&w=3840&q=100)
Is France repeating its colonial past by building a prison in the Amazon? The controversy, explained
French President Emmanuel Macron speaks to residents (not pictured) at a cafe, during a walk in Cayenne, French Guiana, October 28, 2017. File Image/Reuters
A newly announced plan by the French government to build a high-security prison in the heart of the Amazon rainforest in French Guiana has been subject to criticism, putting a spotlight on deep-rooted colonial-era grievances.
French Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin unveiled the project during a recent visit to the French overseas territory, presenting it as a strategic step in France's broader effort to disrupt organised crime, particularly narcotrafficking networks that originate in South America and reach into Europe.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The planned facility will be constructed in Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, a northwestern border town near Suriname, a region historically associated with France's penal past.
Critics have described the move as both politically provocative and historically insensitive, while French authorities maintain it is a necessary and calculated intervention to counter escalating violence and drug crime in the region.
What we know about the French prison
Darmanin, known for his strict stance on law enforcement from his prior tenure as Interior Minister, said the new prison will play a key role in France's multipronged campaign against narcotics trafficking.
In an interview with Le Journal du Dimanche, Darmanin explained, 'My strategy is simple – hit organised crime at all levels.' He added, 'Here in Guiana, at the start of the drug trafficking route. In mainland France, by neutralising the network leaders. And all the way to consumers. This prison will be a safeguard in the war against narcotrafficking.'
The facility, which will cost an estimated €400 million (approximately $451 million), is scheduled to open in 2028 and will include 500 inmate slots, of which 60 will be designated for high-security detainees under an 'extremely strict' regime.
An additional 15 spots will be allocated specifically for individuals convicted of radical Islamist activities.
Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni was selected because of its geographical significance as a trafficking corridor. The town is a primary point of departure for drug couriers, particularly those known as 'mules,' many of whom attempt to travel from neighbouring Brazil and Suriname to Paris's Orly Airport, often carrying cocaine internally or in their luggage.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
A general view of the Oiapoque river, the border with French Guiana in Oiapoque, in the state of Amapa, Brazil, October 30, 2020. File Image/Reuters
The justice minister said placing the prison in such a location would allow France to detain suspects at the earliest link in the supply chain.
'Crucially, the prison's location will serve to permanently isolate the heads of drug trafficking networks since they will no longer be able to contact their criminal networks,' Darmanin said.
French prison aimed at tackling organised crime
The proposed prison is also meant to alleviate chronic overcrowding in French Guiana's correctional system, which currently struggles to house both local and transferred inmates.
Darmanin cited growing threats posed by powerful criminal gangs, saying they are often able to corrupt officials with illicit funds and continue orchestrating criminal activity even from within detention facilities.
'Citizens in overseas territories must be able to have the same level of security as those in mainland France,' the minister said, stating that French Guiana deserves the same level of institutional support and infrastructure as other French departments.
According to French authorities, 49 high-level drug traffickers are already in custody in French Guiana and other French overseas territories.
Darmanin noted that many of them are 'extremely dangerous' and are not being held under conditions secure enough to prevent continued criminal coordination from prison.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Recent national security legislation introduced by the French government is also part of this wider plan.
It includes the creation of a special prosecutorial branch dedicated to tackling organised crime, increased investigative powers, stricter rules for prison visitation and communication, and protection protocols for informants.
These reforms follow a string of violent incidents targeting prison infrastructure in mainland France, including attacks where vehicles were set ablaze and gunfire was reported, such as the incident at La Farlede prison in Toulon.
Officials believe these assaults were orchestrated in retaliation against the state's tougher measures and may be aimed at intimidating the justice system.
How local leaders have reacted
The reaction among local political figures has been one of anger and disbelief. Jean-Paul Fereira, acting president of French Guiana's territorial collective, issued a strongly worded statement condemning the lack of prior consultation.
'It is therefore with astonishment and indignation that the elected members of the Collectivity discovered, with the entire population of Guiana, the information detailed in Le Journal Du Dimanche,' he wrote in a post on social media.
Fereira stressed that while there is widespread support for stronger crime-fighting initiatives in the region, the original 2017 agreement with the French government outlined the construction of a standard correctional facility, not a high-security installation for France's most dangerous offenders.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'While all local elected officials have long been calling for strong measures to curb the rise of organised crime in our territory, Guiana is not meant to welcome criminals and radicalised people from (mainland France),' Fereira noted.
Jean-Victor Castor, a member of the French National Assembly representing French Guiana, also denounced the move.
In a written appeal to the French Prime Minister, he described the project as 'an insult to our history, a political provocation and a colonial regression.' Castor called on the government to reconsider and withdraw the plan altogether.
What history tell us
While the French government maintains the project is a rational response to escalating crime, its announcement has triggered significant backlash in French Guiana due to the region's infamous history as a penal colony.
Between 1852 and 1954, France transported 70,000 prisoners to the area, including political detainees such as Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was wrongfully convicted of espionage and exiled to Devil's Island — part of the now-defunct penal complex.
Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni was the original disembarkation point for inmates, and many of the old prison structures remain visible today.
The region's grim past has been immortalised in literature and film, most famously in Henri Charrière's novel 'Papillon', which was adapted into two Hollywood films, the first in 1973 starring Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
For many locals, the decision to reintroduce a carceral facility so close to this symbolic site is not only tone-deaf but a reminder of a traumatic legacy.
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
History Today: When the Gulf War began with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait
Iraqi forces invaded its neighbouring country, Kuwait, on August 2, 1990, marking the beginning of the Gulf War in West Asia. Saddam Hussein justified the invasion by accusing Kuwait of stealing oil from Iraq's oil fields. On this day, Adolf Hitler officially became the dictator of Nazi Germany, hours after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg read more Kuwaiti citizens walk south along the Basra highway heading back to Kuwait following the end of the Gulf War, past a burning Iraqi APC. File image/Reuters It was in the early hours of August 2, 1990, that Iraqi forces led by President Saddam Hussein launched a massive military invasion of neighbouring Kuwait. This marked the beginning of the Gulf War. If you are a history geek who loves to learn about important events from the past, Firstpost Explainers' ongoing series, History Today, will be your one-stop destination to explore key events. On this day in 1858, the Government of India Act 1858 was formally signed into law by the British Parliament. Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler consolidated absolute dictatorial authority over Germany. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Here is all that has taken place on this day. The invasion of Kuwait began At 2 am on August 2 1990, Iraqi forces launched a full-scale invasion of their oil-rich neighbour, Kuwait. This marked the beginning of the Persian Gulf War and profoundly reshaped the geopolitics of West Asia. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein justified the invasion by accusing Kuwait of overproducing oil and stealing oil from Iraq's Rumaila oil field, claims widely dismissed by the international community. Many analysts saw the invasion as a desperate move by Iraq to alleviate its crushing $80 billion debt from the Iran-Iraq war and to gain control of Kuwait's vast oil reserves, which would give Iraq nearly 20 per cent of the world's known oil supply. Iraqi soldiers ride on top of one of their tanks through the streets of Kuwait City on August 4, 1990. File image/AP The United Nations condemned the invasion, demanding Iraq's immediate withdrawal. The United States, the United Kingdom, and other nations began moving troops into the region in a buildup known as Operation Desert Shield, aimed at protecting Saudi Arabia and preparing for possible military intervention. Over the next few months, diplomatic efforts failed to persuade Saddam to withdraw. On January 17, 1991, a US-led coalition launched Operation Desert Storm, a full-scale military campaign to liberate Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait set off the Gulf War, redrew geopolitical alliances, and permanently altered the West Asia's power dynamics. It also marked the beginning of a long period of US military involvement in the region. Government of India Act signed The Government of India Act 1858 was formally signed into law by the British Parliament on August 2, 1858, effectively abolishing the rule of the East India Company, thus transferring direct administrative control of India to the British Crown. The Act was a direct response to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (also known as the Sepoy Mutiny), which exposed the fundamental flaws and widespread discontent under the Company's governance. The British government realised that the existing system was unsustainable and that direct control was necessary to maintain stability and consolidate its power. Under the Act, the East India Company's charter was revoked, and all its territories, armies, treaties, and administrative responsibilities were handed over to the British government. The Act created the new position of Secretary of State for India, a Cabinet-level role with complete authority over Indian affairs, assisted by a 15-member Council of India based in London. In India, the Governor-General was redesignated as the Viceroy, who acted as the direct representative of the British monarch. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Hitler became dictator Adolf Hitler officially became the dictator of Nazi Germany on August 2, 1934, hours after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg. By merging the roles of Chancellor and President, Hitler assumed the title of Fuhrer and Reich Chancellor, giving himself absolute control over the German state and military. Hitler's plans of becoming a dictator unfolded in steps and versions. After being appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, Hitler quickly worked to dismantle the Weimar Republic's democratic structures. The Reichstag Fire in February 1933 gave him a pretext to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending civil liberties and enabling the arrest of political opponents. The Enabling Act followed in March 1933, granting Hitler the power to enact laws without parliamentary approval. An oil painting of Adolf Hitler from 1937. Wikimedia Commons Following the death of Hindenburg, Hitler wasted no time and established a new law to combine the presidency with the chancellorship. The military was then required to swear an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler, not to the German constitution. This act symbolised the complete submission of state institutions to Hitler's will. A national plebiscite was held on August 19, where Germans were asked to approve Hitler's new powers. Though the vote was neither free nor fair, Nazi propaganda claimed that nearly 90 per cent of voters supported Hitler as Fuhrer. With no constitutional limits, no independent judiciary, and no political opposition, Hitler's dictatorship was complete. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This Day, That Year On this day in 1943, a US Navy torpedo boat under John F Kennedy's command, was sunk by a Japanese destroyer during World War II. In 1830, Charles X of France abdicated the throne.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
May consider dividends to citizens: Trump on tariff revenue disbursal plans
The day the 25 per cent US tariffs on Indian imports came into effect, President Donald Trump said he might consider extending the "dividends" earned through the levies imposed on America's trade partners to its citizens, news agency Reuters reported on the Trump tariff tirade, while most European Union member countries and the UK were hit with 15 per cent levies, Japan with 10 per cent, and South Korea with just 5 per cent, India saw a 25 per cent blanket rate imposed on its products imported by the US. The US cited exponentially high tariffs by India on American products behind its Trump imposed a 35 per cent duty on many goods from Canada, 50 per cent on Brazil, 39 per cent on Switzerland and 20 per cent on Taiwan. Notably, Trump has signed a new executive order that imposes fresh import tariffs on goods from 69 countries and the European Union, which will come into effect on August per the order, Syria tops the list of highest tariffs at 41 per cent, followed by Laos and Myanmar at 40 per cent, and Iraq and Serbia at 35 per cent. Other countries such as Libya and Algeria will now face a 30 per cent China, against whom Trump once ordered tariffs as high as a whopping 145 per cent, is still negotiating with the US, with American officials saying that they are looking at an imminent trade deal. "But it is not 100 per cent done," US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC move is part of Trump's push for what he describes as more "fair and reciprocal" trade relationships. The White House said that some countries had failed to meet US expectations during trade talks, leading to these new Trump's tariff move and the deadline, global stock markets witnessed a slump as investors panicked, fearing a global supply chain disruption and the outcome of their talks with who had grown accustomed to Trump's frequent trade threats may now be facing a reality check, as broad tariffs on numerous countries have taken effect just as the deadline to negotiate trade agreements with the US passed without resolution.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
Reuters FILE: U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson signs the U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 3, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.
