Former U.S. President Donald Trump has warned that anyone caught sabotaging Tesla cars could face up to 20 years in prison.

Trump made this statement on Friday through a post on his Truth Social account. He said, “People that get caught sabotaging Tesla’s will stand a very good chance of going to jail for up to twenty years, and that includes the funders. We are looking for you!”

This comes shortly after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that three people have been charged with setting Tesla properties on fire using Molotov cocktails. Bondi described the attacks as “domestic terrorism” and vowed that those responsible would face the full weight of the law.

Earlier this week, Tesla CEO Elon Musk had also blamed “terrorism” after multiple cars caught fire at a Tesla facility in Las Vegas.

In March 2025, Nigeria’s political landscape was jolted by President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, a pivotal region in the nation’s oil production. This unprecedented move, the first in over a decade, has been met with a spectrum of reactions, reflecting the complexity of the situation.

Genesis of the Crisis

The turmoil in Rivers State has been brewing for months, primarily due to a power tussle between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and factions within the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

Also, the discord escalated when state lawmakers initiated impeachment proceedings against Governor Fubara, accusing him of illegal budget presentations and issues related to the legislative chamber’s composition. This internal strife significantly hampered governance and stability in the state.

Compounding the political unrest, Rivers State experienced a surge in pipeline vandalism. Notably, a recent explosion on the Trans Niger Pipeline resulted in a fire outbreak, disrupting a major oil transportation route.

Furthermore, President Tinubu expressed concern over these incidents, mentioning the lack of effective action by the state government to address the sabotage, which poses threats to both the economy and environmental safety.

Presidential Intervention

In response to the escalating crisis, President Tinubu invoked Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025. This action led to the suspension of Governor Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all members of the State House of Assembly for an initial period of six months.

Additionally, retired Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas was appointed as the military administrator to oversee the state’s affairs during this period, with the judiciary remaining functional to ensure the rule of law.

Legislative Approval

Following the declaration, both chambers of the National Assembly—the Senate and the House of Representatives—endorsed the state of emergency.

Despite initial resistance from some opposition parliamentarians, the lawmakers acknowledged the necessity of the measures to address the pressing issues in Rivers State. The emergency rule is set to last for six months, during which the federal government will implement strategies to stabilize the region.

Diverse Reactions

The declaration has elicited a wide array of responses:

• Legal Community:

The Nigerian Bar Association criticized the suspension of elected officials as illegal, arguing that a declaration of emergency does not automatically dissolve or suspend elected state governments.

• Regional Organizations:

The Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) rejected the declaration, describing it as hasty and unjustifiable. They argued that the move was unnecessary and failed to address the real issues causing the political crisis in the state.

• Political Analysts:

Also, figures like Dr. Reuben Abati, former media aide to President Goodluck Jonathan, labeled the declaration as an “impeachable offence,” asserting that the president lacks constitutional authority to remove a state governor through such a proclamation.

Rivers State, located in the Niger Delta, is vital for Nigeria’s crude oil production. The region has faced issues of pipeline sabotage that disrupt production and exports.

In a high-profile legal battle, actor Ryan Reynolds is seeking dismissal from a $400 million defamation lawsuit filed by fellow actor and director Justin Baldoni. The dispute originates from allegations by Reynolds’ wife, actress Blake Lively, who accused Baldoni of sexual harassment during the production of the film “It Ends With Us.”

The controversy began in December 2024 when Lively filed a civil rights complaint against Baldoni, alleging repeated sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour on set.

She claimed that after raising these concerns, Baldoni and his associates initiated a campaign to tarnish her reputation.

In response, Baldoni filed a counter-lawsuit in January 2025, accusing Lively and Reynolds of defamation, civil extortion, and invasion of privacy.

He alleged that the couple attempted to “hijack” the film and destroy his career. Baldoni’s lawsuit also named Lively’s publicist, Leslie Sloane, and her firm, Vision PR Inc., as defendants.

Also, Reynolds’ legal team recently filed a motion to dismiss the defamation claims against him. They argue that referring to Baldoni as a “predator” constitutes a protected opinion under the First Amendment.

The motion asserts that there is no evidence suggesting Reynolds did not believe his statement to be true, and therefore, it does not meet the criteria for defamation.

Furthermore, Reynolds’ attorneys contend that Baldoni’s allegations about a character named “Nicepool” in Reynolds’ “Deadpool & Wolverine” film, purportedly mocking Baldoni, do not amount to legal harm but rather “hurt feelings.” They emphasize that Reynolds’ involvement in the matter stems solely from his role as a supportive spouse to Lively.

Baldoni’s legal team disputes Reynolds’ motion, asserting that Reynolds was actively involved in a smear campaign against Baldoni.

Additionally, Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, criticized Reynolds for attempting to “run from the flames” by seeking dismissal from the lawsuit. Freedman maintains that the claims against Reynolds are serious and that he must be held accountable for his actions.