Ticker

6/recent/ticker-posts

Ad Code

Kingdom of Kubala” evicted: self-styled ‘African tribe’ removed from Scottish woodland after standoff


Jedburgh, Scottish Borders — A small group who have been living in a woodland encampment near Jedburgh and calling themselves the “Kingdom of Kubala” were forcibly evicted this week after a coordinated operation involving sheriff officers, Police Scotland and Immigration Enforcement. Two people were arrested on suspicion of immigration offences, while the third member left the site as council workers cleared the area. The dramatic removal, which was livestreamed by the group to thousands of social media followers, brought months of controversy to this normally quiet corner of the Borders. 

Who are they and what happened

The group consists of three adults who have adopted royal titles and a communal identity. The man at the centre of the camp, Kofi Offeh, 36, referred to himself publicly as “King Atehene”; his partner, Jean Gasho, 43, used the name “Queen Nandi”; and a 21-year-old woman called Kaura Taylor presented herself as “Asnat” or the group’s “handmaiden.” They first set up camp in May and say they are reclaiming land they describe as having been “stolen” from their ancestors centuries ago. Local reporting and court documents indicate the encampment was on privately owned land near Jedburgh before the occupants moved a short distance onto a neighbouring plot said to be owned by the council after being served an eviction notice.


Landowners Mary and David Palmer brought civil action in the Jedburgh Sheriff Court earlier this month after warning the occupiers to leave, and a sheriff subsequently issued a warrant for their removal. At a hearing, the sheriff granted an order removing the occupants from the private land and—separately—an order prohibiting them from returning. Despite the legal notices, the trio moved their makeshift camp over a small boundary fence to an adjacent field and continued to live in tents and undergrowth until the eviction operation this week.

Eviction operation and arrests

Officers arrived at the woodland early in the morning as sheriff officers executed the court warrant. Video filmed by the occupants and posted live on TikTok captured uniformed officials leading two people from the camp and placing them in vans; footage of the third person leaving in a pickup truck was also widely circulated. Immigration Enforcement accompanied Police Scotland during the operation, and two people were taken into custody on suspicion of immigration offences. Local council teams were seen clearing debris and dismantling the remaining encampment after the removal. 


Officials briefed to the case said the action followed an earlier sheriff’s order that the group must vacate the privately owned site by a specified date. When that deadline passed without compliance, the landowners went back to court and obtained a warrant authorising removal. Jedburgh councillor Scott Hamilton described the operation as involving a “heavy police presence” and said the council was assisting in clearing the site to restore it for lawful use. 

Social media, livestreaming and fundraising

What set the story apart and magnified public attention was the group’s use of social media. The occupants livestreamed parts of the eviction on TikTok, attracting thousands of viewers and a flurry of comments. The camp had also posted earlier videos and statements asserting ancestral claims and proclaiming a spiritual mission; they told reporters they would not be intimidated by court orders. News outlets that followed the story noted that the group had a sizeable online following and used donations and social-media appeals to sustain themselves while living outdoors. 


That online presence attracted intense scrutiny. Local residents and councillors told reporters they had grown concerned about the campsite’s environmental impact and the strain on local services. Landowners argued their property rights had been infringed and sought legal remedy. At the same time, some viewers of the livestream expressed sympathy for the group’s message about ancestral land and social marginalisation—an element that complicated public response and produced a broad range of opinions online.

Questions about coercion and welfare

Among the more contentious details was reporting that one member of the trio, the 21-year-old Kaura Taylor, had previously been the subject of concern from strangers and family in the United States. News organisations cited sources saying Ms Taylor had been reported missing from Dallas earlier in the year, and some coverage raised questions about whether she had been lured to the UK or coerced into joining the group. Advocates for adults at risk and police spokespeople emphasised that any suggestion of coercion or exploitation would need full investigation. Authorities on the ground said processes were underway to determine welfare needs, and the arrests were described as being connected to immigration status rather than criminal allegations of violence or abuse. 

Legal context and property rights

The eviction highlights the legal pathways landowners in Scotland can take when they believe their rights are being infringed. Civil remedies—such as the court orders obtained by the Palmers—are commonly used to remove unauthorised occupiers from private property; sheriff officers can then enforce such orders under judicial authority. Local councils also have powers relating to unauthorised encampments on council-owned land; in this case, the occupants had moved onto land whose ownership the council said it was investigating. Meanwhile, immigration enforcement involvement underscores the separate jurisdictional track that can apply when a person’s immigration status is in question. Lawyers commenting in national coverage pointed out that eviction by court order does not in itself determine immigration status, and that any criminal or immigration proceedings would follow distinct legal procedures. 

Local reaction

Reactions in the Borders community were mixed but largely focused on practical concerns. Some residents said they felt relieved that the site was being cleared after months of tensions; concerns cited included litter, campfires, and the strain on local emergency services. Council officials described the eviction as “a good result for the community” while also noting the need to balance enforcement with appropriate welfare checks for the people who had been living in the woods. The deputy leader of the Scottish Borders Council was quoted as saying the site would be cleared and that the council was working to establish the ownership of the new land where the group had relocated. 

The group’s claims and public messaging

Members of the group told journalists they believed they were reclaiming ancestral land and framed their presence as a spiritual or cultural mission rather than an illegal occupation. They posted messages on social platforms proclaiming resilience and promising they would continue their cause. In recorded comments at the site, Mr Offeh invoked spiritual protection and suggested the group accepted the consequences of their civil and legal clash. In one clip recorded as officials served them with court papers, they were seen singing and dancing—an expression that observers described variously as defiance, ritual, or performance.

Wider context: identity, performance and media spectacles

Analysts and commentators who have followed the story suggested the episode sits at the intersection of several modern currents: identity performance, online spectacle and the complex realities of migration and belonging. A small group claiming a “kingdom” with ritual dress and regal titles is an unusual sight in rural Scotland, and that unusualness amplified media interest. Social media’s role turned the eviction into a broadcast event viewed internationally, raising questions about how fringe or symbolic political acts are consumed, politicised and policed in the digital age. Local legal disputes intersected with an international online audience, turning a property dispute into a global-interest story overnight. 

What happens next

In the immediate aftermath of the removal, council teams cleared the area and erected fencing around sensitive spots. The sheriff’s order prohibits the occupants from returning to the privately owned site, and the landowners and council have both signalled they will pursue any further necessary legal action to protect their property. Separately, the detained individuals face immigration enquiries and possible proceedings, the details and outcomes of which will be handled by the relevant enforcement agencies and courts. Local authorities say they will continue to monitor welfare issues and the environmental restoration of the site. 

Voices from both sides

Landowners and local officials emphasised that the eviction was not a matter of ideology but of property rights and public safety. “The group of campers have clearly ignored the ultimatum,” one councillor said during earlier reporting, and landowners pursued court remedies when notices were ignored. On the other hand, the camp’s supporters online framed the eviction as a disproportionate response to a symbolic act of reclamation and called for humane treatment of those removed. Media coverage captured both outrage and sympathy among viewers, underscoring how polarised reactions to such incidents can be. 

A final note on reporting and due process

News organisations covering the eviction emphasise that reporting is based on official court orders, statements from police and council officials, court documents and footage from the site, alongside interviews with those involved. Several outlets noted that arrests related to immigration status do not equate to guilt in criminal terms and that any individual’s legal and welfare needs must be addressed through due process. Authorities say enquiries will continue where necessary. As the legal and immigration processes unfold, further details about the group’s status, the reasoning behind some of their actions, and any potential charges will emerge through official channels. 




Sources: Reporting from Sky News, STV, ITV, BBC and regional press in the Scottish Borders, which covered the eviction, court rulings and subsequent arrests. Specific coverage and on-site photography provided background on the group’s identity and their livestreamed removal


Post a Comment

0 Comments