has displayed over a half-century in public life.
There were the exaggerations and verbal blunders and the flashes of temper. He lost the first three contests, and his campaign was practically moribund when Black voters in South Carolina, who saw him as a familiar and reassuring figure in troubled times, rescued his bid.
“We know Joe,” Mr. Clyburn said as he endorsed Mr. Biden. “But most importantly, Joe knows us.”
And through those peaks and valleys, Mr. Biden hewed to one consistent message: that the turmoil of the Trump era was an existential threat to the character of the country — and that he was uniquely equipped to lower the nation’s temperature and try to bring the country together.
“Has the heart of this nation turned to stone?” Mr. Biden said recently, speaking in Warm Springs, Georgia. “I refuse to believe it. I know this country. I know our people. And I know we can unite and heal this nation.”
In some ways, it is a promise he has been preparing to make for his whole career.
This time around, a majority of American voters decided to believe him.
City Crime
Ministry Raises Concern Over Rising Teenage Pregnancies, Begins Adolescent Sensitisation Campaign
The Department of Public Health in the Rivers State Ministry of Health has raised concern over the increasing cases of teenage pregnancies in society as it intensifies efforts to educate adolescents across the state.
Programme Manager for Adolescent Health and Development in the department, Mrs. Tammy Briggs, expressed the concern during a sensitisation programme held at Government Girls Secondary School Rumueme in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State.
Briggs explained that the campaign was designed to educate adolescents on the dangers of teenage pregnancy and other health-related issues affecting young people.
According to her, teenage pregnancy is currently on the rise, making it necessary for the ministry to step up awareness programmes among students.
“This is something that is on the rise for now. We have observed that there are many cases of teenage pregnancies, so we are here to sensitise them on ways to prevent it entirely,” she said.
She disclosed that the sensitisation campaign is being carried out in selected schools across four local government areas of the state, namely Obio/Akpor Local Government Area, Port Harcourt City Local Government Area, Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Area and Eleme Local Government Area.
Briggs noted that the programme focuses on several key issues affecting adolescents, including sexual and reproductive health, gender-based violence, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, emotional health and proper nutrition.
She added that the outreach programme also featured tuberculosis screening for students as well as the distribution of sanitary pads and mathematical sets to support their health and academic development.
The programme manager commended the management of Government Girls Secondary School Rumueme for their cooperation and support in hosting the sensitisation exercise. She also advised the students to avoid behaviours that could jeopardise their future.
Speaking during the session, Dr. Nwadike Chinonso urged the students to make informed decisions about their lives and remain focused on their education.
He cautioned them against engaging in early sexual activities, stressing that abstinence remains one of the most effective ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies.
Some of the students who participated in the programme expressed appreciation to the team for the awareness campaign and pledged to apply the knowledge gained to make responsible life choices.
City Crime
Extortion, Contraband Scandal Erupts At Kwale Custodial Centre
Disturbing allegations of extortion, intimidation and the smuggling of prohibited items have unsettled the Kwale Medium Security Custodial Centre (MSCC) in Delta State, prompting calls for urgent intervention by the national authorities of the Nigeria Correctional Service amid fears of potential security breaches within the facility.
The development was disclosed by a senior officer at the Delta State custodial facility, who expressed concern over what was described as entrenched irregularities capable of undermining discipline and operational standards at the centre.
According to the source, detailed findings compiled between December 2025 and January 2026 highlighted patterns of misconduct and warned of possible security consequences should the allegations remain unchecked.
At the centre of the claims is a powerful corrections official serving as Officer in Charge of the Kwale facility, accused of presiding over persistent financial extortion, high-handedness and the victimisation of inmates under his supervision.
The document further indicated that the alleged practices may have originated during the tenure of a former General Provost, reportedly with the collaboration of another senior custodial official within the system.
Intelligence details suggested that inmates were allegedly compelled to contribute funds for projects and items considered outside the statutory framework of inmate welfare, raising questions about compliance with established correctional guidelines.
Among the financial demands reportedly imposed were ¦ 300,000 for the repair of a Hilux vehicle, ¦ 600,000 for the purchase of a freezer and ¦ 750,000 for a generator allegedly designated for the Officer in Charge’s residence.
The report also alleged that inmates were required to make payments before being conveyed to court, while Awaiting Trial Persons in Cells One to Nine were directed to raise ¦ 30,000 per cell, with Convict Cells One to Three, including a designated VIP cell, similarly mandated to pay ¦ 30,000 monthly.
Observers noted that if substantiated, such practices would amount to grave breaches of professional ethics and custodial administration standards, eroding principles of fairness, transparency and inmate welfare within correctional institutions.
Beyond the financial allegations, the intelligence brief raised concerns over the purported possession of unauthorised communication devices, alleging that a serving General Provost had two Android phones while another influential inmate was also reportedly found with a mobile device.
The document further alleged that prohibited items, including alcoholic beverages, Indian hemp and other hard substances, may have been smuggled into the custodial yard under the guise of routine supervision duties, with security sources warning that the cumulative effect of extortion, intimidation and contraband trafficking has heightened tension within the facility.
In view of the gravity of the allegations, they called for an immediate and discreet investigation by the minister of Interior for immediate action to safe the life of inmates.
The administrative review of implicated officers, even as officials of the Nigeria Correctional Service had yet to issue an official statement, with stakeholders insisting that a transparent probe and decisive action are essential to restoring confidence and safeguarding institutional integrity at the Kwale Medium Security Custodial Centre.
News
SERAP Sues FG Over Phone-Tapping Rules
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against the government of President Bola Tinubu at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice over the government’s alleged failure to withdraw “unlawful mass phone-tapping rules” known as the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019.
LICR 2019 is a regulation that authorises telecom licensees to install technology for security agencies to monitor communications, including voice, data, text, email, and browsing, for national security and to combat crime.
SERAP, in a statement signed by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, yesterday, said the suit followed allegations by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, that the phone conversation of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, was intercepted.
El-Rufai reportedly claimed, “The NSA’s call was tapped. They do that to our calls too, and we heard him saying they should arrest me.”
In the suit numbered ECW/CCJ/APP/11/26, filed last Friday at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja, SERAP is seeking “a declaration that the failure of the government to withdraw the Interception of Communications Regulations is unlawful and a violation of Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”
The organisation is also asking the court to declare that the government’s failure to withdraw the regulations “constitutes an official endorsement of unlawful mass phone-tapping rules, as the Regulations are patently unlawful, and violate the rule of law, democratic principles, and the right to privacy.”
It is further seeking “an order directing and compelling the Nigerian government to immediately withdraw the Interception of Communications Regulations, and to commence a legislative process to ensure that any interception regulations are in conformity with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”
The suit, filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare, Oluwakemi Oni, Valentina Adegoke and Maryam Mumuni, argued that “the Regulations establish a sweeping mass phone-tapping regime that violates Nigerians’ constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights, including to privacy and freedom of expression.”
“Where powers affecting fundamental human rights are exercised in secrecy and concentrated in political authorities without independent supervision, the risks of arbitrariness are substantial.
“Surveillance measures that lack strict necessity, proportionality and independent judicial oversight can easily be weaponised against political opponents, journalists, civil society actors and election observers,” it added.
SERAP also warned that the regulations raise concerns as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, noting that broad interception powers could be abused during politically sensitive periods.
“In an electoral climate, even the perception that private communications are being monitored can chill political organising, investigative reporting and voter mobilisation.
“Free and fair elections depend on confidential communications, protected journalistic sources and open democratic debate. Any misuse of intercepted data for intimidation, political advantage or disinformation would fundamentally undermine Nigerians’ right to political participation and electoral integrity.
“As 2027 approaches, interception powers must be narrowly defined, subject to prior independent judicial authorisation and backed by effective remedies. Without robust safeguards, these Regulations risk threatening privacy rights, freedom of expression and the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process,” the suit stated.
SERAP maintained that any restriction on the right to privacy must comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, arguing that the regulations fail to meet these requirements.
SERAP also cited the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as stating that mass surveillance programmes based on indiscriminate and blanket collection of personal data are arbitrary and cannot satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.
The group said the Nigerian government has a duty to adopt clear laws, safeguards, independent oversight mechanisms and accessible remedies to prevent abuse by state agencies and private actors, including telecommunications providers and technology companies.
According to SERAP, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) adopted the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019 while exercising its powers under Section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.
The organisation argued that Regulation 4 grants broad discretionary interception powers to the National Security Adviser and the State Security Services, with little clarity on the scope or limits of such authority.
SERAP also pointed to inconsistencies within the regulations, noting that while Regulation 4 and Regulation 12 restrict interception powers to the NSA and SSS, Regulation 23 expands the category of authorised agencies to include bodies such as the Nigeria Police Force, National Intelligence Agency, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, and any other agency the commission may designate.
The organisation said this ambiguity undermines legal certainty and creates the risk of arbitrary application and abuse.
It also criticised provisions allowing interception without a warrant in certain circumstances, arguing that such powers are overly broad and susceptible to misuse.
SERAP further expressed concern that the regulations do not require authorities to notify individuals who have been subjected to surveillance, which it said weakens the ability of citizens to challenge unlawful monitoring.
The organisation warned that requirements compelling telecommunications licensees to install interception equipment and disclose encryption keys could undermine cybersecurity and discourage privacy-enhancing technologies.
SERAP acknowledged the government’s responsibility to address national security and organised crime but argued that such measures must remain within constitutional and international human rights limits.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.
-
News5 days agoDon Savours Inaugural Lecture Presentation, Commends VC
-
News14 hours agoPolice Arrest Nigerian, Two Others For Kidnapping In Edo
-
Nation16 hours agoPerm Sec Explains Success Of FGM Elimination Programme In Rivers
-
Business4 hours agoNigeria, AFC sign $1.3 billion deal to build alumina refinery
-
News14 hours agoNDLEA Arrests Ex-Councillor With 40kg Skunk, Recovers Drugs In Diapers
-
Rivers3 hours agoLGSC Boss Commits To Better Service Delivery
-
Nation16 hours agoOgoni Mangrove Wetlands Gain International Recognition As Ramsar Site
-
News14 hours agoArmy Foils Cattle Rustling, Kills Terrorists In Benue …Rescues Two Kidnapped Bank Staff
