More than 40 killed in rebel attack in northeast DR Congo
The ADF, which pledged allegiance to Islamic State in 2019, raided a Catholic church in the town of Komanda where worshippers were gathered for prayer, residents told AFP by telephone from Bunia, capital of Ituri province.
The attack killed 43 people including nine children, according to the UN peacekeeping mission in the country.
"These targeted attacks on defenseless civilians, especially in places of worship, are not only revolting but also contrary to all norms of human rights and international humanitarian law," said Vivian van de Perre, deputy chief of the peacekeeping mission.
The Congolese army denounced the "large-scale massacre", adding that "around forty civilians were surprised and killed with machetes and several others were seriously injured".
It said the ADF had decided to take "revenge on defenseless peaceful populations to spread terror".
Local sources had reported an earlier death toll of at least 35.
Lieutenant Jules Ngongo, army spokesman in Ituri, did not comment on the toll but confirmed the attack to AFP, saying "the enemy is believed to have been identified among ADF" rebels.
The bloodshed comes after months of calm in the region of Ituri, bordering Uganda.
The last major attack by the ADF was in February, leaving 23 dead in Mambasa territory.
The town of Komanda in Irumu territory is a commercial hub linking three other provinces -- Tshopo, North Kivu, and Maniema.
The ADF, originally Ugandan rebels who are predominantly Muslim, have killed thousands of civilians and ramped up looting and killing in northeastern DRC despite the deployment of the Ugandan army alongside Congolese armed forces in the area.
At the end of 2021, Kampala and Kinshasa launched a joint military operation against the ADF, dubbed "Shujaa", which has so far been unable to dislodge the group.
The Congolese army promised to continue tracking the ADF and called on the population "to remain extra vigilant and report any suspicious presence to the defense and security forces".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
37 minutes ago
- IOL News
Trump addresses Gaza's humanitarian crisis and warns of starvation
Israeli activists held a protest march in Tel Aviv last week denouncing the ongoing food shortage and forced displacement of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The United Nations in June 2025 condemned what it claimed was Israel's "weaponisation of food" in Gaza and called it a war crime, as aid agencies urge action and warnings about malnutrition multiply. Image: AFP US President Donald Trump warned on Monday that the people of Gaza are facing "real starvation". Speaking in Scotland after meeting Britain's leader, Trump contradicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had earlier dismissed fears of famine in Gaza as Hamas propaganda. Trump said the US and its partners would help set up food centres to feed the more than two million Palestinians in Gaza facing what UN aid agencies warn is a deadly wave of hunger and malnutrition. 'We're going to be getting some good strong food, we can save a lot of people. I mean, some of those kids -- that's real starvation stuff,' he told reporters at a news conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. 'We have to help on a humanitarian basis before we do anything. We have to get the kids fed,' Trump said. Trump's remarks came after Netanyahu, during a reception on Sunday for Trump's spiritual adviser Paula White-Cain in Jerusalem, declared: 'There is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation in Gaza.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The US already backs food centres under the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), but the group's high-security operations have been criticised after repeated incidents in which Israeli troops have reportedly fired on civilians near its distribution points. Trump said the UK and European Union would back the new effort, and that the new food centres would be easier to access -- 'where the people can walk in, and no boundaries'. 'It's crazy what's going on over there,' he added. The war in Gaza has dragged on for almost 22 months, creating a dire humanitarian crisis only exacerbated by an Israeli blockade on supplies imposed from March to late May. The easing of the blockade coincided with the beginning of the GHF's operations, which effectively sidelined Gaza's traditionally UN-led aid distribution system and have been criticised as grossly inadequate. In recent days, the UN and humanitarian agencies have begun delivering more truckloads of food after the Israeli military declared a daily "tactical pause" in the fighting and opened secure aid routes amid mounting international outrage over hunger in the territory. Jamil Safadi said he had been getting up before dawn for two weeks to search for food, and yesterday was his first success. 'For the first time, I received about five kilos of flour, which I shared with my neighbour,' said the 37-year-old, who shelters with his wife, six children and a sick father in a tent in Tel al-Hawa. The Israeli defence ministry's civil affairs agency COGAT said the UN and aid organisations had been able to pick up 120 truckloads of aid on Sunday and distribute it inside Gaza, with more on the way yesterday. Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have begun airdropping aid packages into Gaza, while Egypt has sent trucks through its Rafah border crossing to an Israeli post just inside the territory. The UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, cautiously welcomed Israel's recent moves but warned Gaza needed at least 500 to 600 trucks of basic food, medicine and hygiene supplies daily. Netanyahu has denied Israel was deliberately starving civilians, but yesterday two local rights groups, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, accused the country of 'genocide' - a first for Israeli NGOs. THE MERCURY
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Remarkable International Court of Justice advisory opinion gives legal muscle to climate accountability
The advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is a legal milestone. Conceived by law students from small islands, it gathered wider support and makes a very strong legal case for climate accountability. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a remarkable advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The world's highest court left no doubt that the duty of states to protect the climate are binding under UN climate treaties, and international law more broadly. Among the most striking elements are that major emitters can be held liable for climate reparations; that the 1.5°C goal under the Paris Agreement is legally binding; and that the statehood of small islands, which with sea-level rise might literally go under water, is protected. The 140-page advisory opinion itself is non-binding, but points to what is binding under climate treaties and broader law, internationally and locally. Responsibility and accountability for climate change are complex, but not so complex as to exclude suing a state for a wrongful act or breach of obligation. Harm can be attributed to such a breach, and the responsible state is under a duty to compensate. But how this plays out depends on whether the country has committed an internationally wrongful act, and on the facts of each case. My take is that the basis for litigation is stronger now. That said, how a specific court — say, in South Africa — would move from a breach of obligation to a compensatory award involves many steps. Major emitters across the world should take note. Eskom's bizarre move to 'decouple' the decommissioning of coal from its just energy transition plan will not measure up to stringent due diligence. And Sasol may well have to defend its massive greenhouse gas emissions and the cutting of funding for its own emission reduction roadmap in court. Advances in attribution science The ICJ finds that responsibility for 'internationally wrongful acts' can be established in principle, with apportionment depending on the facts of each case. The advisory opinion builds on advances in attribution science. The court distinguishes scientific attribution from legal attribution: science evaluates relative contributions and quantifies confidence levels. Courts attach responsibility to a state for its actions or omissions. The wrongful acts are not the emission of greenhouse gases per se, but the breach of climate and customary obligations. Importantly, the ICJ sees greenhouse gases emissions in other countries as relevant. So when vulnerable people sue a government for failing to act on climate, the emissions of other countries can be used in determining responsibility. For reparations to be awarded, a causal link must be established, says the advisory opinion. This is complex but possible. The ICJ acknowledges that causation in climate cases is more indirect than for local pollution, but not impossible. Attribution science will be crucial in specific cases, 'in concreto', as the ICJ seems fond of saying. Forms of reparation include restitution, compensation, and satisfaction. Expect more claims following this ICJ advisory opinion. Nationally determined contributions are how countries commit to actions under the 2015 Paris Agreement, and this year countries are preparing their second nationally determined contributions. The ICJ argues that while content is nationally determined, there are limits to discretion on how little countries can do. That seems good; some have taken national autonomy to extremes. The advisory opinion makes strong points that nationally determined contributions must show 'progression' and the 'highest possible ambition'. The court says that nationally determined contributions, taken together, must be capable of realising its objectives. By this, the advisory opinion means keeping the 1.5°C target alive, quite correctly. But climate is a problem of overusing a global commons, the atmosphere. That means only collective action, by all, can limit global warming levels. How individual countries connect to the collective effort depends on time, space (what others do), and therefore equity. However, the ICJ does not apply equity operationally to nationally determined contributions, which not only would have strengthened the opinion, but is also consistent with Paris Agreement provisions. Puzzling lapse This lapse is puzzling, as the advisory opinion generally strongly affirms the principle of equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. The advisory opinion clarifies that, adding 'in the light of different national circumstances' makes common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities dynamic. The core principle applies, and how it is applied changes as countries' circumstances evolve. With the ICJ's strong legal basis for applying common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, it will be important to apply equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in practice. The advisory opinion strongly emphasises the obligations of all states to mitigation. The ICJ is clear on fossil fuels, citing scientific consensus as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that they are the main source of greenhouse gas emissions. The advisory opinion addresses both production and consumption. The decision from the global stocktake on transitioning away from fossil fuels is now a key component of states' mitigation obligations. States must implement domestic mitigation measures to achieve their nationally determined contributions. Failure to act — whether by granting exploration licences or providing subsidies — can constitute an internationally wrongful act, according to the advisory opinion. Countries also have an obligation to regulate private actors as a matter of due diligence. Again, this provides a strong legal basis for court cases against fossil fuel producers and consumers – and the latter includes all of us. The ICJ rejects the idea that climate treaties are a 'lex specialis' that excludes other rules. It finds no 'actual inconsistency' or 'discernible intention' to displace customary international law. This means even the US, despite President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, is not off the hook. Obligations apply to all states, whether or not they are parties to climate treaties. The legal term is erga omnes, here meaning every country owes it to the global community to protect the climate. If a non-party state does not cooperate, it bears the full burden of demonstrating that its policies conform to customary obligations. On adaptation, the advisory opinion outlines obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. However, it is less specific on what stringent due diligence would mean in practice, other than for mitigation. The advisory opinion does, however, extend the basis for action on loss and damage. The ICJ notes that Paris Article 8 on loss and damage will not lead to liability or compensation. However, the Agreement is not a 'lex specialis', and so while there is considerable contention about states being liable for compensation from climate change impacts, the advisory opinion opens the door for using customary international law in climate litigation. Due diligence The advisory opinion strongly promotes a stringent standard of due diligence for preventing significant harm to the climate system. This heightened vigilance is required because of the seriousness and universal character of the climate threat. The standard varies depending on a state's capabilities, available scientific knowledge, risk of harm, and urgency. It requires an 'assessment in concreto '. The advisory opinion is not legally binding nor does it determine specifics. In South Africa, our 2024 Climate Change Act has as one of its objects to 'give effect to the Republic's international commitments and obligations in relation to climate change'. We have already chosen to take obligations seriously in our own law. On finance, the ICJ is quite brief but potentially very impactful. The advisory opinion is clear that finance obligations under Paris Article 9 must be implemented in the context of achieving the objectives in Article 2 — those include the temperature goal and financial flows. I read that as supporting the notion that if we want climate mitigation consistent with the 1.5°C target, we need finance commensurate with 1.5°C. The court said actual levels can be evaluated against the capacity of developed countries and the needs of developing countries. That finding will no doubt be debated in climate negotiations, as will the advisory opinion as a whole. Hopefully, countries will be more willing to agree in negotiations, knowing that if they do not, they may be sued. In sum, the advisory opinion is a legal milestone. Conceived by law students from small islands, it gathered wider support. The ICJ makes a very strong legal case for climate accountability. The world's highest court found that the 1.5°C goal is legally binding – the implications for action on mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage and support are very far reaching. Every country owes it to the global community to protect the climate. And private entities can expect stronger regulation of emissions. The basis for litigation is stronger now, including claims for reparations and failure to phase out fossil fuel. Courts across the world will be guided by the advisory opinion and must apply stringent standards of due diligence. As they do so, equity and ambition, informed by the best available science, should remain fundamental bases. DM Harald Winkler works as a professor at the University of Cape Town's School of Economics. He writes in his personal capacity.
Eyewitness News
3 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Hunger must never be 'weapon of war', UN chief tells Africa food summit
ADDIS ABABA - UN chief Antonio Guterres on Monday said food must not be used as a weapon of war as world leaders gathered for a food summit in Africa, where 280 million people face chronic hunger. The African Union urged donors to provide greater support for the world's poorest continent, which is struggling with poverty, unrest and the effects of climate change. A new report co-authored by several United Nations agencies found global hunger fell slightly in 2024 thanks to progress in Asia and South America. But 8.2% of the world - an estimated 638 to 720 million people - still faced hunger last year, and the situation was worsening, particularly in Africa, where the figure is 20.2%. "Hunger fuels instability and undermines peace. We must never accept hunger as a weapon of war," Antonio Guterres told the UN Food Systems Summit in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa via video link. "Climate change is disrupting harvests, supply chains and humanitarian aid," he said. He highlighted the worsening crises in Sudan and Gaza. The World Health Organization has warned that malnutrition in the occupied Palestinian territory has reached "alarming levels" since Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza on March 2. In late May, Israel began allowing a trickle of aid to enter, but more than 100 NGOs have warned that "mass starvation" is spreading. MILLIONS GOING HUNGRY The summit takes place against the backdrop of aid cuts by the United States and other Western nations that are badly affecting much of the developing world. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, head of the African Union's executive commission, told the summit that food insecurity was on the rise across Africa, blaming "climate shocks, conflicts and economic disruptions". "At this crucial moment, how many children and mothers on the continent are sleeping hungry? Millions, certainly," he said. Youssouf said more than 280 million Africans were malnourished, with "nearly 3.4 million... on the brink of famine" and some 10 million displaced by drought, floods and cyclones. He urged AU member states to devote 10% of their gross domestic product to agriculture to help foster "nutritional resilience". "But we cannot do this alone. We call on our partners to honour their commitments to finance and support African solutions," he said. 'NOT GOOD NEWS' The UN report made clear how far there was to go to meet its goal of ending world hunger by 2030. Current projections suggest some 512 million people will still be undernourished by the end of the decade, 60% of them in Africa. "Global hunger figures have slightly improved compared to 2022 and 2023," Alvaro Lario, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, told AFP. "But we have not come back to the levels of five years ago. This is not very good news." Four of the worst five countries for food security are in Africa: Nigeria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia. The UN report highlights "persistent inequalities", with women and rural communities most affected, and the gap widening further over the previous year. "Despite adequate global food production, millions of people go hungry or are malnourished because safe and nutritious food is not available, not accessible or, more often, not affordable," it said. It found the response to price spikes between 2021 and 2023 was "more coordinated, informed and restrained" than the previous inflationary shock during the 2007-08 financial crisis. Some 2.3 billion people had to occasionally skip a meal in 2024 and are considered moderately or severely food insecure - 335 million more than in 2019.
