'Abducted' Ugandan university student jailed over anti-Museveni TikTok video
Tumwine's sentencing and alleged abduction have raised concerns among human rights activists around freedom of speech ahead of elections next year.Uganda social media ban raises questions over regulation in AfricaUgandan activist alleges she was raped while in Tanzanian detentionAnger as Uganda president's son says he's holding opposition bodyguardIn court, the third-year Makerere University undergraduate admitted to posting the video that prosecutors said was intended "to ridicule, demean and incite hostility".He is alleged to have doctored a clip of the parliamentary speaker's response to a general apology Museveni issued in May to the Baganda people, Uganda's largest ethnic group and who form the traditional Buganda kingdom.Over Museveni's nearly four decades in power, relations with the kingdom and its monarch have at times been strained. The kingdom has no political power but remains influential.Tumwine's TikTok post accused the 80-year-old president of not apologising for other things during his time in power.When Tumwine's disappeared in June, Makerere University issued an urgent appeal for information that could help find him.He had been working as an agricultural intern in Hoima, western Uganda, as part of his studies at the time he went missing.Two weeks ago, the secretary-general of opposition NUP party David Lewis Rubongoya said they had information that Tumwine and another suspect were being held at a police station in Entebbe - having being "dumped" there on 13 July.He alleged they were taken there after being subjected to "incredible torture" at the hands of the country's military intelligence unit.The authorities have not commented on these allegations.Criticising the trial, lawyer and activist Godwin Toko said Tumwine had refused to let lawyers from his organisation or those from the opposition represent him in court."For a man who was abducted, held incommunicado for months, nudged to plead guilty and then sentenced, this is the apogee of injustice that it is not his captor punished, but him getting a criminal record to his name at such a young age," he posted on X on Tuesday.Last November, 21-year-old Emmanuel Nabugodi was jailed for 32 months after creating a video said to insult Museveni. Months earlier, Edward Awebwa, 24, was sentenced to six years in prison for hate speech and spreading "malicious" information against the first family.
You may also be interested in:
Uganda's 80-year-old president in bid to extend 40-year ruleUganda leader signs new law allowing military trials for civiliansAre East African governments uniting to silence dissent?How Besigye disappeared in Kenya and ended up in military courtHow an ex-rebel has stayed in power
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
US to ease human rights criticism of El Salvador, Israel and Russia, WaPo reports
WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - The Trump administration plans to scale back criticism of El Salvador, Israel and Russia over human rights, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing drafts of the State Department's annual human rights reports. The draft reports related to those countries were significantly shorter than the ones prepared by the administration of Democratic former President Joe Biden, who left office in January, when Donald Trump assumed the presidency. The State Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters on Wednesday, has not yet officially released this year's reports, which cover last year's incidents. Usually, these annual reports are released around March or April each year. "The 2024 Human Rights Report has been restructured in a way that removes redundancies, increases report readability and is more responsive to the legislative mandates that underpin the report," a State Department official briefing reporters on Wednesday said. "The report is not meant to be a every single human rights abuse that's happened in every single country. It's meant to be illustrative and a broad picture of what the conditions of human rights are on the ground in each country."
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Afghanistan's Taliban have 'weaponized' the judicial system to oppress women, UN expert says
Afghanistan's Taliban rulers have 'weaponized' the legal and judicial system to oppress women and girls in what amounts to 'crimes against humanity,' the independent U.N. investigator on human rights in the country said. Richard Bennett said in a report to the U.N. General Assembly circulated Wednesday that after seizing power in 2021 the Taliban suspended the 2004 constitution and laws protecting the rights of women and girls. These include a landmark law that criminalized 22 forms of violence against women, including rape and child and forced marriage. The Taliban dismissed all judges under the previous U.S.-backed government, including approximately 270 women, replacing them with men who share their extreme Islamic views, lack legal training and hand down decisions based on edicts issued by the Taliban, he said. In addition, he noted that the Taliban have assumed full control over law enforcement and investigative agencies, systematically purging Afghans who worked for the previous government. Bennett, who was appointed by the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, focused on access to justice and protection for women and girls in his report. He said he held meetings, focus-group discussions and one-on-one interviews with more that 110 Afghans inside and outside the country. He did so remotely because the Taliban have refused to grant him a visa to travel to Afghanistan. Since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, their crackdown on women and girls has been widely reported and globally denounced. Taliban leaders have barred education for women and girls beyond sixth grade, banned most employment, and prohibited women from many public spaces, including parks, gyms and hairdressers. New laws ban women's voices and bare faces outside the home. The Taliban remain isolated from the West because of their restrictions on women and girls and have only been recognized by Russia. Bennett said the Taliban did not respond to an advance copy of the report and a request for information about their efforts to ensure access to justice and protection for women and girls. The Taliban defend their approach to justice by claiming they are implementing Islamic sharia law, but Islamic scholars and others have said their interpretation is unparalleled in other Muslim-majority countries and does not adhere to Islamic teachings. They say protecting the legal rights of women is a priority. Bennett said, however, that women have virtually no rights. 'Today, there are no women judges or prosecutors and no officially registered female lawyers, leaving women and girls with fewer safe channels to report abuse or seek redress,' he wrote. 'Coupled with a lack of female officials in the police and other institutions, the result is widespread underreporting of violence and discrimination against women and girls.' Bennett said access to justice for girls 'is further undermined by the dismantling of key legal safeguards and institutions protecting the rights of children,' including juvenile courts and juvenile rehabilitation centers. The Taliban requirement that a woman must be accompanied by a male relative also creates barriers to filing complaints and attending court proceedings, he said, and disproportionately affects widows, women who are the heads of their households, the displaced and disabled. 'Women who engage with the Taliban court system — whether as victims seeking redress, to resolve family issues, to obtain official documents or as alleged offenders — face a hostile environment,' Bennett said. ' Courts often reject complaints made by women and are especially reluctant to accept cases relating to divorce, child custody and gender-based violence.' Facing these obstacles, Bennett said, women increasingly turn to traditional and informal justice mechanisms, including formal jirgas and shuras — community councils of elders — and informal mediation by religious leaders, community elders or family. But these are all male-dominated and raise 'serious concerns about the rights of women and girls,' he said. He said international forums offer the best hope for justice. He pointed to the International Criminal Court's request on Jan. 23 for arrest warrants for two senior Taliban leaders accused of crimes against humanity for persecution 'on gender grounds.' And he urged all countries to support efforts to bring Afghanistan before the International Court of Justice, the U.N.'s highest tribunal, for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Times
5 hours ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
