Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro has been sworn in for a third presidential term despite the protests of the country’s opposition movement, capping more than five months of dispute over last summer’s contested election.

The ceremony took place on Friday in a small room of the National Assembly, a marked difference from previous ceremonies held in the building’s main hall.

Maduro was proclaimed winner of the country’s presidential election on July 28, by electoral authorities under the tight control of the ruling Socialist Party.

But Venezuela’s opposition published thousands of voting tallies claiming that their candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, had actually won the vote with 67% against Maduro’s 30%.

González, who has been in exile since September with a bounty on his head by Venezuelan authorities, had pledged to return to Caracas this week in a potential last challenge to Maduro’s inauguration. His last known location on Friday was the Dominican Republic, where he had recently met with regional leaders.

Ahead of the inauguration, Venezuela closed its land border and suspended flights to Colombia – a move that Freddie Bernal, the governor of the Venezuelan border state of Tachira claimed was in reaction to a “international conspiracy” against Venezuela in an Instagram post. He did not provide proof for his claim.

The border closure came just hours after Colombia broke its silence on the issue and announced it would not recognize the results of last summer’s elections, stating they were not free.

Protests erupted in Caracas and other Venezuelan cities on Thursday ahead of the inauguration, with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado emerging from hiding to speak at one event.

Machado was later “violently intercepted” at the event, according to her team, which said that “during the period of her kidnapping she was forced to record several videos and was later released.” The Venezuelan government has denied detaining Machado.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

An Australian judge has annulled the marriage of a Melbourne couple after the bride told the court that she took part in the wedding ceremony believing it was a social media “prank.”

According to documents published by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the woman in her 20s met the man in his 30s on a dating platform in September 2023. They met in person the following day and started dating.

They cannot be named as the identities of those involved in family law proceedings in Australia are protected.

The woman told the family court that they started planning a trip to Sydney in October that year, as the man said he wanted to take her there in December.

She said the man proposed to her in late December and she accepted. Two days later they got married in a ceremony in Sydney – but the woman believed the wedding was “all an act.”

The woman said the groom had told her to attend a venue wearing a white dress because there would be a “white party” – a party at which all the guests wear white – and, since the trip had been pre-planned and they had previously attended a white party in Queensland, she “never suspected, like, anything fishy.”

She emphasized that the dress she wore was not a wedding dress, according to court documents.

When she arrived at the venue, she said, she did not see anybody else in white.

When she asked the man what was happening, he “pulled me aside, and he told me that he’s organising a prank wedding for his social media, to be precise, Instagram, because he wants to boost his content, and wants to start monetising his Instagram page,” the court heard.

She said the groom was a social media influencer – a claim that he denied, but he did admit to having more than 17,000 Instagram followers.

The woman said she thought marriages were only legal if they took place in a court, and that she called a friend to ask for advice on what was happening.

Her friend told her that she could not get legally married without filing a notice of intention to marry, according to the court documents. Reassured, the woman went ahead with the ceremony.

She told the court that she was happy “playing along” because the groom told her he could have used anyone for the video but that he wanted to use her so she would not feel jealous.

According to court documents, none of the bride’s family or friends were in attendance – the only people present were a photographer and a friend of the photographer.

The woman told the court that she was “furious” when she found out in February 2024 that the marriage was real and that it happened because the man was seeking asylum.

She said she had a streamlined process of applying for permanent residency as a health professional and, when she was about to apply, he asked her to put him as a dependent – something she believed was not possible, because she thought they were not married.

The man disputed in court that the marriage was not a regular one, and said they had lived together before becoming engaged. The woman denied this, according to court documents.

The groom told the court that he had started making plans for the wedding in November.

A notice of intended marriage dated November 20, 2023 – a month before the man had proposed – had two signatures on it. However, the bride denied seeing it or signing it, according to court documents.

In his ruling, Justice Joshua Wilson said that “it beggars belief that a couple would become engaged in late December then married two days later.” While the judge acknowledged that impulsive marriages can take place, he pointed to the fact that “a wedding celebrant had been retained over a month before” the man had proposed to the woman.

Since the man had told the court that he knew the woman was religious, the judge also commented: “Precisely why she would participate in a civil marriage and not in a church marriage ceremony went unexplored. It made no sense to me that she would.”

He concluded that the woman took part in the wedding ceremony believing it was a stunt for social media and ruled that it was not a legally valid marriage.

This week, the United States accused the RSF militia in Sudan’s brutal civil conflict of committing genocide.

It’s the second time in two decades that genocide has been declared in the northeast African nation, where thousands have died and millions are in the grip of a humanitarian crisis.

How did the country get here?

For 20 months, two of Sudan’s most powerful generals – Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, leader of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti, who heads the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – have viciously competed for territory in a country still reeling from the massacre of tens of thousands of people in the early 2000s and the displacement of millions more.

Sudan’s top army general Abdel Fattah al-Burhan speaks during a press conference in 2021.

The RSF’s Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti, is seen in Khartoum in 2023.

The two men – former allies – jointly ousted President Omar al-Bashir from office in 2019. Together, they also contributed to another coup in 2021 when al-Burhan seized power from the country’s transitional government.

Today, Sudan is riven by conflict, with the RSF believed to be in control of much of the country’s western and central regions, including Darfur and parts of the capital Khartoum.

More than 11 million people have been internally displaced since the fighting erupted in April 2023, according to the United Nations, while millions more have fled Sudan.

Hunger is widespread and famine conditions are now present in several areas of the country, the UN has warned.

Who has been cited as responsible?

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Tuesday that Hemedti’s RSF and its allied Arab militias had perpetrated “direct attacks against civilians” including the systematic murder of “men and boys – even infants – on an ethnic basis.”

They also “deliberately targeted women and girls from certain ethnic groups for rape and other forms of brutal sexual violence,” Blinken said, adding that the same forces “targeted fleeing civilians, murdering innocent people escaping conflict, and prevented remaining civilians from accessing lifesaving supplies.”

“Based on this information, I have now concluded that members of the RSF and allied militias have committed genocide in Sudan,” he announced.

The RSF described the decision by the US as “unjust,” adding in a statement on its Telegram channel that “the State Department’s claim that the RSF committed genocide in Sudan is inaccurate.”

“The decision fails to specify the group against which the alleged genocide was committed or the location of the genocide … The decision vaguely refers to the Sudanese people, of whom RSF fighters and supporters are an integral part,” the RSF statement said.

The RSF has a history connected to ethnic-driven violence. The paramilitary group grew out of the Arab Janjaweed militia that oversaw the genocide of the early 2000s. That carnage left an estimated 300,000 people dead.

Since fighting erupted in mid-April 2023 between the RSF and the SAF, ethnically motivated killings have intensified, particularly in the western Darfur region. This mirrors the pattern of targeted killings that typified the first genocide.

West Darfur witnessed some of its worst ethnic-related killings in 2023, when hundreds of people from non-Arab ethnic groups were massacred by the RSF and forces linked to it. On Tuesday, the US imposed sanctions on their leader Hemedti, “for his role in systematic atrocities committed against the Sudanese people,” and sanctioned seven RSF-linked companies and one individual “for their roles in procuring weapons for the RSF.”

Are both warring factions complicit in abuses?

In September last year, a United Nations fact-finding mission accused both the SAF and the RSF of complicity in war crimes.

And in his statement, Blinken laid blame for abuses at the door of both parties. “The United States does not support either side of this war, and these actions against Hemedti and the RSF do not signify support or favor for the SAF,” he said. “Both belligerents bear responsibility for the violence and suffering in Sudan and lack the legitimacy to govern a future peaceful Sudan.”

In Darfur, she said, where she has worked for over 20 years, sexual violence has been “used as a tool of terror to force communities to submit to the RSF,” – a pattern seen in previous conflicts that has been replicated by the militia group, she claimed.

“It’s the same method and strategy,” she said of the alleged sexual crimes. “It’s also used for retaliation in their war against SAF and it has ethnic elements to it.”

Al-Karib said that between October and January, her organization had handled cases of at least 10 girls, some as young as 14, who took their own lives after being gang-raped by RSF militia men in Sudan’s Al Jazira state. This had followed the defection of an RSF commander in the area to SAF, she said.

“The RSF has been completely emboldened by impunity, a lack of accountability, and the fact that they were not seriously subjected to any sort of accountability,” she said, welcoming the US sanctions against Hemedti.

Civilians and aid agencies have also borne the brunt of frequent shelling and staged raids by the Sudanese army and the RSF – targeting civilian areas and causing multiple casualties.

Last month, more than 100 people were killed after bombs fell on a crowded market in North Darfur. In the same month, three staff members of the World Food Programme (WFP) were killed in an airstrike on the agency’s office in Blue Nile State, wrapping up “the deadliest year on record for aid workers in Sudan,” the UN said.

Dozens of airstrikes with multiple fatalities are reported daily by Sudanese media. A senior procurement official who led the SAF’s acquisition of arms was sanctioned by the US last October.

The RSF and the Sudanese military typically blame one each other for such attacks, with a recent statement from the RSF criticizing the US for overlooking “widespread atrocities committed by the SAF, including aerial bombardments that have claimed the lives of more than 4,000 civilians.”

What is the impact on civilians?

Before the deadly power tussle erupted between the SAF and the RSF, Sudan already ranked among the world’s poorest countries with decades of conflict hindering its economic growth.

Their war, now in its second year, has displaced more than 11 million people within Sudan, while some 3.2 million others have fled to neighboring countries, according to UN figures.

Some of those unable to flee are harbored in Darfur’s Zanzam camp, where famine was declared last month. The camp, home to around half a million displaced people, has also come under RSF bombardment.

Hunger in Darfur has sometimes forced people to eat “grass and peanut shells” to survive, the then WFP regional director for Eastern Africa, Michael Dunford, said last year, amid warnings by the UN that some 26 million Sudanese were facing acute hunger.

Food deliveries to Darfur resumed last August after a key border crossing was reopened by authorities for aid to enter Sudan. But in parts of Darfur, aid organizations are still impeded by restrictions and famine conditions area spreading to additional areas, a UN report said this week.

On Friday, humanitarian group Médecins Sans Frontières, or, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) said it was suspending activities at one of the last operating hospitals in the RSF-controlled south Khartoum, citing recurring attacks from armed fighters.

“The medical needs are overwhelming. Injuries are often horrific. Mass casualty incidents have become almost routine,” MSF’s Emergency Coordinator, Claire San Filippo said in a statement.

How has the world responded to the war?

The Sudanese conflict has been largely overshadowed by hostilities in other parts of the world such as in Ukraine and Gaza, International Monetary Fund chief Kristalina Georgieva said last year.

However, warring factions in the African nation have also defied global efforts to end the conflict.

Last month, Blinken told the UN Security Council that foreign actors were fueling the war in Sudan, but he did not name who they were.

“To the foreign sponsors sending drones, missiles, mercenaries – enough. To those profiting off the illicit oil and gold trade that fund this conflict – enough,” he said.

Sudan’s military government has frequently accused the United Arab Emirates of arming the RSF, but the Gulf nation denies this. The seven RSF-linked companies that were sanctioned by the US on Tuesday are all based in the UAE.

In November, Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that called on Sudan’s warring factions to end the fighting, strengthen protections for civilians and allow the delivery of humanitarian aid. Sudan’s military-backed foreign ministry welcomed Russia’s action, saying the UN resolution undermined Sudan’s sovereignty.

Will the US genocide determination make a difference?

Nonetheless, it is “a form of justice because it recognizes victims’ grievances,” he said.

“It is a step towards peace and accountability by paving the way to hold actors responsible to account, not only perpetrators themselves but actors complicit in genocide,” added Ali, a legal adviser at the Canada-based Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights.

For activist Al-Karib, US sanctions against Hemedti and the declaration of genocide could be crucial in not only reining in his militia but also curbing the support he receives from foreign actors.

“We don’t think that the scale of these atrocities happening in Sudan and Darfur would have been this big without the support of the UAE to the RSF,” she said.

“So, we hope that the US decision to sanction Hemedti will send a strong message to the UAE to rethink its position and engage in a serious political process to end these atrocities and genocidal acts happening across the country.”

The British royal family has historically played a vital role in strengthening ties between the United States and United Kingdom, keeping the so-called “special relationship” between the two countries alive.

And as Elon Musk, one of US President-elect Donald Trump’s closest allies, scraps with the UK’s government, some believe Britain could be making more use of one of its oldest diplomatic assets. Even this week, Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, visited the US on behalf of the King to pay his respects to former President Jimmy Carter, who died aged 100 in December.

It could therefore be of some comfort to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is keen to build trust with the Trump administration, that the incoming president has a soft spot for the clan, particularly the late Queen Elizabeth II.

In 2019, following his last state visit to the UK, Trump delivered a flurry of compliments directed at members of the family. “I have such a great relationship, and we were laughing and having fun,” Trump told Fox News just after the trip to London, when he met the late Queen.

Trump particularly admires the family’s celebrity and the way they represent a more traditional social authority, according to Ed Owens, a royal historian and author of “After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself?”

More recently, Trump made equally flattering comments about the heir to the British throne, Prince William, whom he met in Paris at the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral in December. “He’s doing a fantastic job,” Trump said of William, calling him a “good man.”

“I had a great talk with the prince,” Trump later told The New York Post. “He’s a good-looking guy… He looked really very handsome last night. Some people look better in person. He looked great. He looked really nice, and I told him that.”

‘The UK can use the royals strategically’

Trump’s gushing remarks about William – although perhaps not the most typical display of diplomacy – will be welcomed by those concerned about the future of UK-US relations, particularly as prominent figures in the governing Labour party have previously hit out against the divisive incoming president.

“Keir Starmer and Donald Trump don’t see eye to eye on everything, or at least they’re not going to see eye to eye on everything,” Owens said, adding that the royals “can, in a way, distract from that fact.”

“The fact that (Trump) is deferential to the British royal family, impressed by them, I think that bodes well for the UK, if the UK can use the royals strategically,” he said.

Royal commentator and author Sally Bedell Smith agreed that the family can “conceivably play a role in softening the atmosphere, which is pretty tense right now.”

This “soft power” influence is nothing new. Generations of royals have been helping to keep the bond between the UK and US tight.

Famously, in the early 1960s, as the youthful John F. Kennedy came into power, the royal family helped the UK to strengthen its links with this “new, dynamic, exciting America” at a time when Britain felt like a “slightly outdated place,” Owens added.

However, in the modern age there is little doubt that Trump and key members of the royal clan will not agree on everything, notably the need to take action to tackle climate change.

Both Prince William and his father, King Charles III, have been vocal advocates for climate action. Meanwhile, Trump successfully campaigned on a three-word energy policy – “Drill, baby, drill” – and recently said that he wants a policy where no windmills are being built across the country.

These strong views will not stop the royals speaking out about issues they believe in, Owens said, but there is a limit to their influence. “I don’t imagine that the King is going to give up, he’s going to continue to emphasize the importance of (climate action),” he said.

“But he will do so delicately. He knows that he has no serious role to play in American politics,” Owens added.

While the British royals may have no official role in US politics, the soft power they yield will help to smooth a potentially bumpy road between Washington and London, and is a vital part of the UK government’s strategy for ensuring the bonds between the two countries remain strong.