Kenya police officers plead not guilty over baby's death in 2017 election unrest
Four Kenyan police officers pleaded not guilty to killing six-month-old Samantha Pendo during the 2017 election riots.
Charges against seven others were dropped at the last minute, sparking outrage from rights groups.
The case became a symbol of police brutality and delays in Kenya's justice system.
Four Kenyan police officers pleaded not guilty on Monday to the killing of a six-month-old girl during bloody riots that erupted over a presidential election in 2017.
The death of Samantha Pendo became, for many Kenyans, a symbol of unchecked police brutality during the disputed election, the first in the country's history to be annulled.
Murder, rape and torture charges against civilians were read out to the four officers in a Nairobi court on Monday. They pleaded not guilty to all counts.
The charges against seven others were dropped by the prosecutor at the last minute.
"At least now I know that the justice I was crying for from the beginning, I am going to get it," Samantha's father Joseph Oloo Abanja told reporters outside the court.
Samantha died after she was allegedly beaten by police officers during a raid on her house as protests flared in the western city of Kisumu.
On the day of the incident, police allegedly fired tear gas into their house and battered down the door before raining blows on the couple with batons while the mother held Samantha in her arms.
An autopsy showed that she suffered acute head injuries.
The case has dragged on, with repeated court delays and the disappearance of one of the main suspects nearly five years ago.
"Today I felt good," Samantha's mother Lensa Achieng said.
She said:
It has not been an easy journey for us. Because each time this case comes up, we always feel traumatised.
Precedent
Amnesty International's Kenya director Irungu Houghton said the case was setting a precedent in the country that "elections should not come with death, trauma and injuries".
But Amnesty joined 29 other rights groups in condemning the last-minute reduction to just four accused, as well as the inclusion of the names of victims and witnesses in the charge sheet, which they say could jeopardise the case.
The officers, who remain on active duty, were ordered to return for a bail hearing on 14 May.
The 2017 protests erupted after victory was declared for then-president Uhuru Kenyatta, angering supporters of veteran opposition leader Raila Odinga.
The result was annulled by the Supreme Court after a challenge by Odinga, but he boycotted the rerun that was won by Kenyatta.
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights documented 94 deaths during the 2017 election crisis as well as 201 cases of sexual violence and over 300 woundings,the majority of which were attributed to security forces.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Last Time Supreme Court Considered Trans Rights, It Protected Them
The Supreme Court last decided a major case about transgender rights in June 2020, a win for the L.G.B.T.Q. community in a dispute over workplace discrimination against gay and transgender workers. In that case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a group of plaintiffs — among them, a funeral director, an advocate for at-risk children, and a skydiving instructor — argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guaranteed nationwide protection from workplace discrimination to gay and transgender people, even in states that offered no protection. In a vote of 6 to 3, the justices agreed. But that was a different court — and a different political moment. Although the court already had a conservative majority, the court's makeup shifted further rightward since then, after President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat left by the liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The politics around transgender issues have also shifted rightward. Soon after Mr. Trump began his second term in January, he issued an executive order that federal agencies should limit surgeries, hormone therapy and other gender transition care for children and teenagers under 19. Lawyers for the Trump administration had urged the justices to uphold a Tennessee law banning some medical treatment for transgender youth. In the court's decision on Wednesday to uphold that law, the majority said that it would not determine whether the reasoning from the Bostock decision reached beyond employment discrimination. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. explained a view that, unlike in the employment discrimination context, changing a minor's sex or gender would not alter how the state law applied to them. The majority reasoned that if a transgender boy sought testosterone to treat gender dysphoria, the Tennessee law would prohibit a health care provider from giving it to him. If the patient was a girl, the law would still prohibit the hormone treatment because the person would lack a qualifying diagnosis, Chief Justice Roberts wrote. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed, arguing that the court's decision in Bostock would require a different result. She wrote that, as Bostock outlined in the employment discrimination case, 'it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.'
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Justice Gorsuch Accuses Supreme Court of Indulging 'Fantasies'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing in his dissenting opinion in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, accused the court's majority of indulging in "fantasies" by dismissing the challengers' access to judicial review. Why It Matters In a 6-3 decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court reversed a lower-court ruling that had struck down a federal license for a temporary nuclear waste storage site in Texas. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, while Gorsuch filed the dissent. The Supreme Court has the authority to overturn lower court rulings, and in this case, it reversed a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. More than 50 nuclear power plants operate across the United States, generating electricity for homes, businesses and other uses. Those facilities also produce highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel, which must be carefully stored. What To Know The case centers on Interim Storage Partners' effort to build a facility in West Texas to store spent nuclear fuel. To do so, the private company needed approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which granted the license despite the proposed site being hundreds of miles from the nearest nuclear reactor. The decision drew objections from the State of Texas and a nearby landowner, Fasken Land and Minerals, who argued that the plan was potentially dangerous and in violation of federal law. A lower court struck down the NRC's federal license for the nuclear waste storage site. The majority opinion claimed that neither Texas nor Fasken Land and Minerals were official parties "eligible to obtain judicial review in the Fifth Circuit," and "For that reason, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and do not decide the underlying statutory dispute over whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission possesses authority to license private off-site storage facilities," Kavanaugh wrote. Therefore, Texas and Fasken cannot sue over the NRC license, as federal law, specifically the Hobbs Act, allows only a "party aggrieved" to seek judicial review. The ruling did not address the actual nuclear waste site or licensing. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 21, 2017. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 21, 2017. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais In the dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined, Gorsuch claimed that the NRC's licensing decision was "unlawful." He added that both the state and the landowners are "aggrieved" by the NRC's decision, because "radioactive waste poses risks to the State, its citizens, its lands, air, and waters, and it poses dangers as well to a neighbor and its employees." He continued, "Both Texas and Fasken participated actively in other aspects of the NRC's licensing proceeding. No more is required for them to qualify as 'parties aggrieved' by the NRC's licensing decision. Both are entitled to their day in court—and both are entitled to prevail." Gorsuch argued the NRC violated the law, and the courts should hear the challenge. He concluded the opinion, writing, "Because nothing in the law requires us to indulge any of those fantasies, I respectfully dissent." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
Schumer rips Supreme Court decision upholding state ban on transgender treatments for minors: 'Awful'
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., slammed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday to uphold Tennessee's ban on transgender "treatments" for minors. "This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against. It's an awful decision," Schumer told reporters on Capitol Hill. Schumer accused Republicans of trying to infringe on the rights of transgender youths. "On the floor, we had a bill, that the Republicans wanted to take away these rights," Schumer said. "And we got, I believe, every Democrat voting against it. So it failed because it needed 60 votes. So we're going to explore every solution." Schumer further condemned the Court's 6-3 decision online. "Republicans' cruel crusade against trans kids is all an attempt to divert attention from ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans," Schumer wrote. "We'll keep fighting, and we'll keep marching on." The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), meanwhile, said the majority's decision "helps restore sanity for millions of families across America." "Boys are boys and girls are girls," RAGA President and Executive Director Adam Piper said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "While Republican AGs crusade against risky, irreversible gender transition procedures for minors, Dem pander to their extreme donors and slouch towards Gomorrah. We must continue to protect our daughters from men trying to invade their single-sex spaces, privacy and athletic competitions." Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti – whose office handled the defense in the case – praised the decision, saying that "the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism." "The rapid and unexplained rise in the number of kids seeking these life-altering interventions, despite the lack of supporting evidence, calls for careful scrutiny from our elected leaders," he said in a statement. "This victory transcends politics. It's about real Tennessee kids facing real struggles. Families across our state and our nation deserve solutions based on science, not ideology. Today's landmark decision recognizes that the Constitution lets us fulfill society's highest calling – protecting our kids." The case centered on Tennessee state law SB1, which restricts sex transition treatments for minors for the treatment of gender dysphoria. The Tennessee legislature's findings, as detailed in the statute, included that such treatments "can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having an increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering from adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences." The Republican-controlled state body also noted that minors "lack the maturity to fully understand and appreciate" these consequences and may later regret undergoing the treatments and want to de-transition. Writing for the conservative majority, Justice John Roberts noted that the case from Tennessee "carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field." "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound," he wrote. "The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. The conservative justices ruled that SB1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said the law incorporates two classifications – on the basis of age and the basis of medical use. "Healthcare providers may administer certain medical treatments to individuals ages 18 and older but not to minors," Roberts wrote. "Healthcare providers may administer puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat certain conditions but not to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence. Classifications that turn on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review." The decision says neither of those classifications turns on sex. Rather, SB1 "prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex." All three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor arguing that the majority "abandons transgender children and their families to political whims."
