How the Africa Cup of Nations final descended into chaos

Senegal have been crowned Africa Cup of Nations champions after one of the most chaotic and perplexing conclusions to a major final in football history.

After what had been a frantic but goalless game so far, the clash descended into carnage in second-half stoppage time after two controversial decisions against Senegal, the second being a last-gasp penalty for Morocco, led to manager Pape Thiaw dragging his team off the pitch and into the dressing room in protest.

Teranga Lions talisman Sadio Mane remained on the touchline before retrieving his team after a lengthy delay, with referee Jean-Jacques Ndala losing complete control of the match.

Brahim Diaz, who went down softly to win the spot-kick, then stepped up to take the penalty in the 24th minute of additional time, only to see his abysmal ‘Panenka’ attempt float into the arms of Senegal goalkeeper Edouard Mendy, with the game therefore forced into extra time.

Pape Sarr went on to score the winner in stunning fashion for Senegal in the 94th minute, with his rocket of an effort proving the difference and denying the Atlas Lions a first Afcon title since 1976.

Here’s how it all unfolded.

Senegal thought they had snatched victory at the death when Ismaila Sarr bundled the ball home in the second minute of stoppage time, heading home after Abdoulaye Seck saw his effort ricochet off the post. However, the whistle went very quickly for a soft foul on Achraf Hakimi, who had been brushed off by Seck as the Paris Saint-Germain star tried to hinder the defender.

Thiaw and the Senegal players were clearly outraged by Ndala’s decision, which did not appear to receive much of a VAR check. The game swiftly got back underway with the score still goalless.

Three minutes later, Diaz went down in the box under the challenge of left-back El Hadji Malick Diouf, claiming he had been tugged to the ground by the West Ham man. With Diaz vehemently protesting that he had been fouled, the incident was taken to VAR before Ndala was called to the monitor.

Officials and players jostled with each other while the referee consulted the touchline screen and when Ndala returned to the pitch to award a last-minute spot-kick, giving Morocco a golden chance to snatch Afcon glory, the final plunged into chaos.

Thiaw ordered his players off the pitch in protest to what was another soft decision against his Senegal side, initially keeping them on the touchline before dragging them into the dressing room. A handful of Morocco players remained in the box, waiting to take their potentially match-winning penalty as they consulted the referee.

In the midst of the mayhem, Senegal fans clashed with security as they tried to invade the pitch, with some seen being forcibly carried away. Senegal talisman Mane, however, stayed on the pitch in an act of defiance against his manager’s orders, with the former Liverpool winger clearly keen to get the match restarted. Yet with the Senegal team nowhere to be seen, the outcome of the final hung in the balance.

Mane ran into the dressing room to retrieve his players and after a 16-minute hiatus, the Senegal squad returned to the Stade Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium turf to allow Morocco to take their penalty. In what he says was his last ever Afcon match, Mane was evidently instrumental on getting his teammates back on the pitch, with Thiaw eventually giving in and similarly instructing his players to return.

Diaz, the tournament’s top scorer with five goals, stepped up to the plate in the 24th minute of stoppage time, with further delays coming about as goalkeeper Mendy persistently came off his line to speak to the Real Madrid midfielder, perhaps in a bid to put him off.

When Diaz eventually took the spot-kick, he inexplicably tried a ‘Panenka’-style chip and has weak penalty sailed tamely into the arms of Mendy, passing up on the opportunity to deliver Morocco a first Afcon title in 50 years. The reaction of the Senegal players – hardly celebrating before turning and running up the other end – raised the eyebrows of viewers.

Diaz was later shown in tears after the match and was completely dejected as he received his golden boot award from Fifa president Gianni Infantino.

With Diaz’s miss forcing the game to extra time, Thiaw’s men, fuelled by a sense of injustice, regrouped and forced their way in front when Gueye surged forward and blasted a left-foot piledriver past Morocco goalkeeper Bono and in off the underside of the crossbar.

Bono later denied Cherif Ndiaye a second with a stunning double save and Gueye’s contribution ultimately proved decisive.

Prince Harry ‘arrives in UK’ ready for High Court battle

Prince Harry has reportedly arrived in the UK as he prepares to take on the Daily Mail’s publisher ahead of a high-stakes legal battle with the British media giant.

The prince’s action against the paper’s publishers, Associated Newspapers, will finally be heard at the High Court in London on Monday in what is set to be a nine-week trial.

The Duke of Sussex has a host of seven high-profile figures who have joined in his action, including Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actors Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of Stephen Lawrence, and former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes.

The claimants have accused the Daily Mail of hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars and homes, phone hacking, paying police for information, and even commissioning burglaries.

Associated Newspapers, which is owned by the Rothermere family, has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, dismissing the allegations as “preposterous smears” and part of a wider conspiracy.

The stakes are high for all parties involved in the trial, with reputations on the line and legal costs anticipated to run into tens of millions of pounds.

Prince Harry reportedly arrived in London on Sunday and is due to give evidence on Thursday. A source close to Harry told The Telegraph he was feeling “confident and ready” for the court fight with Associated Newspapers.

The 41-year-old has consistently expressed his deep resentment of the often aggressive tactics employed by British media, a stance frequently linked to the tragic death of his mother, Princess Diana, in a 1997 car crash while being pursued by paparazzi.

Prince Harry and his American wife, Meghan, have previously cited that media harassment was one of the main factors for their decision to step down from royal duties and move to California in 2020.

This case against Associated Newspapers could prove to be Prince Harry’s most significant legal challenge, following successful actions against Mirror Group Newspapers and Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers (NGN), which resulted in damages, apologies, and admissions of wrongdoing.

In 2023, the prince won a high-court battle against the Mirror newspapers, in which a judge found “widespread and habitual” use of phone hacking at the newspapers.

Prince Harry’s claim against the Daily Mail publisher covers 14 articles that are alleged to have been obtained unlawfully, including stories about his relationships with former girlfriends Chelsy Davy, Cressida Bonas and Laura Gerard-Leigh, and an article concerning details of a party being planned by the two brothers after Princess Diana’s memorial concert.

The trial comes after the closure of News of the World in 2011 over a phone hacking scandal which led to the jailing of its former editor Andy Coulson and a public inquiry.

Billionaire wealth jumps to highest peak ever in 2025

Billionaire wealth jumped three times faster in 2025 than in the previous five years to its highest peak ever, new figures have has shown, sparking warnings of dangerous political inequality.

Figures published by the charity Oxfam show that in the UK, the richest 56 people now hold more wealth than 27 million combined.

Calling on the government to impose a wealth tax, the report shows that the average UK billionaire will gain more wealth than the value of the UK’s average annual salary in less time than it takes to watch a premier league football match.

It comes as billionaire wealth globally has now hit its highest level in history, at $18.3 trillion.

Billionaire wealth jumped by over 16 per cent in 2025, three times faster than the average from the previous five years.

The new report, ‘Resisting the Rule of the Rich: Protecting Freedom from Billionaire Power’, warns that extreme wealth is becoming increasingly linked to political power, estimating that billionaires are around 4,000 times more likely to hold political office than ordinary citizens.

The total number of billionaires in the world has now reached 3,000 for the first time ever, while 1 in 4 people globally do not regularly have enough to eat, and nearly half of the world’s population lives in poverty, the report shows.

It estimates that the collective global wealth of billionaires last year increased by $2.5 trillion – which would be enough to eradicate extreme poverty 26 times over.

The figures highlight a “dangerous trend”, the report says. “As extreme wealth grows rapidly, political rights and civil liberties are declining worldwide.

“Tens of millions of people, feeling trapped in poverty and powerless to influence the system, are taking to the streets but they are met with authoritarian measures.

“Oxfam argues that political leaders now face a stark and urgent choice: favour the wealthy few or defend the rights and freedoms of the many.”

Sonya Sultan, chief influencing officer at the charity said: “Most people do not want a world dominated by billionaires.

“Rising protests globally shows people are rejecting a system rigged in favour of a few. We’re seeing widespread anger against the rigging of elections and economies to hand power and riches to the few.

“From the youth-led protests in Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, these voices are demanding change and we must listen to them and take action. In the UK now a clear majority of people favour a wealth tax.

“Deep economic, political and social inequalities matter to people.

“Political leaders need to listen and respond accordingly: stop protecting the wealth and power of a few, at the expense of the opportunities and rights of the rest of the population. Remember who you are meant to represent and serve.”

Oxfam’s report recommends the government introduce a wealth tax on assets above £10m in order to tackle “extreme inequality”.

It also calls for the government to clamp down on lobbying, campaign finance and political influence in order to protect democracy, as well as calling on ministers to do more to defend the rights of ordinary citizens and civil society organisations so they can “organise, protest and be heard without fear”.

The government has so far resisted growing calls for a wealth tax, with left-wing Labour MPs and Green Party leader Zack Polanski saying the imposition of a tax on wealth could clamp down on inequality, plug holes in the public finances and fix Britain’s creaking public services.

But there are fears that such a levy could drive talent and investment away from the UK economy.

Members of Trump’s Gaza peace board asked ‘to pay $1bn’ to keep membership

Countries on Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza will be asked to contribute $1bn to keep their membership for more than three years, according to reports.

“Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman,” a draft document first reported by Bloomberg shows.

It adds that the three-year term “shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter”.

According to the draft, Mr Trump would serve as the board’s chair and decide on who is invited to be a member. While decisions would be taken by a majority, with each member state present getting one vote, all decisions would be subject to the chair’s approval.

The draft also reportedly suggests that Mr Trump would control the money himself, and that it would allegedly go towards rebuilding Gaza.

The board is described as “an international organisation that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict”.

The board would become official once three member states agree to the charter. They would meet at least once a year, and “at such additional times and locations as the Chairman deems appropriate”.

The chair would also approve the agenda for meetings.

“The Chairman shall at all times designate a successor for the role of Chairman,” the charter reportedly says.

Earlier this week, Sir Tony Blair announced he had been asked to be on the “Board of Peace”, which also includes US secretary of state Marco Rubio and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

In a statement, Sir Tony said Mr Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza was an “extraordinary achievement” and that implementing it will take “enormous commitment and hard work”.

The former Labour leader, Mr Rubio and Mr Kushner are joined on the board by World Bank president Ajay Banga, Marc Rowan, Robert Gabriel and the US special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff.

At this point, no Palestinians have been invited to sit on the board, though additional Executive Board and Gaza Executive Board members will be announced over the coming weeks.

Several world leaders have also reportedly been invited to become members, including Argentina’s president Javier Milei and Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney.

The former UK prime minister’s inclusion on the list of board members may be controversial as he remains a divisive figure in the Middle East due to his role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

He later became a representative of the Quartet, a group seeking peace between Israel and the Palestinians made up of the US, EU, Russia and the United Nations, but stepped down after he was criticised for being too close to Israel.

Despite Mr Trump’s claim of progress in securing a lasting peace agreement in Gaza, Israel on Saturday threw the future of the deal into doubt after expressing opposition to the membership of the board.

The Israeli government said that the board’s executive committee “was not coordinated with Israel and is contrary to its policy”, and that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had given instructions to the foreign ministry to contact Mr Rubio over the matter.

Ex-Archbishop of Canterbury: Putin is a heretic – his is not a holy mission

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has accused Vladimir Putin of “heresy” after the Russian President claimed his invasion of Ukraine was a “holy mission”.

During a speech to mark Orthodox Christmas earlier this month, Putin called his soldiers “warriors” who were acting “as if at the Lord’s behest” and “defending the fatherland”.

Mr Williams, who served as the Archbishop of Canterbury from 2002 to 2012, condemned the use of religion to justify the invasion as “disturbing” and said that Putin’s revanchism directly contradicts the message preached by Jesus Christ.

“I’d certainly say we’re talking about heresy,” he told The Independent. “We’re talking about something which undermines a really fundamental aspect of religious belief, of Christian belief, which assumes that we have to defend God by violence.”

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, more than 1,600 theologians and clerics from the Eastern Orthodox Church issued the Volos Declaration, which condemned the “Russian World” ideology as a heretical belief and practice. The belief system grants Russia a special place in the cosmic order and claims the country has a divine right to build the “Holy Rus”: a land chosen by God for the Russian people.

“The idea that death in battle for your country equates to Christian martyrdom seems to be the most bizarre and unjustifiable interpretation you could take,” Mr Williams said.

“There is something really, really disturbing about the systematic, comprehensive rebranding of Christianity as Russian national ideology.”

He referred to statements made by Christ that his kingdom is “not of this world” and “if it were of this world, my servants would fight”.

Mr Williams pointed to the fact that Putin often resists calls to scale back fighting and violence over Christian religious periods, including Christmas and Easter.

He also pointed to the arrest and detention of two young Orthodox seminary members, Denis Popovich and Nikita Ivankovich. They are facing up to 20 years in prison on what critics say are trumped-up charges, according to Public Orthodoxy, a publication that is part of the Orthodox Christian Studies Centre.

Mr Popovich was arrested as he was walking to Sretensky Monastery in Moscow for “petty hooliganism” and “allegedly shouting and using obscene language”. Public Orthodoxy wrote in a newsletter on the anniversary of his arrest: “Anyone who knew this devout young man understood immediately that such behaviour was inconceivable for him”. Six weeks later, the allegations had transformed into terrorism charges.

Asked what he would say to Putin, the theologian said: “The word Christianity contains the name Christ. Which Christ do you think you’re serving? The one of the Gospels or some nationalist goblin?”

In 2024, the Ukrainian parliament outlawed the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church because of its strong support for Russia’s invasion.

The Russian Orthodox Church has been a powerful ally of Putin, giving its blessing to the war and supporting his campaign to uphold what he calls traditional values in Russian society, in contrast to perceived Western decadence.

Mr Williams said that Russia’s use of faith as a justification for war should be an alarm bell for the West. Governments are in denial about the extent to which religion is being “weaponised” to drive human conflict across the world, and religious leaders should step up their condemnation of violence, he suggested.

“In the West, we might think that religion is draining away but it certainly isn’t in other parts of the world,” he said. “To imagine that faith can only be defended by violence is a bit of an insult to faith really. If you’re saying faith can only be strong if I beat the living daylights out of unbelievers, you’re not saying much about the strength of faith, are you?”

Orthodox priests told The Independent last week that Putin is more akin to the “Antichrist” than a messiah, and that he holds “demonic” beliefs antithetical to the faith.

“Seen from a Christian perspective, you don’t use unholy means to pursue a holy mission,” the former Bishop of Leeds, Nick Baines, told The Independent. “When that unholy means involves slaughtering people, invading their country, and telling lies.”

Save £190 on heat pump installation with this exclusive deal from Octopus

Readers of The Independent can now save five per cent on the cost of a heat pump installation, with an exclusive offer from Octopus Energy.

Available for a limited time, the deal could mean an average saving of around £190 on a typical heat pump installation. Prices vary depending on the heat pump type and size of your home, but the discount is applied to the final installation cost after the £7,500 Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant, where applicable – helping to make low-carbon heating more affordable.

Heat pump installation costs vary depending on the size and layout of your home, which is why every installation starts with a bespoke home survey.

Octopus Energy says its typical heat pump price is £3,818, based on the median of its heat pump quotes issued between June and September 2025. This compares with a national average of £5,295, according to Boiler Upgrade Scheme statistics published in July 2025.

With this exclusive five per cent discount, eligible Independent readers could save around £190 on that typical price. The discount is applied after the £7,500 Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant, where applicable, helping to reduce upfront costs even further.

Claim the offer now

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant is subject to eligibility

Octopus Energy installs air source heat pumps and manages the process from survey to installation. Because every home is different, prices aren’t fixed online and are confirmed after a home survey.

To qualify for the discount, readers must request a heat pump during the offer period, complete a home survey, and quote the code ‘INDY5’ to their heat pump specialist before signing the final installation agreement.

This exclusive offer is available from 12 January 2026 to 28 February 2026.

The five per cent discount is applied to the final installation price (after the BUS grant) and cannot be combined with any other promotion.

Claim the offer now

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant is subject to eligibility

To qualify for the discount, readers will need to book a home survey during the offer period. If Octopus Energy is unable to carry out the survey before the offer ends, the discount will still be honoured as long as a survey date is scheduled.

However, if you choose not to have a home survey during the offer period, the discount will no longer apply.

After the survey, you’ll need to sign your final installation agreement within 14 days of it being issued. If this 14-day window is missed, the offer will lapse and the five per cent discount will be removed.

View full terms and conditions and claim the offer now

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant is subject to eligibility

Chinese super-embassy could benefit security, ex-MI5 boss says

The proposed new Chinese super-embassy in London could be “advantageous” to national security, the former head of MI5 has said.

It comes as the government faces mounting calls to reject Beijing’s plans for the embassy at Royal Mint Court over security concerns, with a decision on the long-delayed planning application expected this week.

But Lord Evans said having a single, larger building might not be a disadvantage when it comes to Britain’s security.

He told Times Radio: “The current director of MI5 has been very explicit about the scale of the intelligence threat that the Chinese intelligence services pose to Britain and its allies. So, this is an area of real concern.

“There’s a judgment about whether the introduction of this, or the building of this, or the authorisation of this new embassy changes the risk. There are some aspects of it which I would guess are probably advantageous.

“At the moment, there are a variety of Chinese diplomatic premises across London, several buildings. Having a single building might in some ways not be a disadvantage in security terms. It is a very big embassy.

“I’m sure that has been looked at and I’m sure that appropriate security advice has been taken.”

He added: “But the fact that there is a Chinese embassy in itself has always been the case and will always be the case.

“And I don’t think that that in itself is a threat to our security any more than having a dispersed number of buildings across the capital that we have at the moment.”

It comes despite reports this week that the plans for the site, near the Tower of London, include 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber.

Critics fear the secret rooms, located in the site’s basement, could be used for the detention of dissidents who have fled the Chinese state for Britain.

The hidden chamber would be located in close proximity to data cables said to be crucial for financial sector communications between the City of London and Canary Wharf, The Telegraph reported.

But Sir Keir Starmer is reportedly poised to announce that the proposal has finally been approved after the decision was repeatedly pushed back.

On Saturday afternoon, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the site, some with flags and banners, chanting “no mega-embassy”.

Speaking at the protest, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch called for the government to intervene to stop the plans.

Accusing the government of being “scared of China”, she said: “I will always fight for freedom, and I am calling on the government to stop this decision.”

Mrs Badenoch added: “We do not want a country that spies on our MPs having this super-embassy right here, and I will do everything within my power to continue speaking on your behalf.”

She said China is a country that has “harassed and sanctioned our MPs”, “harassed and abused British nationals connected to China”, it “helps our enemies, like Russia”, and “disrupts the global trade system”.

Labour MPs have also voiced concerns about the embassy, with nine sending a letter to communities secretary Steve Reed this week, urging him to reject the application.

They raised security concerns and warned the embassy could be used to “step up intimidation” against dissidents.

Ministers have promised to decide on whether to grant the Chinese embassy planning permission by 20 January.

The UK’s best and worst energy firms revealed in Which? rankings

E (Gas and Electricity) has been named the best energy supplier in an annual ranking by Which?

Nearly nine in 10 E customers (86 per cent) said they would recommend the provider, which received the highest overall score of 79 per cent, receiving four stars for customer service, ease of contacting it and the clarity of its statements.

Scottish Power, EDF and British Gas were named among the worst suppliers, receiving overall scores of less than 60 per cent as well as just two stars in the consumer group’s customer survey.

Scottish Power received the lowest overall score of 56 per cent, receiving fewer points than any other provider when it came to its handling of complaints.

EDF came second to last with 58 per cent, largely because its phone lines and customer service email accounts are not monitored for as long as other providers.

British Gas came third from bottom with an overall score of 59 per cent, with Which? finding it offered a “good amount” of support to those who needed it but struggled with resolving complaints and switching customers.

Octopus Energy came second overall with a score of 74 per cent, followed by 100Green and Sainsbury’s Energy with scores of 72 per cent and 71 per cent respectively.

Co-op Energy and Outfox Energy received the same overall score as Sainsbury’s Energy, but did not score three stars or higher in every category of the customer survey.

Which? surveyed almost 12,000 energy customers during September and October for its annual customer satisfaction survey, as well as an in-depth assessment of 17 energy firms’ behind-the-scenes practices and policies.

Which? Energy editor Emily Seymour said: “Our research shows that while four suppliers are outshining the competition, some big firms – including Scottish Power, EDF and British Gas – are letting their customers down.

“With fixed tariffs now reliably cheaper than the energy price cap, there is no need for customers to put up with poor value for money or shoddy customer service. Any suppliers falling short need to improve or their customers will vote with their feet.

“Anyone who is unhappy with their provider should shop around and move to a supplier with a cheaper fixed tariff and better customer service.”

A spokesperson for Centrica, which owns British Gas, said: “Our investment in customer service is delivering results.

“Complaints have fallen over 20 per cent each year for the past two years, and both Uswitch and UKCSI (UK Customer Satisfaction Index) have acknowledged the progress we’re making.

“We know there is always more to do, and we are continually looking at ways to make further improvements for our customers.”

It also highlighted efforts to extend its call centre opening hours and launch a dedicated line for vulnerable customers.

An EDF spokeswoman said: “EDF notes the findings of Which?’s latest survey and is committed to continuing to improve the service we provide to our customers.

“While the research highlights areas where we need to go further, it also reflects strengths in how we support customers who need additional help. This is consistent with feedback we see elsewhere, including our excellent Trustpilot rating of 4.8, based on more than 154,000 five-star reviews from customers.

“We are focused on building on these strengths and continuing our efforts to deliver improvements.”

A Scottish Power spokeswoman said: “The independent Citizens Advice scorecard is the customer service gold standard with a much more robust and transparent methodology used to assess firms’ performance.

“It shows sustained, high-quality delivery for our customers, reflecting the huge investments we’ve made improving and enhancing our service – also highlighted by customers themselves in the Which? survey.”