Kenyan police arrest rights activist Mwangi over role in deadly protests
The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) said on X that detectives had arrested Mwangi at his home in Machakos County on Saturday and had seized "two unused tear gas canisters and one 7.62mm blank round", along with two mobile phones, a laptop and notebooks.
In addition to the terrorism charges, Mwangi is also due to be arraigned for unlawful possession of ammunition, the X post said.
A representative for Mwangi could not immediately be reached for comment.
Hundreds of Kenyans took to the streets last month following the death in police custody of political blogger Albert Ojwang - reigniting a protest movement fuelled by anger over the cost of living and what activists say is police brutality and corruption.
The government-funded Kenya National Commission on Human Rights said 19 people were killed in the protests on June 25 that DCI referred to in its post about Mwangi. Another 31 people died when protests flared again on July 7, the commission said.
The protesters are mostly young adults desperate for job opportunities who organise through social media channels.
Mwangi is a well-known activist who once ran for parliament on an anti-corruption platform.
In May, he was arrested and deported from neighbouring Tanzania, where he had travelled to observe a hearing in a treason case against detained opposition leader Tundu Lissu.
He said afterwards that members of the Tanzanian security forces had sexually assaulted him during his detention, and on Friday he filed a complaint at the East African Court of Justice in connection with those allegations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why are we reluctant to recognize Israel's genocide in Gaza?
Why is it so difficult for some to accept that the Israeli government is committing genocide in Gaza? The case for genocide is compelling, but some governments and members of the public resist acknowledging it. The reason lies in not only Israel's history as a haven for the Jewish victims of genocide but also an unduly narrow understanding of the meaning of the term, by both the public and the international court of justice (ICJ). Israel benefits from a halo effect associated with the Holocaust. Because the state of Israel was founded in response to the Nazi genocide, it is harder to accept that the Israeli government in turn would commit genocide. One obviously does not preclude the other, but Israel benefits from the cognitive dissonance. One would have hoped that a history of genocidal victimhood would yield an appreciation for human rights standards that prohibit oppression, but some leaders seem to have drawn the opposite lesson. They interpret the vow 'never again' to mean that anything goes in the name of preventing renewed persecution, even the commission of mass atrocities. Indeed, they weaponize the genocidal past to suppress criticism of their current atrocities. That was the experience in Rwanda. The genocidal slaughter of some 800,000 Tutsis in 1994 was stopped by the Tutsi-led Rwanda Patriotic Front, an exile rebel group based in neighboring Uganda. Under the military leadership of Paul Kagame, who went on to become Rwanda's long-serving president, the RPF executed some 30,000 Rwandans during and immediately after the genocide. Kagame's government went on to repeatedly invade neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), ostensibly to chase remnants of the genocidal forces that had fled there but, these days, mainly to capitalize on Congo's mineral wealth. An estimated 6 million Congolese have died from the violence and resulting humanitarian crises. Meanwhile, the Rwandan government imprisons critics on the spurious grounds that they are promoting a vaguely defined 'genocide ideology'. The Israeli government has followed a similar logic, using increasingly brutal means to crush any perceived threat. Like Kagame, Benjamin Netanyahu and his predecessors have used ostensible self-defense as a pretext for a land grab. Israeli settlements have gradually cannibalized large portions of the occupied West Bank, and the prime minister is now threatening to forcibly deport 2 million Palestinians from Gaza. Meanwhile, the government and its partisans dismiss critics as 'antisemitic'. Israel also benefits from a public misconception of what genocide is. The Genocide Convention, which 153 states have embraced, prohibits various acts with the intent to destroy a specified group 'in whole or in part' as such. The proscribed acts of greatest relevance to Gaza are 'killing' or 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part'. Both the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide were examples of genocide targeting a group 'in whole'. After a certain point, the Nazis in Germany and the Hutu extremists in Rwanda tried to kill as many Jews or Tutsis as they could get their hands on. Genocide was the primary purpose. But what does it mean to target a group 'in part'? That requirement might be met when the killing is not targeted at every member of a specified group but at enough to accomplish another goal. For example, in 2017 the Myanmar military executed some 10,000 Rohingya to send 730,000 Rohingya fleeing for their lives to Bangladesh. Genocide in that case was a means to the end of ethnic cleansing. That is a better way to understand what the Israeli government today is doing in Gaza. Although the Netanyahu government has displayed a shocking indifference to Palestinian civilian life there, it has not tried to kill all Palestinians. Rather, it has killed enough of them, and imposed conditions of starvation and deprivation that are sufficiently severe, to force them to flee, if things go according to plan. The far-right Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir have openly articulated that goal, as has Netanyahu. There is little doubt that Israel's actions are sufficient to meet the requirements for genocidal conduct. More than 57,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Hamas's attack of 7 October 2023. A November 2024 study found that nearly 70% of those killed at the time had been women and children, and clearly many male victims were not combatants either. The number of civilians killed thus far exceeds the 8,000 killed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1994, which an international tribunal found to constitute genocide. Although many of the dead in Gaza were not deliberately killed, their deaths were the product of Israel's disregard for Palestinian civilian life – for example, by devastating Palestinian neighborhoods with enormous 2,000-lb bombs, attacking military targets knowing that the civilian toll would be disproportionately high, or repeatedly killing starving Palestinians as they seek food. Meanwhile, Israel has imposed a punishing siege on civilians in Gaza, blocking access to food and other necessities for lengthy periods. In addition, at least 70% of the buildings have been leveled. It confines surviving Gazans to primitive camps that it regularly moves or attacks. And it has destroyed the civilian institutions needed to sustain life in the territory, including hospitals, schools religious and cultural sites, and entire neighborhoods. These conditions are believed to have contributed to several times the official death toll in indirect deaths. When the ICJ considers the merits of South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the key contested issue is likely to be whether Israel has taken these steps with the requisite genocidal intent – does it seek to eradicate Palestinian civilians in whole or in part as such? Some genocidal statements by senior Israeli officials have become notorious. Isaac Herzog, the Israeli president, said about Hamas's 7 October 2023, attack that 'this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved' is false because civilians 'could have risen up' against Hamas (which is a brutal dictatorship). The former defense minister Yoav Gallant spoke of fighting 'human animals' – not, as some claim, referring to only Hamas but in discussing the siege, which affects everyone in Gaza. Netanyahu himself invoked the biblical nation of Amalek, in which God is said to have demanded the killing of all 'men and women, children and infants'. Yet other Israeli officials in their public utterances hew more closely to legal requirements to spare civilians. So the ICJ will likely also examine whether genocidal intent can be inferred from Israel's conduct in Gaza. That is where the court's conservative jurisprudence introduces a complication. In its 2015 decision in Croatia v Serbia, the court ruled that genocidal intent could be inferred from conduct if it 'is the only inference that can reasonably be drawn from the acts in question'. Because the killing in that case was also committed with the aim of forced displacement, the court ruled it could not give rise to an inference of genocidal intent. Ignoring the possibility of two parallel intents – one to commit genocide, another to advance ethnic cleansing – the court's ruling suggests, anomalously, that the war crime of forced displacement could be a defense to a charge of genocide. That makes no sense. The issue should be whether a charge is conclusively proved, not whether it is the only criminal activity under way. The ICJ will have a chance to correct its jurisprudence in the Gambia v Myanmar case about the Myanmar military's attacks on the Rohingya, which should be decided before the Israel case. The court would be well advised to find that Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya for the purpose of ethnically cleansing them – that forced mass deportation was a motive, not a defense, for genocide. That would lay the groundwork for a similar ruling against Israel. Why would the ICJ have adopted this rule in the first place? It never explained, so we can only speculate. But its rationale may have rested in part on the view that genocide should be about killing maximally – killing 'in whole', like the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide – rather than killing or creating deadly conditions 'in part', as a means to an end. But that's not what the Genocide Convention says. And that is not how we should assess Israel's conduct in Gaza. That there is an illicit purpose to Israel's unspeakable cruelty should not be a defense to the charge of genocide. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments, was published by Knopf and Allen Lane in February
The Guardian
2 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Saudi Arabia accused of banning women's rights activists from leaving the country
Saudi Arabia is banning large numbers of its own citizens from leaving the country in a 'cruel' attempt to silence criticism, say human rights activists. High-profile women's rights campaigners, including Loujain al-Hathloul, who pushed for the right for women to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Maryam al-Otaibi, one of three sisters targeted by the authorities for their activism, appear to have been given long travel bans. These restrictions frequently extend to family members. The apparent crackdown comes at the same time as the country is encouraging international tourists to visit and its hosting of leading cultural and sporting events, including the 2034 men's Fifa World Cup. 'Saudi Arabia has really been in the spotlight over the imprisonment of political prisoners, including my sister. It was difficult to justify and brought negative PR. It is much easier for them to have travel bans to control people,' said Lina al-Hathloul, an activist and sister of Loujain. '[These travel bans] are a new tactic to not only silence critics, but to make sure the people around them that could be their voice are also silenced. It's a collective punishment on the family,' she added. After being released from prison, many political and women's rights activists are being given long travel bans. These are either publicly announced by a court or revealed when a person tries to leave the country and is barred from doing so by border officials. The human rights organisation ALQST (al-qist means 'justice' in Arabic) has published a list of 20 individuals under what it describes as 'cruel and unlawful' court-imposed travel bans, but says there are likely to be many more subject to unofficial bans. Loujain's prison sentence included a travel ban on release of two years and 10 months, which was due to expire on 12 November 2023. Since then she has remained unable to travel, said ALQST, despite having received no formal notification from the authorities of any new ban, either judicial or administrative. 'They [former prisoners] can be seen in public life, which gives the impression of freedom to the outside world. But the authorities and the former prisoner know very well that they have to live in constant self-censorship, not able to voice their opinions, concerns or prison experiences,' said Lina. In a response to UN requests for information, Saudi officials said that Loujain al-Hathloul and Maryam al-Otaibi were not subject to any restrictions 'other than those set out in the final court judgment handed down to Loujain al-Hathloul, prohibiting her from travelling abroad for the period of time stipulated in the judgment, and in the administrative decision issued by the competent authority prohibiting Maryam al-Otaibi from travelling abroad'.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Taliban tortured and threatened Afghans expelled from Pakistan and Iran, UN report says
The Taliban have tortured and threatened Afghans forcibly returned from Iran and Pakistan because of their identity or personal history, a U.N. report said Thursday. Pakistan and Iran are expelling millions of Afghans who they say are living in their countries illegally. Afghan authorities have urged nationals to return, pledging amnesty for anyone who left after the Taliban seized power in 2021. But rights groups and the U.N. have repeatedly warned that some of those returning are at risk of persecution because of their gender, links to the former Western-backed administration or profession. Thursday's report from the U.N. mission in Afghanistan said some people have experienced serious human rights violations, while others have gone into hiding or relocated for fear of Taliban reprisal. The violations include torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest, and threats to personal security at the hands of the Taliban, according to the report. A former government official told the U.N. mission that, after his return to Afghanistan in 2023, he was detained and severely tortured with sticks and cables. He was waterboarded and subjected to a mock execution. A non-binary person said they were beaten severely, including with the back of a gun. Volker Türk, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said nobody should be sent back to a country where they faced the risk of persecution on account of their identity or personal history. This was even more pronounced for Afghan women and girls, who were subjected to a range of measures 'amounting to persecution based on their gender alone,' he added. The Taliban have imposed severe restrictions on Afghan girls and women, cutting off education beyond sixth grade, most employment and access to many public spaces. Responding to the report, Taliban authorities denied mistreating Afghan returnees and rejected allegations of arrest, violence, intimidation or retaliation against people because of their identity or personal history. Afghans returning from neighboring countries were provided with facilities related to documentation, transportation, resettlement, and other legal support, they said, while the Interior Ministry provides a 'warm welcome.' They called on the U.N. mission to prevent forced deportations, adding the United Nations as a whole 'should not hesitate' in providing basic needs to refugees, such as food, medicine, shelter and education. Afghans who left their homeland in the millions over the decades are either being pushed out in expulsion campaigns, like those in Iran and Pakistan, or face an uncertain future because of reduced support for refugees. On Monday, thousands of Afghans in the U.S. lost protection from deportation after a federal appeals court refused to postpone U.S. President Donald Trump administration's decision to end their legal status. Homeland Security officials said in their decision to end the Temporary Protected Status for Afghans that the situation in their home country was getting better. But groups helping Afghans with this status say the country is still extremely dangerous. The Trump administration's January suspension of a refugee program has left thousands of Afghans stranded, particularly in Pakistan, and a travel ban on Afghans has further diminished their hopes of resettlement in the U.S.
