Senegal was stripped of the Africa Cup of Nations title, shocking the football world, with the Confederation of African Football (CAF) declaring Morocco the winner after a dramatic review of the chaotic final.The decision comes nearly two months after Senegal’s 1-0 extra-time victory over Rabat, which CAF ruled would be recorded as a 3-0 defeat to Morocco after upholding an appeal by the Royal Moroccan Football Federation.Push boundaries with our YouTube channel. Subscribe now!The Confederation of African Football stated that the Senegalese players left the field in protest at the end of regular time and were effectively sentenced to abandon the game. The ruling was made in accordance with Articles 82 and 84 of the African Union Rules, which stipulate that a team that leaves the field without permission from the referee will be deemed to have lost the game 0-3.Senegal’s football authorities reacted strongly, calling the decision “unjust, unprecedented and unacceptable” and confirmed they would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. “The Senegalese Football Federation condemns this decision, which brings African football into disrepute,” the federation said.Morocco, meanwhile, insists their appeal is strictly procedural. “Its purpose was never to compete for sporting performance, but simply to demand compliance with the rules of the competition,” the federation said.
File photo: Senegalese fans protest after a controversial penalty was awarded against Morocco in the final. (AP Photo)
What happened in Rabat’s chaotic finalThe controversy stems from extraordinary scenes at the Prince Moulay Abdullah Stadium on January 18. The final went goalless into stoppage time when referee Jean-Jacques Ndala awarded Morocco a penalty following a VAR review for a foul on Brahim Diaz.The decision sparked confusion. The Senegalese players left the field in protest, causing the game to be suspended for nearly 20 minutes, while some supporters tried to break into the stadium. team leader Sadio Mane Finally convinced his teammates to return.When play resumed, Morocco failed to capitalize on their chances, with Edouard Mendy easily saving Diaz’s Panenka effort. The game went into overtime and Papu Gueye scored what looked like the winning goal.However, a retrospective ruling by Confederation of African Football has now wiped that outcome from the record books.Consequences, Sanctions and Global ResponseThe consequences were explosive. Several Senegalese players reacted angrily on social media, with defender Moussa Niakhate posting a photo of the trophy with the caption “They’re crazy”.FIFA president Gianni Infantino earlier condemned the “unacceptable scenes” and said leaving the pitch and any form of violence “will not be tolerated”.CAF has already slapped two federations with hefty fines for misconduct, while legal proceedings are ongoing involving Senegalese supporters accused of hooliganism.The controversy is far from over as Senegal has now taken action to the sport’s top legal body, with one of African football’s most dramatic finals continuing to spark debate around the world.
On March 13, three Ukrainian veterans, Petro Hurba, Taras Slyviak and Ivan Sukmanovskyi, were arrested by immigration officials at Lucknow airport and handed over to the National Intelligence Service. They have been charged under the UAPA.Investigators said on Tuesday that the network was led by U.S. citizen Mathew Aron Van Dyke, who was arrested at Kolkata airport, and three other Ukrainians – Stefankiv Marian, Honcharuk Maksim and Kaminskyi Viktor – who were recently detained in Delhi.Van Dyke, who describes himself online as the founder of a security consulting firm and a film producer, claims to be involved in conflicts in Libya and Ukraine and covert operations in Venezuela.All seven accused are in NIA custody and investigators have widened their probe into alleged cross-border links, supply chains and possible threats to India’s security.On Monday, Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Sharma of the Patiala House Court in New Delhi sent the group to police custody for 11 days, stressing that the charges were directly related to “India’s national security and interests”. The court found that interrogation and detention were necessary at this stage of the investigation.According to details of the investigation, the Lucknow detainees flew from the UAE to India in December 2025 on a tourist visa, traveled to Mizoram without a mandatory no-go permit and allegedly crossed into Myanmar, where they established links with armed groups hostile to India.Investigators said the suspects traveled to Lucknow from Guwahati by bus and checked into a hotel near the airport hours before their planned departure. The hotel owner said the three people claimed to be tourists and one of them claimed to be a chef but avoided questions about previous activities.“Timely submission of Form C by hotels played a crucial role in tracking them down,” a source said.Investigators say the group procured drones from Europe and shipped them to India and then to Myanmar, where it trained ethnic insurgents in conflict with the military junta.Mizoram Chief Minister Lal Duhoma earlier told the state assembly that intelligence showed there were Ukrainian veterans in Chin state providing training to the rebels.According to Delhi’s opinion
“Rahul Gandhi and several MPs were seen sitting on the steps of Parliament, drinking tea and eating biscuits in a manner completely unbecoming of a member of the country’s highest legislative body. The steps of Parliament are not a place for spectacle or political showmanship,” they said in an open letter supported by 204 signatories.They claimed that Rahul’s behavior inside the Parliament complex amounted to deliberate contempt for the Chairman and showed disregard for the authority of the Assembly. “This shows an attitude of arrogance and entitlement,” they added.They said Speaker Om Birla had given clear instructions against demonstrations or protests in the Parliament complex, but the opposition led by Rahul ignored the instructions.“Rahul must apologize to the nation for this act and reflect on the attitude that led to it in order to uphold the dignity, authority and sanctity of the institution,” they said.