More than a dozen people killed in Kenya during anti-government protests, human rights group says
It comes a year after deadly demonstrations against a tax bill resulted in the storming of parliament.
Most were killed by police, the head of Amnesty Kenya said.
Thousands of Kenyans took to the streets on Wednesday to commemorate last year's protests, in which more than 60 people died.
Police used water cannons and fired tear gas to disperse demonstrations in Nairobi.
Amnesty Kenya's executive director Irungu Houghton told Reuters that 16 people had been "verified as dead".
"Most were killed by police," he added, saying at least five people had been shot dead.
Mr Houghton said the number of deaths had been verified by the global rights watchdog and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR).
In a statement posted on X, the government-funded KNCHR earlier said eight deaths had been reported from across Kenya, all "allegedly from gunshot wounds".
"Over 400 casualties have been reported, including demonstrators, police officers and journalists," it said.
The watchdog noted heavy police deployment and "allegations of excessive use of force, including rubber bullets, live ammunition and water cannons, resulting in numerous injuries".
Kenyan police spokesperson Muchiri Nyaga declined to comment on the statements.
An official at the capital's main Kenyatta National Hospital said it had admitted 107 injured people, "most with gunshot wounds" from either rubber bullets or live rounds.
Large crowds were seen heading in the direction of the president's official residence in Nairobi, which had been barricaded with razor wire.
The scenes were broadcast by Kenyan channel NTV before it and another were pulled off air after defying an order to stop showing the demonstrations live.
Isolated clashes were reported in the port city of Mombasa by NTV, with protests also taking place in towns including Kitengela, Kisii, Matuu and Nyeri.
The Independent Policing Oversight Authority, a state-funded body, said in a statement that at least 61 people were arrested during the protests.
Protests in June 2024 saw demonstrators shot dead and fires started inside the Kenyan parliament after politicians voted in favour of a controversial tax bill.
Protests faded after President William Ruto withdrew the bill, but public anger has remained over police brutality and the rising cost of living.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Australian women win right to sue Qatar Airways over bodily searches
Five Australian women who were forcibly removed from a Qatar Airways flight and subjected to invasive physical exams at Doha airport in 2020 have won the right to sue the airline directly. A federal court overturned a previous ruling that dismissed their case. According to their lawyer, the women, whose names remain confidential, were among dozens of women taken off multiple flights and subjected to nonconsensual bodily searches after a newborn was found abandoned at the Hamad International Airport in Doha in October 2020. The five Australian women were ordered off Qatar Airways flight 908 to Sydney and taken to ambulances on the tarmac where nurses conducted physical examinations without their consent. 'She told me to pull my pants down and that [she] needed to examine my vagina,' one woman said at the time. 'I said, 'I'm not doing that', and she didn't explain anything to me. She just kept saying, 'We need to see it, we need to see it'.' The incident triggered global outrage and was condemned by Australia's then foreign minister as a 'grossly disturbing, offensive, concerning set of events.' An Australian government spokesperson said at the time that up to 10 flights could have been affected by the searches. The five women had sought to sue Qatar Airways for damages related to 'unlawful physical contact' and pursued claims of assault and false imprisonment and battery against the airport operator, Matar, and the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority. But federal court judge John Halley dismissed the case against the airline and the aviation regulator ruling that the alleged assaults took place off the plane and were not carried out by airline staff. He described the idea that airline staff could have intervened as 'fanciful, trifling, implausible, improbable, and tenuous'. The women appealed to the full federal court, comprising a panel of three judges, arguing the invasive searches occurred during the process of disembarkation and that the airline should therefore be held liable. The full court agreed, ruling on Thursday that Justice Halley had erred in summarily dismissing the women's claims. 'There is no sufficiently high degree of certainty that what happened to the appellants in the ambulance could not ultimately be found to have been in 'the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking'. It is therefore not an issue apt to be decided at the stage of summary dismissal,' Justice Angus Stewart said. 'It is also an error to conclude at this stage of the proceeding that Matar's duty of care cannot possibly extend to the circumstances in and around the ambulance.' The court ordered Qatar Airways and Matar to pay the costs of the appeal. At the time of the incident, the Qatari government defended its actions saying they were taken in response to the 'shocking and appalling attempt to kill' a newborn girl who was found wrapped in plastic and discarded in a bin at the airport. The measures were aimed at stopping the 'perpetrators' from fleeing the country, the authorities said while offering an apology for any distress caused to passengers. The total number of women subjected to the searches remains unclear. The Australian women were among 13 taken off Qatar Airways flight 908 alone. Damian Sturzaker, the lawyer for the five women, said they were happy with the decision. 'Our clients endured a traumatic experience on that night in Doha, and they deserve to have their day in court and compensation for their suffering,' he said, according to The Australian. The women had brought claims of negligence, assault and false imprisonment against Matar and the aviation regulator. While Thursday's ruling dismissed the case against the regulator, it allowed the women to amend and continue their case against Matar. Mr Sturzaker said they would review the court's reasoning to determine whether there was scope to appeal the decision regarding the regulator to Australia's High Court.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
In its handling of the Epping asylum hotel protest, what exactly has Essex Police done wrong?
When I see the images coming out of the protests in Epping, I see home-made cardboard placards with slogans such as 'Save Our Kids', 'Protect Our Kids', 'I'm not far-right – I'm worried about my kids'. Fair enough. These seem to be local folk, and they're concerned about what's been going on around the Bell Hotel, which has been requisitioned by the Home Office to house some asylum seekers. Much of the activity there seems genuine. The fact is that an irregular migrant has been charged with certain offences – three counts of sexual assault; one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity; and one count of harassment without violence. Essex Police now face an impossible job, and are perfectly open about this. Superintendent Tim Tubbs has said that the 'impact on the community is not lost on me'. The police have stepped up patrols, and have belatedly issued a dispersal order that gives officers the power to tell anyone suspected of committing or planning antisocial behaviour to leave the area, or else face arrest. Some local residents have demanded the hotel be closed, and have been making their feelings known on the street for the best part of two weeks now. That is their right. They can, if they want, shout 'Paedo protectors!' at police officers, despite the man in question having pleaded not guilty. What they don't have a right to do is to attack the police and cause affray and disorder. Yet that seems to be the attraction for many who have descended on this normally quiet corner of Essex, as well as at sites in London and Norfolk, to cause trouble and give the impression that there's some sort of political revolution – a fascist revolution – afoot. It is also the right of those who don't live in the area to make their views known there, and the duty of the police to protect all concerned under the law. The Essex police can manage that. But they can't deal with a mass civil unrest. The work of the police and the safety of all involved, and that includes asylum seekers who've committed no offence whatsoever, is being jeopardised because of the intervention of organised far-right groups, certain politicians issuing self-fulfilling prophecies about 'societal collapse' and a mass of misinformation being amplified in social media. It is similar to what went wrong last year when certain politicians went around 'asking questions' about the ethnicity of the Southport murderer. Rumours – incorrect, as it turned out – that he was an 'illegal migrant', and a Muslim straight off a small boat, took hold across the country. And so the rumour mill has fuelled the Epping protests. First, a claim that police 'bussed in' a left-wing mob of counter protesters. Untrue, according to Essex Police. The counter-protesters with placards saying 'Refugees Welcome', as is their wont, were neither violent nor 'bussed in': they were escorted on foot by police to protect them from being beaten up on their way, and shoved in a van at the end of proceedings for the same reason. That seems like a legitimate role for any police force. People who were peaceful were given protection. People who used violence were arrested. Again, perfectly legitimate. The 'bussed-in' story – which featured on the front page of one major newspaper – was given further credence by Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK. The man who played an unhelpful role in last July's riots said: 'Essex Police were literally escorting and bussing masked thugs to and from the protest in Epping. They were caught red-handed helping to light the fuse that led to violence. This is simply unacceptable.' No, Nigel – what is unacceptable is for you to undermine the forces of law and order in such an irresponsible and untruthful way. Reform UK claims to want to be toughest party on crime, and yet its leader is putting this sort of nonsense about the police around. Escorting people on their lawful business to protect them is part of normal police work, and they do it all the time – every time there's a football match, they need to make sure the away supporters don't clash with the home supporters. The police can be criticised, but they also have a right to operational independence, free of political interference so they can do their job impartially. Farage can call for the chief constable of Essex to quit, but he shouldn't be exerting that kind of pressure. The same goes for judges doing their job and implementing sentencing rules set down by parliament. Why? Because, otherwise, politicians could order coppers to arrest people they don't like, and then tell judges to lock them up – and that is hardly an ideal situation in a free society. Nor is implying that the police, with their response, lit the fuse for violent action – they were acting under the law and their oath to keep the King's peace. If an MP such as Farage doesn't like that, then he can campaign to change the law. Farage calls the troublemakers at these events 'a few bad eggs'. Maybe – but when a neo-Nazi organisation such as Homeland is getting involved on the Facebook pages, when Tommy Robinson is taking an interest, and, yes, when a politician who thrives on grievance such as Farage is making irresponsible statements, then the riots start, and they solve nothing. The people of Epping do want to protect their kids, they want the politicians to do something more, they want to have confidence in the police. Their pleas have not been responded to adequately. They are right to go out and demonstrate. But it appears these worried parents are also being cynically exploited by people who want to use their anguish for their own political projects, and understand no more about Epping than they did about Southport last year. We really don't need any more summer riots.
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Cambridge University injunction to block protests for 12 months
The University of Cambridge has been granted a year-long injunction by a High Court judge to prevent pro-Palestine protests on parts of the extended a previous injunction to stop protesters disrupting graduation ceremonies, which would have expired on 26 for the institution said protesters, believed to be associated with a group named Cambridge for Palestine, continued to pose a risk of Kynaston, for the The European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), argued: "These students and staff do not have the time to wait another academic year to speak out on this urgent issue." On Wednesday, lawyers for the institution returned to court in London to ask for a further injunction, which was approved by Mr Justice was opposed by the ELSC and human rights group Lees KC, for the university, said in written submissions: "At no stage have the defendants or Cambridge for Palestine disavowed an intention to carry out further direct action on the land."Indeed, the statements made by Cambridge for Palestine on their social media accounts convey the message that they will continue to carry out direct action until their demands are met."The injunction from March prevented protesters from entering, occupying or remaining on the land of Senate House, Senate House Yard, and the Old also covered Greenwich were also prohibited from blocking others from accessing the sites and putting up structures like new injunction will also cover Chestnut Tree Lawn, next to Senate Lees said since March there had been several incidents of direct action in and around Senate House and Senate House included a graduand making a speech about the university's "complicity" in the "genocide in Gaza" in May, before sitting down and refusing to leave. 'Human rights concerns' In written submissions, Mr Kynaston said the injunction was "overbroad and ambiguous" and should not be imposed before graduations resumed in added it was evidence of the university's "increasingly severe approach to enforcing against student protesters", and that it raised "serious human rights concerns".He said: "The injunction, although facially neutral, is clearly aimed at preventing campaigning and protesting regarding Palestine in particular."Nonetheless, this measure is sought at precisely the time when protests against those considered complicit in Israel's operations in the occupied Palestinian territory are most urgent."The sabbatical officers of the Cambridge students' union also criticised the injunction bid as an "attempt to silence the voices of students".They said: "Students have a right to protest. This institution has taught them to have conviction to hold any and all institutions to account in their wrongdoings."The university now has a responsibility to act accordingly." Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
