Eight reported dead, more than 400 injured after protests erupt in Kenya
Kenyan rights body says eight deaths have been reported while hundreds are injured, including from bullet wounds, in anti-government protests marking the anniversary of bloody anti-tax bill demonstrations last year.
At least eight people died and 400 were injured during nationwide anti-government protests in Kenya on Wednesday, a year after deadly demonstrations against a tax bill, the national rights watchdog said.
Thousands of Kenyans took to the streets to commemorate last year's demonstrations, in which more than 60 people died, with police firing tear gas and water cannon to disperse them in the capital Nairobi, according to local media and a Reuters witness.
Some protesters clashed with police, and the government-funded Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) said late on Wednesday that eight deaths had been reported across the country, all 'allegedly from gunshot wounds'.
'Over 400 casualties have been reported, including demonstrators, police officers and journalists,' KNCHR said in a statement shared on its official X account.
The watchdog did not say who had shot the victims, noting heavy police deployment and 'allegations of excessive use of force, including rubber bullets, live ammunition and water cannon, resulting in numerous injuries'.
Kenyan police spokesperson Muchiri Nyaga did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the KNCHR statement.
An official at the capital's main Kenyatta National Hospital said the facility had received dozens of wounded people, '107 admitted, most with gunshot injuries', the source said, referring to rubber bullets and live rounds. He said no deaths had been reported at the hospital.
National electricity provider Kenya Power said one of its security guards was shot dead during the protests while patrolling its headquarters in Nairobi.
Large crowds were seen earlier heading in the direction of State House, the president's official residence, in scenes broadcast by Kenyan channel NTV before it and another broadcaster, KTN, were pulled off the air after defying an order to stop live broadcasts of the demonstrations.
'We have been switched off from all the signal broadcasters, now we are only live on YouTube and the website,' a senior official at NTV's parent Nation Media Group told Reuters.
Both channels resumed broadcasts later on Wednesday after a court in Nairobi suspended the order issued by the Communications Authority of Kenya.
The communications authority's order was condemned by the Kenya Editors Guild, which called it 'a gross violation of the Constitution.'
Anger against police
Protesters torched court facilities in Kikuyu town on the outskirts of Nairobi, Citizen TV reported. Flames and thick smoke billowed from the court building in a video posted on the broadcaster's X account.
Isolated clashes were reported in the port city of Mombasa, according to NTV, with protests also in the towns of Kitengela, Kisii, Matuu and Nyeri.
Although last year's protests faded after President William Ruto withdrew proposed tax hikes, public anger has remained over the use of excessive force by security agencies, with fresh demonstrations this month over the death of a blogger in police custody.
Six people, including three police officers, were charged with murder on Tuesday over the killing of 31-year-old blogger and teacher, Albert Ojwang. All have pleaded not guilty.
Ojwang's death has become a lightning rod for Kenyans still mourning those who perished in last year's demonstrations, blamed on security forces, against a backdrop of dozens of unexplained disappearances.
'We are fighting for the rights of our fellow youths and Kenyans and the people who died since June 25 … we want justice,' Lumumba Harmony, a protester, told Reuters in Nairobi.
The unprecedented scenes on 25 June 2024, showing police firing at protesters as they broke through barriers to enter parliament, created the biggest crisis of Ruto's presidency and sparked alarm among Kenya's international allies. DM
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
10 hours ago
- eNCA
Trump hails 'giant win' after top court curbs judges
US President Donald Trump said Friday he can now push through a raft of controversial policies after the Supreme Court handed him a "giant win" by curbing the ability of lone judges to block his powers nationwide. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by individual district court judges likely exceed their authority. "This was a tremendous win," Trump told reporters in a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. "I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling." Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including his bid to end birthright citizenship, and stopping funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants. US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop "rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation." Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "terrifying step toward authoritarianism." Trump however rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. "This is really the opposite of that," Trump said. "This really brings back the Constitution." Trump separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools. The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future US presidents. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country -- both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January. Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities. - 'No right is safe' - Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying "no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates." Trump's initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN." The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government." Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. Trump said that the policy "was meant for the babies of slaves," dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s. By Danny Kemp And Chris Lefkow
Daily Maverick
16 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US Supreme Court may rule on allowing enforcement of Trump birthright citizenship limits
The administration has made an emergency request for the justices to scale back injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts blocking Trump's directive nationwide. The judges found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a 'green card' holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order 'reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.' An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a 'permanent domicile and residence in the United States.' Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties – Republican and Democratic – and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties.
TimesLIVE
18 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sanchez exchanging wedding vows on island in Venice
'This magical place has gifted us unforgettable memories,' the bride and groom said on their wedding invitation, in which they asked for 'no gifts' and pledged charity donations for three Venetian institutions. Their donations are worth €3m. 'GIFT-WRAPPED' VENICE Businesses have welcomed the glitz and glamour but it is being resisted by a local protest movement whose members resent what they see as Venice being gift-wrapped for ultra-rich outsiders. Bezos is No 4 on Forbes' billionaires list. Giulia Cacopardo, a 28-year-old representative of the 'No Space for Bezos' movement, complained that the needs of ordinary people were being neglected in a city that is a tourist magnet and fast depopulating largely due to the soaring cost of living. Venice's city centre has less than 50,000 residents, compared to almost 100,000 in the late 1970s. 'When you empty a city of its inhabitants, you can turn it into a stage for big events,' Cacopardo told Reuters. "(But) the money that Bezos spends on this wedding does not end up in the pockets of Venetians. The owners of luxury hotels are not Venetians.' Cacopardo was one of 30-40 activists who staged a protest in St Mark's Square on Thursday, chanting 'We are the 99%' as a masked couple posed as bride and groom and one man climbed a pole to unfurl a banner reading 'The 1% ruins the world'. Police intervened, forcibly removing the protesters. The anti-Bezos front is planning a march on Saturday, and their activities have already led authorities to step up security and move the location of Saturday's party to a more secluded part of Venice, the Arsenale former shipyard. But politicians, hoteliers and other Venice residents are happy about the wedding, saying that such events do more to support the local economy than the multitudes of day-trippers who normally overrun the city. 'We are happy and honoured to welcome Jeff Bezos and his consort Lauren Sanchez,' said mayor Luigi Brugnaro, who sent white roses to the bride and a maxi-bottle of Amarone luxury red wine to the groom.
