England will be aiming to make it five wins from their opening five 2026 World Cup qualification matches when they make the trip to Belgrade on Tuesday to tackle a talented Serbia outfit.
The Three Lions are top of Group K on 12 points, five points ahead of second-placed Serbia, although the hosts, who are unbeaten in the section thus far, have a game in hand on their opponents here.
Serbia will be looking to claim at least a playoff spot, but a win in this contest would give them real confidence when it comes to a possible first-placed finish in the section.
Serbia have tackled England on one previous occasion, with the two teams locking horns in the group stage of Euro 2024 and it was the Three Lions that triumphed courtesy of a goal from Jude Bellingham.
England should have no problems qualifying for the World Cup, but it remains to be seen how they perform, with Tuchel under pressure, considering that the national side have made the final of the last two European Championships.
England have not reported any injury problems from their clash with Andorra last time out, and there are unlikely to be many changes from the side that took to the field for the first whistle.
Serbia are a strong team with a whole host of excellent players, and this is set to be a very tough test for England; we are struggling to back the Three Lions with any real confidence here and have had to settle on a draw.
Congo DR and Senegal will lock horns at Stade des Martyrs on Tuesday in round eight of the CAF 2026 World Cup qualifiers, in what is set up to be a decisive top-of-the-table clash in Group B.
Just one point separates the two nations after seven matches, with the hosts leading the way on 16 points, an advantage they will be eager to stretch in front of their home supporters.
Congo DR’s long wait for a return to the World Cup is edging closer to reality, and victory on Tuesday would give them valuable breathing space in the group with only two games left to play after that.
It is just over a year since the Leopards earned a hard-fought 1-1 draw away to Senegal, and they have since gone from strength to strength, winning their last four matches in this qualification series, with the only setback coming in a narrow defeat to Sudan much earlier.
However, history is not on their side heading into this fixture, with Congo DR having not beaten Senegal since 1968, losing five and drawing two of the seven meetings since then – though, this will also be the first time the two nations meet on Congolese soil, giving the hosts an added sense of occasion.
For Senegal, the stakes could not be higher, as the Teranga Lions know that anything less than a win risks putting their qualification hopes in jeopardy, with just two games left to play afterwards in the qualification series.
Cape Verde and Cameroon go head-to-head in a top-of-the-table clash in Group D of the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifiers at the Estadio Nacional de Cabo Verde on Tuesday evening.
Only one point separates the sides heading into this encounter, making it a pivotal fixture in the battle for automatic qualification.
Cape Verde enter this match on a high after a 2-0 victory over Mauritius last Thursday, with goals from Jovane Cabral and Diney Borges keeping their qualification hopes firmly on track.
Bubista’s men have now won five of their seven qualifiers, suffering just one defeat while drawing once.
Their solid record has seen them score nine goals and concede only five, while four consecutive wins have lifted them to the summit of Group D.
The Indomitable Lions are currently unbeaten in 13 matches across all competitions, their last defeat coming against Nigeria in the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations round of 16.
With a record eight World Cup appearances, Cameroon are aiming to extend their African benchmark and secure direct qualification without having to go through the playoffs.
Having scored more goals and conceded fewer than any other side, Brys’s men should have enough to secure all three points.
Nigeria’s diminishing 2026 World Cup hopes could face a decisive setback on Tuesday as the Super Eagles travel to South Africa for the Group C fixture at the Toyota Stadium.
With nine points remaining to be played for, Eric Chelle’s team trail Bafana Bafana by six points going into the matchday eight clash, heightening the significance of Tuesday’s game for the three-time African champions, who are at risk of missing successive finals.
If Nigeria end Group C as winners when this is over, even the most optimistic fans would be astounded by any remarkable turnaround in fortunes.
The Super Eagles enter the seventh match of qualifying with 10 points out of a possible 21, having been let down by their string of draws (four), with the West African team’s only loss so far being their 2-1 defeat by Benin in June 2024.
The West African nation’s inability to score decisive goals leaves them trailing Hubo Broos’s team by six points, with no margin for error now.
Losing in Bloemfontein could mean the three-time African champions miss out on automatic qualification; however, even finishing second does not guarantee Chelle’s team a spot as one of the four best runners-up in the African qualifying section.
Bafana Bafana aim to thwart the visiting nation’s chances on Tuesday, with the top-ranked team five points ahead of Benin and six in front of Nigeria after seven matchdays.
Egypt travel to Ouagadougou to face Burkina Faso at Stade du 4-Aout, seeking a victory that would seal automatic qualification for the 2026 World Cup.
With only three rounds left, the Pharaohs hold a five-point lead at the top of Group A but face a stern test against their second-placed hosts, who are desperate to cut the gap in the race for a place at the finals.
The stakes could not be higher for Burkina Faso, as a slip here would all but end hopes of reaching their first ever World Cup through direct progression.
While they head into Monday’s tie on a high, Burkina still carry the burden of never having beaten Egypt in five previous meetings across all competitions, losing four and suffering a penalty defeat in the other.
Egypt approach the clash with belief, not only buoyed by their 2-1 success in the reverse fixture but also with momentum following another strong result last time out.
The Pharaohs, who had not played since back-to-back victories in March, picked up where they left off by beating Ethiopia 2-0 in Cairo on Friday.
Penalty strikes from captain Mohamed Salah of Liverpool and Manchester City forward Omar Marmoush were enough to secure three points, guaranteeing Egypt at least a top-two finish.
Hossam Hassan’s side have now won six of their seven qualifiers, drawing the other, and have impressed at both ends with 16 goals scored and only two conceded.
This has all the makings of a fiercely contested battle, with Burkina Faso throwing everything at Egypt, but the Pharaohs look capable of standing firm, so a draw appears the likeliest outcome.
A 34-year-old labourer, Kingsford Nii Sackey, has been sentenced to one day imprisonment by the Circuit Court in Accra for stealing window net frames valued at GH¢30,875.00.
The court, presided over by Her Honour Susana Eduful, also imposed a fine of 500 penalty units on the convict, in default of which he will serve an additional three months in prison.
Sackey pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing, contrary to Section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), and was convicted on his own plea.
According to the prosecution, led by Chief Inspector Wemegeh, the complainant, Michael Essien, is a warehouse keeper at a construction site located at Dansoman Keep Fit Down in the Greater Accra Region. The accused, Kingsford Nii Sackey, worked at the same site as a chef and labourer. Both were also residing at the site.
On September 1, 2025, at about 2:40 a.m., Mr. Essien returned to the site and saw Sackey walking out of the premises carrying two polythene bags. Upon noticing Essien, Sackey quickly turned around and hid the bags.
Essien, suspicious of Sackey’s behaviour, went to inspect the bags and discovered 65 pieces of window net frames, each valued at GHC475.00, believed to have been stolen.
Sackey was immediately apprehended and handed over to the Dansoman Police along with the stolen items. During investigations, he admitted in his caution statement to stealing only eight pieces, not the 65 claimed by the complainant.
After reviewing the evidence and Sackey’s admission of guilt, the court delivered its sentence, taking into consideration the value of the stolen items and the convict’s guilty plea.
The successful deployment of Operation Black Maria in Akwatia by the Ghana Police Service has set a new standard for maintaining law and order in the country. The Inspector General of Police (IGP), Mr Christian Tetteh Yohuno, disclosed this to The Chronicle in exclusive interview over the weekend, after last week’s by-election.
Black Maria
According to him, his administration would build on this success by replicating the Operation Black Maria model in subsequent police operations across the country. To him, effective communication with stakeholders, especially political parties, security agencies coupled with the strategic deployment of the large contingent of personnel was deterrent enough for potential troublemakers in the Akwatia constituency.
IGP Yohuno further told The Chronicle that proactive measures like risk assessment, contingency planning and coordination with relevant stakeholders resulted in the incident free by-election.
He continued that, constant training and capacity building for the personnel on Operation Black Maria model, focusing on effective communication, crowd management and conflict resolution also played major role in ensuring peaceful election in Akwatia.
IGP Yohuno laid emphasis on the need to regularly assess and evaluate the effectiveness of Operation Black Maria, identifying areas for improvement and implementing necessary adjustments.
According to him, if future preparation is conducted with the needed zeal, reduced incidence of violence and disturbances during electoral and other events would be achieved.
On April 28, 2025, as the Article 146 Committee was being constituted to investigate petitions against Chief Justice Torkornoo, I made a prescient observation on Facebook as follows:
Justice Scott Pwamang handing over the report to President Mahama
“Pwamang JSC has a unique opportunity to avert what could potentially be a calamity for our justice system. The judiciary, however credible or otherwise one may perceive it in its current state, remains the last bastion behind our democracy. We just cannot risk surrendering it to the whims and pleasure of the executive on a platter, to be made subject to the basal manipulations of conscienceless politicians.”
“Justice Pwamang may indeed be the direct beneficiary of a successful ouster of our CJ as is rumoured, but the deeper question he needs to ask himself is, in what condition is he willing to leave this hallowed position after his exit…? Is he dignified enough to look beyond his personal ambition and safeguard the greater good of the entire judiciary of which he has remained an important member?”
“For now, eyes can only look and observe him.”
We indeed looked and observed, but sadly, Gabriel Scott Pwamang JSC and his group of hand-picked co-conspirators caved in to their personal predilections, mutilating our judiciary and surrendering it to executive pleasure in the process.
The removal of Gertrude E.S Torkonoo (CJ) is an unprecedented culmination of a constitutional crisis predicted months earlier. The Article 146 Committee that recommended her removal, did so on three primary grounds. When subjected to proper legal scrutiny, it is manifestly obvious that each of these grounds suffers from fatal legal and constitutional defects that render the the committee’s recommendation and the eventual removal questionable and procedurally flawed.
GROUND 1: UNAUTHORIZED TRAVEL AND ALLEGED FINANCIAL MISAPPROPRIATION:
The committee found that Justice Torkornoo engaged in “unlawful expenditure of public funds” by traveling to Tanzania with her husband and to the United States with her daughter in September 2023, including payment of per diem for her family members. However, the Committee appears to have paid scant or no regard to the Policy on Foreign Travels by Head of the Judiciary and Superior Court Judges, which was in evidence as exhibit DO(2). This document expressly states at paragraphs A9 and A10 as follows:
Paragraph A(9): “The Chief Justice shall undertake unlimited official travels with either his/her Spouse or other person of his/her choice in a year, fully funded by the Judicial Service.”
Paragraph A(10): “Where the Chief Justice is accompanied by the Spouse or other person, he/she shall travel on the same class of air ticket as the Chief Justice and shall be paid the equivalent of half the per diem paid to the Chief Justice. It is apparent from this, that expenditures associated with these travels were not unlawful as the committee concluded. It has been suggested that the CJ was still in breach because these policy provisions concerned official travel. What these critics fail to establish however, is that the trips in question were NOT official. As AyikoiOtoo Esq argues, it was not CJ Torkonoo who asked to be allowed to make official travels with her spouse and other person of her choice. This was a condition of service that attended with her position as head of the judiciary.
But assuming I was wrong, and the CJ was actually in breach, was this misstep grievous enough to meet the exceptionally high constitutional threshold set by the Framers of our constitution on stated misbehavior as a ground for removing the Chief Justice, especially in the absence of evidence of fraud, deceit or a dishonest attempt by the CJ to benefit unduly?
Nana Dr. S.K.B Asante, Chairman of the committee that drafted the 1992 constitution and a revered constitutional expert, testified before the Pwamang Committee between 4 to 18 August 2025 that the framers never intended Artcile 146 to justify the CJ’s removal over trivial issues like personal travels, and emphasized that the exceptionally high threshold only permitted her removal on grounds that were so serious as to reasonably impair her ability to perform her official duties. This was affirmed by other eminent jurists who testified before the committee, including former Chief Justices Sophia Akuffo and Kwasi Aning Yeboah.
GROUND 2: BREACH OF ARTICLE 296 IN THE TRANSFER OF MR. BAIDEN:
Regarding this, the committee is reported as stating that …”the Chief Justice unjustifiably breached the provisions in artcile 296(a) and (b) of the constitution 1992, in the way and manner that she transferred Mr. Baiden…
The most glaring defect in this declaration, is the committee’s constitutional overreach it evidences. Article 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution confers upon the Supreme Court “exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of the 1992 Constitution. The Article 146 committee on the other hand, is limited to mere fact-finding, and has no jurisdiction over interpretation and enforcement functions otherwise reserved exclusively for the Supreme Court. By declaring that CJ Torkonoo’s administrative decision breached Article 296 (a) and (b) of the constitution, the committee:
Usurped the SUpreme Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction;
Exceeded its terms of reference and fact-finding mandate; and
iii. Violated the principle of separation of powers by encroaching upon judicial functions as an administrative committee.
Supreme Court of Ghana
Apart from these serious constitutional flaws, the committee’s finding on this ground is further plagued by latent procedural lapses. We know that the affected judicial officer, Mr. Baiden, was not the petitioner nor complainant. It is neither suggested that he partook in the inquiry nor authorized Daniel Ofori, the actual petitioner to raise that complaint on his behalf. This leads us to the critical question of Daniel Ofori’s locus standi.
Whilst generally, locus for bringing interpretation and enforcement actions in the Supreme Court is liberally construed to include any citizen, the proceedings before the committee was not an interpretation and enforcement proceedings. A fortiori, a person raising an in personal allegation of malice and vendetta against the CJ in the exercise of her administrative functions, must have a personal interest in the matter.
But Daniel Ofori had no direct interest or personal involvement in the matter. This means that whatever evidence was provided for this ground would be secondary, hearsay evidence. Mr. Daniel Ofori is at best, a meddlesome interloper who, goaded by his conspiring principals, embarked on a phishing expedition to gather charges against the CJ.
Finally, assuming without prejudice, that Mr. Baiden’s transfer was in fact procedurally flawed, the fundamental question remains: Do administrative personnel decisions constitute “stated misbehaviour” warranting the removal of a Chief Justice? It is crucial to observe the necessary distinction between ordinary administrative errors/misjudgment and serious misconduct meeting the threshold of stated misbehavior. The unjustified elevation of routine administrative decisions to serious constitutional violations constitutes a dangerous expansion of removal grounds that threatens judicial independence and ultimately, democratic stability.
The final ground upon which the committee recommended the CJ’s removal was that she inappropriately submitted five names to the former president for Supreme Court nomination. This was characterized as bypassing established procedures.
Article 144((2) of the constitution provides that Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President “acting on the advice of the Judicial Council”. The CJ serves as chair of the Judicial Council. This constitutional provision, and case law espousing its application establish the central role played by the CJ in this process. Due to this important role, the mere submission of names for presidential consideration cannot be condemned as stated misbehavior in the absence of evidence that it was tainted by corruption, bias or bad faith.
But once again, even if it were conceded that the CJ actually sidestepped formal procedures, the question remains whether her dismissal is a proportionate and proper remedy. The answer, once again is a BIG NO.
As a person clothed with administrative authority, she is within her right to get it wrong, in much the same way a judge cannot be condemned for deciding a case wrongly. In the case of a judge adjudicating a case wrongly, the remedy lies not in dismissing or removing the judge from office, but through various levels of appeal and or judicial review. In the same vein, the CJ’s presentation to the president, even if procedurally wrong, could be corrected by several alternative remedies including rejection by the president, parliamentary review through refusal to grant parliamentary approval, administrative correction through a re-starting of the whole process and/or judicial review if necessary.
One can easily discern from the grounds, a clear effort to rationalize ex post facto, an already predetermined outcome. The inherent danger however, is that this drastically lowers the article 146 threshold in ways that eliminate the security of tenure necessary to secure judicial independence, which constitutes the very sinews of our democracy.
The question I posed to Justice Pwamang in April … “ in what condition is he willing to bequeath the judiciary” now resonates with tragic clarity. Justice Pwamang has spearheaded the creation of a perilous precedent that fundamentally undermines the security of tenure that protects his own position and that of our future. I hope he can live with his creation in good conscience.
