‘Moment of truth' for Lammy on Scot detained in India, says brother
On Thursday, supporters say, India's Supreme Court failed to issue a ruling on a petition for bail.
Mr Johal's brother Gurpreet Singh Johal will meet with David Lammy next week to discuss the case, as more than 100 MPs and peers signed a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for 'all diplomatic efforts' to be used to ensure his return home.
Speaking ahead of the meeting, Gurpreet said: 'I'm glad the Foreign Secretary is meeting me again, as it shows he recognises that this is a make-or-break moment for Jagtar.
'The case against my brother has been tested in court and rejected, but the Indian authorities will keep him in prison for decades if the UK Government doesn't act to secure his release.
'We've seen that today at the Supreme Court – just the latest in an endless series of delays. This is the moment of truth for David Lammy: will he live up to his promises, or will he fail Jagtar like the last six foreign secretaries did?'
The Foreign Secretary will meet with Mr Johal's family next week (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
The letter, spearheaded by Mr Johal's local MP Douglas McAllister, was signed by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, former shadow chancellor John McDonnell and senior Tory MP David Davis, and urged the Foreign Secretary to intervene.
'The UK Government, following Jagtar's acquittal, should be using all diplomatic efforts at this critical stage to ensure Jagtar Singh Johal is released on bail as soon as possible, pending the discontinuation of the other outstanding cases,' the letter said.
'The time has now come to act quickly and decisively. With the acquittal, we now have an opportunity to hold urgent diplomatic discussions with your Indian counterparts.
'Taking urgent steps now during this window of opportunity will reassure all those lobbying us on Jagtar's behalf that we are doing all we can to secure his immediate release and return to the UK, and therefore reunited with his family as soon as possible.'
Mr McAllister added: 'The failure to grant bail to my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, serves to demonstrate the need for greater urgency by the Foreign Secretary and the UK Government to secure my constituent's immediate release and his return to his family in West Dunbartonshire.
'I will be advising the Foreign Secretary when we meet next week of the strength of feeling across both houses that now is the time to act.'
Mr Johal wrote about alleged human rights abuses of Sikhs by the Indian government while living in the UK and was accused of financially supporting terror attacks in Punjab, which he denies.
An FCDO spokesperson said: 'We welcome the recent progress in the case.
'The UK Government remains committed to working for faster progress on Jagtar's case, and the FCDO continue to work to support Mr Johal and his family.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The US supreme court paved the way for Texas's gerrymandering mess
With Texas Republicans rushing to fulfil Donald Trump's wish to gerrymander to the max, many Americans are no doubt wondering why there isn't some referee to stop this hyperpartisan race to the bottom that is poisoning our democracy. The supreme court should be the referee that puts a halt to this ugly, undemocratic mess, but in a shortsighted, 5-4 ruling in 2019, the court's conservative majority essentially told state legislatures that anything goes when it comes to gerrymandering. Their message was: no matter how extreme the gerrymandering, we'll look the other way. Writing the majority opinion in that case, Rucho v Common Cause, chief justice John Roberts declared that gerrymandering was a political matter that federal courts shouldn't intervene in (unless it involves racial discrimination). Many legal experts said the conservative justices were defaulting on the court's responsibility to prevent absurdly unfair, undemocratic elections, where the fix is in even before people vote. In a prescient dissent, justice Elena Kagan warned that the huge permission slip the court was giving to gerrymandering would encourage 'a politics of polarization and dysfunction' and might 'irreparably damage our system of government'. Trump and his team have been shrewd enough and shameless enough to seek to take maximum advantage of that ruling, and in doing so, they're showing how right Kagan was. Trump and company are seriously damaging our system of government and our democracy by seeking to insulate Trump from the majority's will, an expected Democratic-leaning vote in the 2026 congressional elections. Trump and team are also ratcheting up the 'polarization and dysfunction' Kagan warned us about. Democratic lawmakers have fled Texas to prevent a GOP power grab, while Texas governor Greg Abbott has called for their arrest and removal from office. Gerrymandering further fuels polarization because November elections become largely irrelevant for choosing candidates. With gerrymandering, what counts are the party primaries, and there, the extremes, rather than moderate swing voters, determine who the winning candidate is. This in turn leads to increasingly polarized, dysfunctional legislative bodies, like the House of Representatives, where there's plenty of performative, partisan showboating and very little legislation passed. In Rucho, the conservative majority declined to overturn a gerrymander in which the North Carolina GOP had rigged congressional districts so that Republicans would win 10 of the state's 13 House seats even when the GOP won a bare majority of the statewide vote. (The case also involved some flagrant gerrymandering by Maryland's Democrats.) It's thanks to Roberts and the conservative justices' indifference to gerrymandering that a person close to Trump could say that the administration's attitude was 'Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time'. Seeking to maximize the chances of maintaining Republican control of the House, where the GOP has a mere three-seat majority, many Republicans also want GOP-led legislatures in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and Indiana to gerrymander to the max. In Texas alone, Trump hopes the GOP can pick up five House seats through redistricting. Even though Trump beat former vice-president Kamala Harris by 56% to 42% in Texas in 2024, the newly unveiled gerrymander aims to guarantee Republicans 30 out of Texas's 38 House seats (a 79% to 21% ratio). Democrats accuse Trump and the Texas GOP of cheating, and it should be no surprise that they want to respond to fire with fire, with the Democratic governors of California, Illinois and New York saying that they, too, will push through gerrymanders. This unseemly electoral arms race results directly from the supreme court's dodging of responsibility. In Rucho, chief justice Roberts shrugged at gerrymandering, saying that redistricting shenanigans were part and parcel of US history. Pointing to examples of gerrymandering from the 1780s and early 1800s, Roberts pooh-poohed this phenomenon, writing: 'Partisan gerrymandering is nothing new. Nor is frustration with it.' He also voiced skepticism and snark about judges' use of standards and election experts' predictions to determine when partisan redistricting crosses the line into unconstitutional gerrymandering that violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. In contrast to Roberts' who-cares casualness, justice Kagan was an I'm-warning-you Cassandra. In a stinging dissent joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, she correctly predicted that terrible things would result from Roberts's decision. She wrote that his opinion showed 'a saddening nonchalance about the threat that such [extreme] redistricting posts to self-governance'. Kagan didn't mince her words about how Roberts's decision threatened our democracy and undermined the ability of Americans to elect a government of their choosing. 'For the first time ever,' she wrote, 'this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.' In Rucho, Roberts wrote that the constitution neither expressly bans gerrymandering, nor points to a standard to determine when partisan redistricting is so unfair that it becomes unconstitutional. He suggested it would be a grievous, arbitrary wrong to select some legal or mathematical standard to determine when gerrymanders are illegal. Roberts wrote: 'There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral.' Today's headlines make clear that Roberts and his Rucho decision have left us with a far more grievous wrong. It has encouraged ultra-partisan gerrymandering that is sabotaging our democracy and the majority will – in this case with an eye to preventing Democrats from winning back control of the House and serving as a check on Trump, the most authoritarian president in US history. If Texas Republicans prevail and enact their gerrymander, despite Democratic lawmakers' exodus from the state, then the votes of millions of Texas Democrats will become meaningless, their votes in effect erased by the Trump/GOP gerrymander juggernaut. The same thing will happen to many Republican voters in states where Democrats gerrymander. Roberts was dismayingly myopic in failing to realize how his Rucho decision would someday lead to a push for maximum, hyperpartisan redistricting and how new electoral and computer models would make gerrymandering far more sophisticated – and sinister. Roberts was flatly wrong when he wrote that there can't be 'clear, manageable, and politically neutral' standards that define when redistricting crosses the line from mere partisanship to over-the-top, undemocratic, grossly unfair ultra-partisanship. One study put forward a smart standard that says gerrymandering crosses the line into illegality when a certain, high percentage of votes are wasted, deliberately rendered meaningless through partisan redistricting. What we're seeing right now in Texas is one political party seeking to squeeze every last drop out of a filthy gerrymandering sponge – fair play and democracy be damned. Foreseeing ugly episodes like this, Kagan cited the vision of James Madison, the main author of the constitution, who once wrote that the 'power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people'. The whole purpose of Trump's gerrymandering power grab is to prevent the people from having power over him and his increasingly unpopular government. Unfortunately, Roberts gave Trump a green light for such a power grab. Like Trump, Roberts hates admitting mistakes, but it's not too late for him to admit how shortsighted and harmful his Rucho ruling was. Nor is it too late for the chief justice to get the court to set some sane, healthy limits on gerrymandering to safeguard our democracy as well as Madison's vision that the 'power is in the people over the Government'. Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Dispute over a major port contract threatens Haiti's fragile political stability
The leader of Haiti's transitional presidential council claimed Wednesday that one of its communications employees was threatened and forced to publish a press release about a key contract involving the country's biggest port and two well-known members of its elite. The incident has deepened infighting within the council and further strained relations between Haiti's government and its private sector as a wealthy businessman prepares to take over the council's presidency on Thursday. Fritz Alphonse Jean, the council's current president, said in a statement that the Aug. 4 press release was published without his approval and despite his objections. He also said he was informed about pressure exerted by unidentified council members to dismiss another communications official who 'had refused to publish the note without his authorization.' Jean said a judge would determine whether to grant a 27-year lease to Caribbean Port Services instead of nine years as originally planned. 'Without this opinion, suspicions of corruption could further tarnish the (council's) credibility,' he said. Jean also demanded that Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé provide the council with explanations previously requested regarding the lease of the Port-au-Prince International Port, located in an area long controlled by powerful gangs. The press release that Jean condemned states the council met with Philippe Coles, president of Caribbean Port Services, and Edouard Baussan, a wealthy businessman with strong ties to Haiti's most powerful politicians. The release claimed that the 'fruitful discussions, conducted in complete transparency,' found that 'all necessary clarifications have been provided' and that the contract between the government and the company is legal. Caribbean Port Services is a private maritime logistics company that operates the international port in partnership with Haiti's Port Authority. It handles about 80% of the port's cargo container volume, according to its website. On Thursday, Jean will step down as council president as part of a rotation. He recently told The Associated Press that starting on Aug. 7, Haiti's two executive branches will be controlled by its private sector. Bocchit Edmond, a former ambassador to the U.S., said a businessman taking leadership of the council is an opportunity for the private sector to prove itself. He also condemned Jean's statement on Wednesday. 'I'm against the public bashing of the private sector,' he said. 'It's not a good thing at all for the country, for its political stability.' However, Jean said that some private sector members 'were active operators of the chaos in which Haiti is currently engulfed.' Some of Haiti's wealthy elites and powerful politicians have long been accused of financing and arming dozens of gangs, which the United Nations has noted in its reports. Gangs now control 90% of the capital, Port-au-Prince, and continue to launch attacks in a bid to control more territory. Jean's announcement comes less than a week after U.S. officials announced they were aware of 'reported bribery attempts' aimed at destabilizing Haiti. In remarks to the AP, Jean called it 'a desperate and trivial effort to attract the sympathy of American congressmen and women, and the U.S. administration.' The council was created following the resignation of former Prime Minister Ariel Henry after gangs launched a series of attacks last year against critical government infrastructure. It is tasked with holding elections by February 2026. ___
Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
Starmer defends Palestine recognition plan but hits out at Hamas
Sir Keir Starmer has said the UK will recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel agrees to meet certain conditions, including addressing the humanitarian crisis, implementing a ceasefire and reviving the prospect of a two-state solution. But he insisted the move was not a propaganda boost to Hamas, saying the 'terrorist organisation' could play 'no part in any future government'. The Prime Minister's approach has been criticised by the Israeli government and a protest over his stance is due to take place in London at the weekend. Demonstrators, including some British family members of hostages still held by Hamas, will march on Downing Street calling for the release of the remaining hostages before any talk about the recognition of Palestine. Asked if he had given Hamas a public relations boost by talking about recognition, Sir Keir told Channel 5: 'They should release the hostages straight away and they should play absolutely no part in the governance of Palestine at any point.' He said the hostages taken during the October 7 2023 attacks had been held for a 'very, very long time in awful circumstances, unimaginable circumstances, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and that's why I'm really clear about Hamas'. Sir Keir added: 'We do, alongside that, have to do all that we can to alleviate the awful situation on the ground in Gaza. We need aid in volume and at scale.' People have seen the 'images of starvation' in Gaza, he said, adding that 'the British public can see it and there's a sense of revulsion of what they're seeing'. The Government had to do 'everything we can' to get aid in, working with other countries 'and it's in that context that I set out our position on recognition'. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said on Tuesday that 'Keir Starmer has made a mistake' and 'what we need to focus on now is a ceasefire and getting the hostages home'. Tzipi Hotovely, Israeli ambassador to the UK, said the actions of Hamas 'must never be rewarded'.
