Burkina Faso forces killed at least 100 civilians in March attack: Human Rights Watch
DAKAR: At least 100 civilians were killed by Burkina Faso government forces in March near the western town of Solenzo, Human Rights Watch said Monday.
According to victim testimony and videos shared on social media gathered by the rights group, the attackers were Burkina Faso special forces and members of a pro-government militia, the Volunteers for the Defense of the Homeland. The victims were all ethnic Fulani, a pastoralist community that is widespread across the region, which the government has long accused of supporting Muslim militants.
An earlier report from Human Rights Watch stated that the government's involvement was likely, because of video evidence on social media, although the findings were not definitive. The government issued a sharp denial when first reports surfaced, saying in a statement it 'condemned the propagation, on social media, of images inducing hate and community violence, and fake information aimed at undermining social cohesion' in the country.
'The viral videos of the atrocities by pro-government militias near Solenzo sent shock waves through Africa's Sahel region, but they told only part of the story,' said Ilaria Allegrozzi, senior Sahel researcher at Human Rights Watch. 'Further research uncovered that Burkina Faso's military was responsible for these mass killings of Fulani civilians, which were followed by deadly reprisals by an Islamist armed group. The government needs to impartially investigate these deaths and prosecute all those responsible.'
Burkina Faso authorities did not immediately reply to a request for comment on the group's new report.
The landlocked nation of 23 million people has symbolized the security crisis in the arid Sahel region south of the Sahara in recent years. It has been shaken by violence from extremist groups linked to Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group, and the governments fighting them.
The military junta, which took power in 2022, failed to provide the stability it promised. According to conservative estimates, more than 60% of the country is now outside of government control, more than 2.1 million people have lost their homes and almost 6.5 million need humanitarian aid to survive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't jail a man for marrying outside his faith: Supreme Court
The state cannot object to two consenting adults living together merely because they belong to different religions, the Supreme Court asserted while granting bail to a Muslim man jailed for nearly six months after marrying a Hindu woman. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order as it allowed an appeal filed by a man, who was denied bail by the Uttarakhand High Court in February 2025. The petitioner was arrested under provisions of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for allegedly concealing his religious identity and fraudulently marrying the woman under Hindu rites. In an order issued recently, the Supreme Court said: 'The respondent-state cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families.' The bench further clarified that the ongoing criminal proceedings would not come in the way of the couple living together by choice. ALSO READ | 'Failure of marriage not end of life', Supreme Court tell young couple The court directed the petitioner's release on bail, noting that he had been incarcerated for nearly six months and that a charge sheet had already been filed. 'Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out,' said the bench. The court also took note of the argument made by the senior counsel for the petitioner, who contended that the FIR was lodged only after certain individuals and organisations objected to the interfaith marriage. It was pointed out that the wedding took place with the full knowledge and presence of both families, and that Siddiqui provided an affidavit the day after the marriage affirming he would not force his wife to convert and that she would be free to follow her faith. The FIR in question was lodged on December 12, 2024, at Rudrapur Police Station in Uttarakhand's Udham Singh Nagar district, just two days after the couple's wedding on December 10. The Uttarakhand High Court earlier declined to grant Siddiqui bail, holding that facts relating to his religion had allegedly not been disclosed to the woman and her family before the marriage. In its February 28 order rejecting bail, the High Court accepted the prosecution's argument that the man's religious identity was deliberately concealed. The High Court observed that while the wedding was solemnised under Hindu customs, and the applicant and his family failed to reveal their Muslim identity until after the marriage. The complaint was lodged by a cousin of the woman, alleging that the family discovered the groom's religious background only upon visiting his residence in Delhi, where they noticed that 'most of the people belonged to a different community.' The FIR was filed the very next day, despite an affidavit submitted by Siddiqui on December 11 assuring that he would not pressure his wife into converting and would respect her religious autonomy. While Siddiqui's counsel highlighted that his mother is a practising Hindu and that he grew up in a Hindu environment, the High Court remained unconvinced. It noted that the couple did not marry under the Special Marriage Act, which governs interfaith unions in India, and that key facts were allegedly kept from the woman's family, pointing to the affidavit as evidence that 'correct facts had not been disclosed.' Rejecting the defence that the information was known to both sides, the High Court concluded, 'The applicant does not deserve bail.' In contrast, the Supreme Court viewed the matter through the lens of personal liberty and marital autonomy, reiterating that the right of adult individuals to live together cannot be curtailed by the state on the ground of religious difference. 'This is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted,' held the bench, noting the petitioner's submissions that the couple may choose to live separately from their families and continue to live peacefully without any hindrance.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
LDF & UDF trade barbs over support
Kozhikode: Welfare Party's support for UDF and PDP's backing of LDF have triggered a sharp political clash between rival fronts in Nilambur as they compete for electoral gains. Welfare Party is the political wing of Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI), while People's Democratic Party (PDP) is led by Abdul Nazar Madani, an accused in the 1998 Bengaluru serial blasts case. JEI and PDP announced their support for UDF and LDF respectively on Monday. CPM state secretary MV Govindan termed JEI a communal organization with global ties and an agenda to create an Islamic theocratic state. He slammed UDF for accepting JEI's support but defended the LDF's acceptance of PDP's backing, claiming PDP had suffered mistreatment in Kerala. Govindan slammed UDF for aligning with JEI, calling it 'a coalition of communal elements'. "They've followed this pattern in several elections, including Palakkad bypoll. UDF has become an alliance of communal forces and will face the consequences," he added. When asked about LDF accepting PDP's support, Govindan said PDP does not aim to establish a theocratic state. CPM leader Elamaram Kareem also attacked UDF, saying JEI promotes an ideology that supports terrorism. "How can the Congress claim to be secular while joining hands with them?" he asked. Opposition leader VD Satheesan accused CPM of double standards, saying it had previously held talks with JEI and accepted its support in past elections. "How is it okay for LDF to get support from Jamaat-e-Islami but not UDF? Those who criticize Welfare Party's support for UDF stay silent when PDP backs LDF. People will see through CPM's double standards—they once called JEI's support 'hopeful and exciting'. So why is Congress being targeted for accepting it now?" he asked. Satheesan also reminded Govindan of chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan's earlier comments about JEI, in which he described it as "one of the Muslim organizations with a clear political stand on national and international issues." Satheesan said that in all six elections he contested, JEI and Welfare Party had backed the LDF candidate. He added that after 2019, they shifted to support the Congress at the national level to fight communalism. "When they supported CPM, they were called secularists. Now that they support UDF, they're branded communalists? This is typical CPM hypocrisy," he said. BJP leader K Surendran accused UDF and LDF of seeking support from religious extremist and terror-linked groups just to win elections, warning that such alliances would harm society.
India Gazette
4 hours ago
- India Gazette
"TMC party extends full support to terrorism and extremists": BJP's Suvendu Adhikari
Kolkata (West Bengal) [India], June 10 (ANI): The Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Assembly, Suvendu Adhikari, on Tuesday said the Trinamool Congress only extends full support to terrorism and is turning the state here into a 'valley of extremists'. Adhikari's response came in response to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's reported statement on the Pulwama attack. 'TMC party extends full support to terrorism and of Mamata Banerjee's party are turning Bengal into a valley of extremists and are protecting them,' Adhikari said. The West Bengal Assembly on Tuesday passed a resolution conveying appreciation for the Indian armed forces for their recent action targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The resolution moved in the state Legislative Assembly on Tuesday also condemned the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's (J-K) Pahalgam, which claimed the lives of 26 people, most of them tourists. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee expressed deep grief over the incident and paid tribute to those who lost their lives.'We do not support terrorism in any way. In Pahalgam, tourists lost their lives. We condemn this incident. Three victims were from Bengal. During the incident, one Muslim man (Adil Hussain Shah) opposed them and sacrificed his life. We salute and pay tribute to him also,' Banerjee said. She further said that West Bengal is the only state to have moved such a resolution. Earlier, BJP MLA and West Bengal Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari on Sunday alleged that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is providing protection to Jamaat Hefazat, extremists and the anti-India forces. (ANI)
