Kenyan rights groups condemn arrest of protest site developer
Kenyan rights groups have condemned the arrest of a software developer who built a platform opposing a contentious finance bill, warning that it reflected an intensifying crackdown on dissent.
The East African country has been cracking down on critics of the government since massive protests last June against tax rises and corruption.
Security forces are accused by rights groups of killing at least 60 people during the protests and abducting dozens more in the aftermath.
On May 19, developer Rose Njeri shared a link to her website on X, saying it was built to oppose a new finance bill, which she warned would raise living costs and breach privacy rights.
She was arrested on Friday afternoon, triggering a storm of online outrage.
She remained in police custody in Nairobi on Sunday.
"All efforts to secure her release on police bail have so far been frustrated by the officers in charge who are yet to cede to requests by counsel to release her," said Faith Odhiambo, head of the main lawyers' association (LSK), said on X on Saturday.
Rights group Vocal Africa said on X that Njeri's arrest was "a blatant attack on digital rights, freedom of expression and civic engagement".
President William Ruto said last month that all people abducted following the June-July anti-government protests had been "returned to their families".
He promised it would not happen again.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Jeopardy!: See how an international agreement is quietly helping save rare species
Let's start with the African elephant, because we almost lost it. Spot: The red panda, Asian black bear, giraffe, common ostrich, tiger, rhinoceros, Humboldt penguin, Nico-bar pigeon, rufous-necked hornbill, Indian python, panther chameleon, and grey- headed flying fox. (HT Imaging: Puneet Kumar) In July 1989, Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi set fire to a giant heap of 2,000 tusks, worth about $2 million then (about $7.5 million today). It was a powerful gesture: against poaching, the ivory trade, and the slaughter of African elephants. The fire was followed by other measures. Poachers would face the death penalty, he announced, and forest guards has been given orders to shoot on sight. The poaching of elephants had increased dramatically through the 1970s, partly as a result of the demand for ivory, and more importantly as a result of the proliferation of assault weapons amid the continent's post-colonial Border Wars. The number of African elephants had plummeted from 5 million in 1950 to fewer than 1 million. The trade had become so lucrative and widespread that entire economies now depended on it, in countries ranging from Singapore and Hong Kong to Dubai, Taiwan and Macau. As 12 tonnes of ivory caught fire in Kenya, something would finally shift. Three months later, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) announced a ban on all trade in ivory; one that has remained in force ever since. In many ways, the story of the crackdown on ivory reflects both the strengths and weaknesses of CITES, an international convention that is now 50 years old. It is also a good way to explore how CITES works, and how it found ways to be more effective. *** Wildlife trafficking remains the fourth-largest criminal enterprise in the world (after narcotics, human trafficking and the trade in counterfeit goods, according to Interpol). CITES was one of the first international agreements that sought to tackle it. But this is a crime with roots that run so deep, and stakes so high, that it took 10 drafts before enough countries would sign on. Leading the movement to pass the treaty and expand its scope was one man: the evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley, who made international conservation efforts part of his mission as head of Unesco; and then set about creating the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, founded in 1948), whose Red List still shapes efforts around the world; and CITES. (Read the story alongside for more on his remarkable efforts in this field). The convention was proposed in 1963, formally ratified in 1973, and came into force in July 1975 (four months after Huxley's death). Eighty countries signed on back then; there are 185 parties to the convention today. Eventually, based on input from IUCN and participating countries, the convention would specify three categories of trade in under-threat wildlife. Trade in species threatened with extinction (listed in what came to be called Appendix 1) could continue only in 'exceptional circumstances', with permits from the local government. Trade in species not threatened with extinction but considered at-risk (Appendix 2) would be 'controlled'. Trade in species protected in even one country (Appendix 3) would be controlled with the help of governments in other countries that had signed the convention. *** The African elephant started out in Appendix 2. With less than a million left in the wild, this was one of the greatest flaws in the CITES approach, and a reminder of how strange progress can look, when that easily spooked entity we call the international community is involved. What the CITES listing did do, however, was lay the ground for a first step: information. By 1986, paper permits were required for all ivory trade, ivory stockpiles had to be registered, and all legal trade began to be monitored. Intriguingly, Singapore, a country with no elephants in the wild, emerged as the single largest processor of ivory, with 297 tonnes of the material processed there each year. What connected Singapore with faraway countries such as Kenya and Tanzania? They had all until recently been British colonies. And one man had designed a control system so riddled with loopholes that it made it easy for ivory poachers to ply their trade. That man was Rowan Martin, then head of wildlife and fisheries research at the Department of National Parks in Zimbabwe. Martin would lead the fight to keep ivory legal. He helped create what came to be called the Ivory Producers Export Cartel, linking stakeholders in Africa with units processing ivory in Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai. Worked ivory was not controlled, which meant that poached ivory became legal as soon as it passed out of the numerous carving units here. Meanwhile, confiscated ivory could be legalised and sold by governments, which meant that dealers in poached tusks could collude with officials to profit, despite the new law. A ground-breaking 1989 report by the US Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) revealed that ivory traders such as Zulfikar Rehmatullah of Burundi and George Ebola of Uganda were frequent visitors at government and CITES offices, and had offered bribes to CITES personnel. The report provided information on smuggling routes and listed major traders around the world too. For CITES member nations now growing tired of the ineffectiveness of their shared agreement, the EIA report served as the final straw. Arap Moi set the tusks on fire, banned all ivory trade and issued his shoot-at-sight orders. And CITES finally banned all trade in ivory. Elephant numbers began to rise. Then, a controversial CITES amnesty was declared, in 2008: a one-off sale of any ivory confiscated and stockpiled by African governments. Once again, Rowan Martin led the charge. A portal was reopened; elephant killings surged. Where President arap Moi had set fire to 12 tonnes of tusks in 1989, President Mwai Kibaki built a heap of his own, and set fire to nearly 5 tonnes in 2011. The poaching continues. There are now less than half a million African elephants left in the wild. Martin, meanwhile, is still at it. As recently as 2022, he was advocating for an annual amnesty window in which national stocks of ivory could be sold, and arguing for the legalisation of trophy-hunting in Africa, on the grounds that the revenue from such ventures could help pay for the continent's conservation programmes. 1989: Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi sets fire to 12 tonnes of ivory, in a statement against elephant poaching. (Below) 2016: 105 tonnes of ivory and one tonne of rhino horn are set on fire in Kenya. (Getty Images) (Wikimedia) *** CITES did eventually help save the African elephant. Similar Appendix 1 and 2 listings have effectively protected endangered snails, whales, trees, flowers, birds, insects and animals. (See the story alongside for more on this.) The agreement has played a significant role in the decline of commercial whaling and the trade in whale products. It has helped dramatically reduce traffic in rare birds, particularly parrots and raptors. The agreement now lists close to 40,000 species, making it the largest one of its kind. CITES works because it has binding trade controls, unlike, say, the Convention on Biological Diversity, which relies on members to set their own targets, if any. CITES has sanctioned non-compliant countries by suspending all wildlife trade with them. It is nonetheless a trade treaty, and is helpless without government support. So it can do little when armed groups, government officials and political elites use poaching to fund their operations or feather their nests. The problem is replicated for other endangered species. Tiger poaching in India and other parts of Asia is fuelled by demand in increasingly affluent Vietnam, and by practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine around the world. Tiger bones, rhinoceros horns, bear bile and pangolin scales remain heavily-trafficked items. Increased affluence, combined with growing nativist pride in China and other parts of East Asia, have driven up demand. Meanwhile, countries lobby extensively to keep species out of Appendix 1. CITES is an imperfect tool, in the face of such pressures. But it has proven to be an important and effective one, and the best we have come up with so far.
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Indian Express
Israel in talks to possibly resettle Palestinians from Gaza in South Sudan
Israel is in discussions with South Sudan about the possibility of resettling Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to the war-torn East African country, part of a wider effort by Israel to facilitate mass emigration from the territory left in ruins by its 22-month offensive against Hamas. Six people familiar with the matter confirmed the talks to The Associated Press. It's unclear how far the talks have advanced, but if implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another, and raise human rights concerns. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants to realize US President Donald Trump 's vision of relocating much of Gaza's population through what Netanyahu refers to as 'voluntary migration.' Israel has floated similar resettlement proposals with other African nations. 'I think that the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there,' Netanyahu said Tuesday in an interview with i24, and Israeli TV station. He did not make reference to South Sudan. Palestinians, rights groups, and much of the international community have rejected the proposals as a blueprint for forcible expulsion in violation of international law. For South Sudan, such a deal could help it build closer ties to Israel, now the almost unchallenged military power in the Middle East. It is also a potential inroad to Trump, who broached the idea of resettling Gaza's population in February but appears to have backed away in recent months. Israel's Foreign Ministry declined to comment and South Sudan's foreign minister did not respond to questions about the talks. A U.S. State Department spokesperson said it doesn't comment on private diplomatic conversations. Egypt opposes proposals to resettle Palestinians out of Gaza Joe Szlavik, the founder of a U.S. lobbying firm working with South Sudan, said he was briefed by South Sudanese officials on the talks. He said an Israeli delegation plans to visit the country to look into the possibility of setting up camps for Palestinians there. No known date has been set for the visit. Israel did not immediately respond to a request for confirmation of the visit. Szlavik said Israel would likely pay for makeshift camps. Edmund Yakani, who heads a South Sudanese civil society group, said he had also spoken to South Sudanese officials about the talks. Four additional officials with knowledge of the discussions confirmed talks were taking place on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss them publicly. Two of the officials, both from Egypt, told AP they've known for months about Israel's efforts to find a country to accept Palestinians, including its contact with South Sudan. They said they've been lobbying South Sudan against taking the Palestinians. Egypt is deeply opposed to plans to transfer Palestinians out of Gaza, with which it shares a border, fearing an influx of refugees into its own territory. The AP previously reported on similar talks initiated by Israel and the U.S. with Sudan and Somalia, countries that are also grappling with war and hunger, and the breakaway region of Somalia known as Somaliland. The status of those discussions is not known. 'Cash-strapped South Sudan needs any ally' Szlavik, who's been hired by South Sudan to improve its relations with the United States, said the U.S. is aware of the discussions with Israel but is not directly involved. South Sudan wants the Trump administration to lift a travel ban on the country and remove sanctions from some South Sudanese elites, said Szlavik. It has already accepted eight individuals swept up in the administration's mass deportations, in what may have been an effort to curry favor. The Trump administration has pressured a number of countries to help facilitate deportations. 'Cash-strapped South Sudan needs any ally, financial gain and diplomatic security it can get,' said Peter Martell, a journalist and author of a book about the country, 'First Raise a Flag.' Israel's Mossad spy agency provided aid to the South Sudanese during their decades-long civil war against the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum ahead of independence in 2011, according to the book. The State Department, asked if there was any quid pro quo with South Sudan, said decisions on the issuing of visas are made 'in a way that prioritizes upholding the highest standards for U.S. national security, public safety, and the enforcement of our immigration laws.' From one hunger-stricken conflict zone to another Many Palestinians might want to leave Gaza, at least temporarily, to escape the war and a hunger crisis bordering on famine. But they have roundly rejected any permanent resettlement from what they see as an integral part of their national homeland. They fear that Israel will never allow them to return, and that a mass departure would allow it to annex Gaza and reestablish Jewish settlements there, as called for by far-right ministers in the Israeli government. Still, even those Palestinians who want to leave are unlikely to take their chances in South Sudan, among the world's most unstable and conflict-ridden countries. South Sudan has struggled to recover from a civil war that broke out after independence, and which killed nearly 400,000 people and plunged pockets of the country into famine. The oil-rich country is plagued by corruption and relies on international aid to help feed its 11 million people – a challenge that has only grown since the Trump administration made sweeping cuts to foreign assistance. A peace deal reached seven years ago has been fragile and incomplete, and the threat of war returned when the main opposition leader was placed under house arrest this year. Palestinians in particular could find themselves unwelcome. The long war for independence from Sudan pitted the mostly Christian and animist south against the predominantly Arab and Muslim north. Yakani, of the civil society group, said South Sudanese would need to know who is coming and how long they plan to stay, or there could be hostilities due to the 'historical issues with Muslims and Arabs.' 'South Sudan should not become a dumping ground for people,' he said. 'And it should not accept to take people as negotiating chips to improve relations.'
India.com
7 days ago
- India.com
Israel Plans To Move Palestinians To Fragile South Sudan, Framing Forced Displacement As ‘Voluntary Migration'
Jerusalem: Israel has opened a channel with South Sudan. The talks focus on sending Palestinians from Gaza to the East African nation. The Associated Press confirmed the discussions through six people familiar with the matter. The extent of progress in the talks remains unknown. If the plan moves forward, Palestinians would leave a war-torn coastal strip and arrive in another country still marked by conflict and hunger. Human rights groups see major risks in the idea. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu links the plan to what he calls 'voluntary migration'. He has voiced interest in a large-scale relocation of Gaza's residents. In an interview with i24 TV, he said, 'I think that the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there.' He made no mention of South Sudan in that interview. Palestinians, global rights advocates and many governments reject the relocation proposal. They describe it as a direct path to permanent removal from Gaza. They argue that it violates international law. South Sudan sees possible benefits in the talks. The country wants stronger links with Israel. It also seeks better access to the Donald Trump administration in the United States. The U.S. president floated the idea of moving Gaza's residents in February. The momentum around the idea later faded. Neither Israel's Foreign Ministry nor South Sudan's foreign minister has issued a public comment. The U.S. State Department refuses to confirm or deny details of private diplomacy. Joe Szlavik, head of a U.S. lobbying firm linked to South Sudan, says he received a briefing from South Sudanese officials. He claims an Israeli delegation plans to visit to assess possible camp locations for Palestinians, though no date has been set. He says Israel would cover the cost of temporary facilities. Edmund Yakani, leader of a South Sudanese civil society group, confirmed AP that he too has spoken with officials about the matter. Four other officials with direct knowledge also confirmed the development while talking to the news agency. Citing two Egyptian officials, the report says they have known for months about Israel's search for a host country. They confirm that South Sudan has been on the list. They also say they are working to persuade South Sudan to reject the plan. Egypt strongly opposes the relocation of Palestinians out of Gaza. Israel and the United States have also reportedly spoken with Sudan, Somalia and Somaliland about similar arrangements. The status of those contacts remains unclear. According to Szlavik, the United States knows about the discussions but is not part of them. He says South Sudan seeks the removal of sanctions on certain elites and a lifting of a travel ban. He highlights the country has already accepted eight deportees from the United States. South Sudan's leaders view alliances as a path to more funding and diplomatic protection. Many Palestinians in Gaza face war, hunger and disease. Some might want to leave temporarily, but most reject permanent resettlement. They see Gaza as central to their homeland. They fear they will never return if they depart. Far-right Israeli ministers push to annex Gaza and restore Jewish settlements. Even those willing to leave may avoid South Sudan. The country ranks among the most unstable in the world. Since independence in 2011, it has suffered a civil war that killed nearly 400,000 people and caused famine. Corruption remains high. The economy depends on foreign aid to feed 11 million residents. A peace deal signed seven years ago has not ended tensions. The main Opposition leader is now under house arrest. Yakani warns that Palestinians could face hostility in South Sudan. The country's long war against Sudan set Christian and animist southerners against a largely Muslim and Arab north.
