2 activists who criticized Mali military rulers were seized and taken away, relatives say
BAMAKO, Mali (AP) — At least two Malian pro-democracy activists, including a prominent political party leader, were taken away in Bamako by armed men after criticizing the military government and calling for a return to constitutional order and elections, their families and colleagues said.
Mali 's military government this week suspended political party activities, days after the first pro-democracy rally since soldiers took power by force almost four years ago.
The son of Alassane Abba, secretary-general of the Codem party, said three armed, hooded men dressed in military fatigues entered their house on Thursday evening and took the politician away 'in a car with black tinted windows and no license plate.' Alhousseini Jannatta Alassane told The Associated Press that the armed men 'did not look like bandits.'
On the same day, in Kati, 15 kilometers (9 miles) from Bamako, a Yelema party activist, El Bachir Thiam, was forced by armed men into their car before being driven to an unknown destination.
'We learned today of the arrest of our activist El Bachir Thiam and I call on the Malian authorities to release him. I call on those who arrested him to release him. A country is not built on gag orders,' former Prime Minister Moussa Mara, honorary president of the Yelema party, said in a video posted on his Facebook page.
Both El Bachir Thiam and Alassane Abba have made media appearances criticizing the military government and calling for a return to constitutional order.
Mamadou Traoré, president of the Alternative for Mali party, was arrested last month after he criticized the military and the use of Russian mercenaries by Mali's transitional authorities.
Military leader Gen. Assimi Goita seized power following coups in 2020 and 2021. Last week, a national political conference said he should be installed as president for a renewable five-year term.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
an hour ago
- News24
Senzo Meyiwa murder trial presiding judge issues an apology for racial remarks - ‘
Following an outburst at a lawyer's message in court that some perceived as racist, Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng has apologised publicly today on Monday, June 9, 2025, at the Pretoria High Court. When defense attorney, Adv. Charles Mnisi requested a Monday court leave to accommodate his Comrades Marathon travel schedule last week, Mokgoatlheng became enraged. 'I don't think a white advocate can have the gall to ask me that,' he said. Read more | Presiding judge at Senzo Meyiwa's murder trial causes uproar after racial remarks spark controversy Mnisi ran and completed the marathon on Sunday and did not appear in court but was replaced by Adv. Sipho Ramosepele. However, Judge Mokgoatlheng apologised in his absence saying, 'I have never behaved the way I did,' referring to his career of 26 years as a judge and 30 years as an attorney. He further claimed that the judge president together with the deputy judge president had chastised him. 'I agree, my conduct was questionable and incorrect.' Additionally, he revealed that his wife also reprimanded him and pushed for a public apology, claiming that his conduct was worse than that of lawyers charged with embezzling funds from Road Accident Funds (RAF) clients. 'She told me I should apologise to the whole of South Africa,' he stated. Read more | SAMA urges caution as flu cases surge and new COVID-19 variant emerges He also mentioned that his late son, who was an advocate who passed away from cancer wouldn't have been very happy with his behaviour. 'I apologise to the accused, the lawyers, the public, the judges, magistrates, students, religious leaders - to everyone in South Africa who felt hurt or insulted by my actions,' he added. Furthermore, in response to the accusations that he was racist, Mokgoatlheng stated that he believed this to be false and hurtful. He recounted his upbringing in a politically engaged family that frequently hosted dignitaries like Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela, and a number of well-known South Africans whom he said know him personally. 'If people say I'm a racist, maybe I'm not aware of that, but I apologise.' In closing, the judge also invited the accused who felt like they could not receive a fair trial from him to express his opinion. 'If you think I am not fit to be your judge, please tell me and I'll recuse myself.'
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Travel Ban Reinstated By Trump With Mostly Muslim Countries
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has reinstated and expanded the controversial nationality-based travel ban first introduced during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in a Presidential Proclamation that came into effect on Monday, June 9, 2025, suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations. The proclamation fully suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance to nationals of 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It imposes partial restrictions on B-1/B-2 tourist visas and F, M, and J student and exchange visas for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exceptions apply to green card holders, dual nationals, certain special immigrant visa holders, athletes in international competitions, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The administration relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' That authority was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump's third version of the travel ban was constitutional, emphasizing executive deference on immigration and national security. But critics argue that this expanded ban perpetuates discriminatory intent, noting the disproportionate impact on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to 'restore the travel ban and keep radical Islamic terrorists out.' Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, predicts court challenges but warns that they may fail under the current precedent. 'Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,' he said. 'Families will be separated, and we are not necessarily safer.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order 'ideologically motivated,' 'unnecessary,' and 'overbroad,' criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification. Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump's policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate. Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted: 'Blanket nationality bans have never demonstrated any meaningful national security value. This ban hurts our economy and punishes immigrants who qualify to come legally.' According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 'In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.' Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people globally. Beyond family separations, the ban may deter students, scientists, and health professionals at a time when the U.S. is experiencing labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm at the targeting of international students, as the administration simultaneously suspended new visas for foreign scholars at select institutions, further stoking fears of ideological purges in academia. The 2025 travel ban echoes policies from Trump's first term and extends their scope. The first 'Muslim ban' of 2017 was repeatedly struck down until a more narrowly tailored version survived judicial review. Today's ban, while more procedurally refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying entry based on birthplace? Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the 1965 INA famously stated that 'the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system' would never return. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived that very shadow, using presidential proclamations instead of legislative quotas. 'This is not national security—it's national scapegoating,' said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. 'It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political gain.' The legality of the 2025 travel ban reinstated as it is may pass muster under Trump v. Hawaii, but its morality, logic, and long-term consequences remain in question. As lawsuits mount and civil rights groups prepare their defences, the nation must decide: do we protect ourselves by shutting doors or by standing firm in our values of openness, equality, and due process?
CNN
4 hours ago
- CNN
Trump's new travel ban takes effect as tensions escalate over immigration enforcement
President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the US by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president's escalating campaign of immigration enforcement. The new proclamation, which Trump signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the US and don't hold a valid visa. The ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all US diplomatic missions. However, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting Monday. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the US even after the ban takes effect. During Trump's first term, a hastily written executive order ordering the denial of entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries created chaos at numerous airports and other ports of entry, prompting successful legal challenges and major revisions to the policy. No such disruption was immediately discernible at Los Angeles International Airport in the hours after the new ban took effect. Haitian-American Elvanise Louis-Juste, who was at the airport earlier Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the US are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest. 'I have family in Haiti, so it's pretty upsetting to see and hear,' Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. 'I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's very upsetting.' Many immigration experts say the new ban is more carefully crafted and appears designed to beat court challenges that hampered the first by focusing on the visa application process. Trump said this time that some countries had 'deficient' screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. He relied extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of people who remain in the US after their visas expired. Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. US officials say the man charged in the attack overstayed a tourist visa. He is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. 'This policy is not about national security – it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organization. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban does make exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade-long war there. Afghanistan had been one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office.
