El Salvador judge orders prominent critic of President Bukele to remain in jail before trial
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (AP) — A judge in El Salvador ordered Tuesday that a lawyer and well-known critic of President Nayib Bukele remain in jail as his prosecution on charges of money laundering proceeds in a blow to critics pushing back against the government.
Enrique Anaya was detained by police earlier this month on money laundering allegations just days after calling Bukele a 'dictator' on live TV. His arrest has been the subject of an outcry by human rights defenders.
'Unfortunately, the result was not what we had hoped for,' Anaya's attorney Jaime Quintanilla said, adding that the case would now proceed into an investigative phase. He said they expected to hear more in the coming weeks.
Upon Anaya's arrest, authorities did not provide details about the allegations against him despite posting a photo of the constitutional lawyer in handcuffs surrounded by armed police.
Advocates, legal experts and international watchdogs have warned that Bukele has grown emboldened by his alliance with U.S. President Donald Trump. He has moved to silence critics through recent arrests and a new foreign agents law that sent chills through nongovernmental organizations that receive overseas funding. Anaya's June 10 arrest was just the latest example.
Another judge issued a similar decision against prominent human rights attorney Ruth Leonora López earlier this month. That judge ordered López, another outspoken Bukele critic, held for six months on charges of illegal enrichment.
Anaya's legal team insists that he is innocent and that the detention was purely political. Quintanilla, his lawyer, said it also violated his rights because he was not brought before a judge within 72 hours of his arrest as required by the country's constitution.
Rather, he was held for 14 days and instead appeared to be detained under emergency provisions that Bukele has used to crack down on the country's gangs and detain alleged gang members with little access to due process. Tuesday was the first time Anaya has appeared before a judge.
Quintanilla said this was illegal because Anaya was accused of a crime unconnected to gang violence. He had appealed to the country's Supreme Court, using a habeas corpus petition, which was partially granted Saturday, leading to Tuesday's hearing.
He had hoped that Anaya would be set free, but the detained lawyer was walked out of court in handcuffs surrounded by police. He nodded to reporters with his cuffed hands held to his chest.
Speaking to reporters during a break in the hearing, Quintanilla said he could not share further details about what occurred in the courtroom because the case is sealed, but said that prosecutors presented charges, the defense responded, and the judge ultimately allowed Anaya to speak.
'He (Anaya) obviously described what he has suffered during his detention, what has happened to him and matters specific to the case that cannot be disclosed,' Quintanilla said.
The defense attorney said Anaya's medical condition is critical and blamed it on 'overcrowding and confinement.' He mentioned that Anaya suffers from a chronic illness but did not provide further details.
Bukele has long faced criticism of what watchdogs say are clear human rights violations. But with recent moves by the Bukele administration, they see a worrisome escalation by the popular president, who enjoys extremely high approval ratings due to his gangs crackdown.
By suspending fundamental rights, Bukele has severely weakened gangs but also locked up 87,000 people for alleged gang ties, often with little evidence or due process. A number of those detained were also critics.
Bukele and his New Ideas party have taken control of all three branches of government, stacking the country's Supreme Court with loyalists. Last year, he ran for reelection despite a constitutional ban, securing a resounding victory.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
‘Horrifying': Fmr. prisoner on Israel's strike on Iran's Evin Prison
Bianna Golodryga speaks with Shiva Mahbobi, activist and former political prisoner in Iran, about Israel's strike on Evin Prison and what she has heard about the fate of the inmates.
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Forbes
How Much Should Values Guide Business Decisions? The Price Of Moral Leadership
While individuals express continued support for ethical causes, their willingness to bear personal ... More costs for these causes varies significantly. In today's interconnected world, leaders frequently encounter dilemmas where moral convictions intersect with economic realities. Just how can they best manage this intricate balance and negotiate the costs associated with upholding their values? Our book, The Price of Our Values: The Economic Limits of Moral Life argues that our moral decisions cannot be dissociated from economic considerations. We conducted surveys across France, Germany and the United States which reveal that while individuals express continued support for ethical causes, their willingness to bear personal costs for these causes varies significantly. For instance, many support human rights initiatives but hesitate when such support entails higher consumer prices. We try to highlight scenarios where ethical choices meet everyday decisions. For example, during energy crises, individuals may be urged to reduce consumption to support broader geopolitical goals. However, the willingness to make such sacrifices often depends on the perceived personal cost. Our moral commitments are often fragile when tested against the realities of personal cost. We show that individuals who strongly endorse moral causes in principle - such as defending human rights or promoting sustainability - often back down when asked to make large concrete sacrifices, whether as voters, consumers, or investors. This isn't a cynical observation. It's a necessary one, especially for leaders. If we want to build purpose-driven organizations that are more than rhetorical facades, we need to understand the real trade-offs that govern moral decision-making - and how to lead through them. Morality Has A Cost Our core finding is that moral ideals come with a price tag - and for most people, the price they are willing to pay to meet moral ideals is limited. Even when individuals say they care about a cause, their actual willingness to make trade-offs (to spend more, to accept inconvenience, to reduce personal or collective gain) drops off sharply once the cost crosses a certain threshold. This 'bounded morality' doesn't imply people are hypocrites. Rather, it reveals the economic conditions under which their values are activated - or suspended. Someone may strongly support fair labor practices but still choose fast fashion when the ethical alternative costs $25 more. Or they may demand that a firm divest from polluting industries but oppose a pension fund strategy that slightly reduces financial returns to do so. Consider the case of energy consumption during the winter of 2022–2023. European governments urged citizens to reduce usage in solidarity with Ukraine and to limit dependence on Russian gas. But public response was mixed - not because citizens were indifferent to the war, but because the moral cost (cold homes, higher bills) became real. Sacrifice works when it is realistic. Leaders must not ignore this behavioral reality. Appeals to values are effective, but they have limits. Overlooking the economic boundaries of moral engagement leads to failed initiatives, employee frustration, and reputational Means Transparency About Trade-offs This research offers warnings - and remedies. We believe that understanding the price of values can help leaders better design policies, strategies, and communications that account for the real preferences of their teams, customers, and investors. In practice, we see two leadership traps that arise from moral overreach: What does effective moral leadership entail? It is not about moral heroism but rather transparency regarding trade-offs. Ethical choices are rarely costless; leaders must openly acknowledge this fact. When advocating for moral decisions—such as cutting ties with a supplier accused of labor violations—leaders should clearly outline the associated financial and operational consequences. Inviting stakeholders to explicitly express their priorities and to deliberate about who should bear these costs fosters genuine dialogue. One practical method is using surveys. Our research shows that when people understand the concrete costs tied to moral decisions, they move away from moral absolutism, candidly revealing how much they are prepared to sacrifice financially to uphold their values. Surveying stakeholders about these trade-offs is especially valuable for corporate and political leaders, as it helps anticipate realistic public reactions. Such surveys also facilitate collective deliberation, making stakeholders co-owners of ethical decisions. Transparency about these trade-offs ultimately builds trust, maturity, and active engagement. We wrote The Price of Our Values not to diminish the role of ethics in leadership, but to ground it in economic and psychological realism. Too often, leaders are stuck between moral maximalism and cynical cost-cutting. There is a better way - one that acknowledges the limits of human motivation and enables people to act decently without demanding sainthood. For leaders, the key takeaway is the importance of aligning moral aspirations with practical strategies, ensuring that value-driven initiatives are both principled and Landier is Professor of Finance at HEC Paris David Thesmar is Professor of Finance at MIT Sloan School of Management Daniel Brown is Head of HEC Research Communications at HEC Paris.
CNN
5 hours ago
- CNN
Court orders Trump administration to return another wrongly deported man
A federal appeals court in New York on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of a Salvadoran man deported last month to his native country just minutes after the same court ruled he shouldn't be removed from the US. An order issued by judges from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated the government must facilitate the return of Jordin Melgar-Salmeron, 31, 'as soon as possible.' Melgar-Salmeron, who was deported in May, is at least the fourth individual to have been wrongly removed from the US, despite court rulings or protected status, amid the administration's vast deportation efforts. Tuesday's order noted that a stay of removal for Melgar-Salmeron was issued on May 7 at 9:52 a.m. but that a flight carrying him to El Salvador departed approximately 30 minutes later. 'The Government represents that Petitioner was removed that day due to 'a confluence of administrative errors,'' the order read, pointing to the government's acknowledgment in earlier court documents that a 'perfect storm of errors occurred to allow for Petitioner's untimely, and inadvertent, removal, despite the Government's assurance and the eventual stay order.' The judges also stated the government must file within a week a supplemental declaration addressing Melgar-Salmeron's current physical location and custodial status and include what steps the government will take, 'and when, to facilitate his return to the United States.' Melgar-Salmeron's case comes weeks after another wrongly deported man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was returned to the US after being removed to El Salvador despite a 2019 court order barring his removal. Abrego Garcia, who faces a federal indictment for smuggling undocumented migrants across state lines in 2022, has been described as a vessel for the Justice Department's hardball approach to immigration enforcement. He has pleaded not guilty to taking part in a smuggling conspiracy. In Tuesday's order, the court denied a request by Melgar-Salmeron's lawyers to appoint a special master to investigate authorities and officials involved in the wrongful deportation.
