Detained Uganda opposition politician on hunger strike moved to hospital, lawmaker says
KAMPALA, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Ugandan opposition politician Kizza Besigye, who went on a hunger strike last week, has been rushed to hospital after his health deteriorated, said an allied lawmaker and a local television broadcaster.
A long-time political opponent and critic of President Yoweri Museveni, Besigye has been in detention at a maximum security facility in the capital Kampala since November.
His lawyers say he was "kidnapped" in neighbouring Kenya where he had travelled and forcefully transported back to Uganda, where he was charged in the military's General Court Martial (GCM) with various offences including illegal weapons possession.
"Amidst very heavy security deployment, Dr. Besigye has been brought to a clinic at Bugolobi Village Mall," Francis Mwijukye, a lawmaker allied with Besigye, said in a post on the X platform late on Sunday, referring to a vast shopping mall in the Bugolobi suburb of Kampala.
"He was being pushed in a wheel chair."
The local NTV broadcaster also reported late on Sunday that Besigye had been taken to the health facility and that the area was under "tight security".
NTV quoted a family member as saying Besigye "is not in a good situation, the situation is bad".
Information Minister Chris Baryomunsi said in a post on the X social media platform late on Sunday that the government was fast tracking the transfer of his case to civilian courts, effectively ending his military prosecution.
Last month Uganda's Supreme Court in a ruling said civilians should not be prosecuted in military courts, calling it unconstitutional.
Many Ugandans, including fellow opposition leader, pop star Bobi Wine and a medical doctors association, took to social media over the weekend to express outrage and demand Besigye's release and unrestricted access to him by his doctors.
The public anger and calls for his release mounted after Besigye was brought to court on Friday and appeared visibly weak, walking with difficulty and struggling to move his tongue to moisten his dry lips. His lawyers told local media last week after visiting him in prison that his health was deteriorating.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Beware the employee activists threatening to bring down British business
This was also true of issues like trans rights, which 64pc of respondents told us they felt 'well prepared' to deal with. But our survey was conducted shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its seminal decision on the meaning of 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010. From the intense public interest the decision has generated, it is reasonable to assume that not all employers may have judged this correctly. Why does any of this matter? Well, for one thing, because getting it wrong can end up in expensive and reputation-damaging litigation that an employer is unlikely to win if they have not been paying attention to their obligations. And if employers already think the Bill is going to drive up business costs, then finding themselves in court won't help. But it also matters because we found that employers are confronting an increasingly politicised workforce where issues that may have no relationship to the workplace itself are becoming topics of intense debate. For every social issue we asked about, from climate change to Israel and Gaza, employers told us it had at least doubled in salience in recent years. And this was particularly likely to be the case if the employer had taken a position on certain issues in the past (say the Ukraine War or Black Lives Matter). We found that once the employer expressed a view on one issue, the more likely they were to be expected to have a position on every issue. This means employers are increasingly being drawn into contentious issues where strongly held views may conflict, and there is a heightened imperative to strike the right balance between competing perspectives. And yet we found that employers are very often getting that balance wrong. Take, for example, the use of social media. Almost 40pc of employers who have a social media policy told us that they routinely reviewed the social media posts of staff and a quarter told us that they had either sacked or disciplined a current member of staff on the basis of something they had written online. Asked why they had taken disciplinary action, and almost 70pc told us that this was because they feared that what the employee had written could cause 'reputational damage' to the business. Around 60pc said it was because it could 'cause offence to other employees', roughly twice the proportion who said they had considered whether it impacted on the employee in question's ability to discharge their professional duties. But from a legal point of view, all of this must be viewed through the prism of the Court of Appeal's landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School that was handed down in February of this year. In a decision that was viewed as a vindication of free speech, the Court held that to discipline or dismiss an employee because they had expressed a religious or protected philosophical belief (here, a 'gender critical' view and criticisms of same sex marriage) to which the employer objected, could be unfair and amount to unlawful discrimination. They said it was insufficient to say that other employees had been offended because the employer 'does not have carte blanche to interfere with an employee's right to express their beliefs simply because third parties find those beliefs offensive.' None of which is to say that employees are free to say what they like either. The court described a balancing exercise in which relevant considerations might include whether the comments were made on a professional or personal account, whether guidance had been given about their post, what they had actually said (as opposed to what a third party may have chosen to read into it) and whether their post impacted on their ability to perform their duties. All of which adds up to a tricky situation for employers facing a more politicised (and often polarised) workforce. Protecting one set of views against another not only risks confrontation with members of staff but could also break the law. More than ever, employers need to prepare themselves with sound legal advice, clear internal communications with staff and a robust crisis plan for dealing with these kinds of eventualities. Because getting it wrong in an era defined by employee activism isn't just a management problem, but one that could impact the share price, affect consumer trends or even hit the balance sheet.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Malaysia bus crash kills at least 15, mostly students, AFP says
June 9 (Reuters) - A bus crash in Malaysia has killed at least 15 people, most of them students, AFP reported on Monday.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Riots in LA as Donald Trump and Gavin Newsom call each other 'liars'
They blocked off a major road and set self-driving cars on fire as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and making arrests of people who do not leave. Some of those remaining threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier that spanned the width of a street and others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles parked on the closed southbound 101 freeway. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover. (Image: Kevin Lamarque, REUTERS) Sunday's protests in Los Angeles, a sprawling city of four million people, were centred in downtown several blocks. It was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of around 300 Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. The Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the detention centre where protesters concentrated. Los Angeles police chief Jim McDonnell said officers were 'overwhelmed' by the remaining protesters. He said they included regular agitators who appear at demonstrations to cause trouble. Several dozen people were arrested throughout the weekend of protest. One was detained on Sunday for throwing a Molotov cocktail at police, and another for ramming a motorcycle into a line of officers. Trump responded to McDonnell on Truth Social, telling him to arrest protesters in face masks. 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' he wrote. (Image: AP Photo/Eric Thayer) Starting in the morning, the troops stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home'. After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. Nearby, at least four self-driving Waymo cars were set on fire, sending large plumes of black smoke into the sky and exploding intermittently as the electric vehicles burned. By evening, police had issued an unlawful assembly order shutting down several blocks of downtown Los Angeles. Flash bangs echoed out every few seconds into the evening. Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom requested that Trump remove the guard members in a letter on Sunday afternoon, calling their deployment a 'serious breach of state sovereignty'. He was in Los Angeles meeting local law enforcement and officials. READ MORE: Israeli army boards Freedom Flotilla ship trying to reach Gaza as 'connection lost' The deployment appeared to be the first time in decades that a state's national guard was activated without a request from its governor, a significant escalation against those who have sought to hinder the administration's mass deportation efforts. Newsom and Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass blamed the increasingly aggressive protests on Trump's decision to deploy the Guard, calling it a move designed to inflame tensions. They have both urged protesters to remain peaceful. 'What we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration,' she said in an afternoon press conference. 'This is about another agenda, this isn't about public safety.' But McDonnell, the LAPD chief, said the protests were following a similar pattern for episodes of civil unrest, with things ramping up in the second and third days. He pushed back against claims by the Trump administration that the LAPD had failed to help federal authorities when protests broke out on Friday after a series of immigration raids. His department responded as quickly as it could, and had not been notified in advance of the raids and therefore was not pre-positioned for protests, he said. Newsom, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that California authorities had the situation under control. California governor Gavin Newsom (Image: Mike Blake, Reuters) He mocked Trump for posting a congratulatory message to the Guard on social media before troops had even arrived in Los Angeles, and said on MSNBC that Mr Trump never floated deploying the Guard during a Friday phone call. He called Mr Trump a 'stone cold liar'. The admonishments did not deter the administration. 'It's a bald-faced lie for Newsom to claim there was no problem in Los Angeles before President Trump got involved,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. The arrival of the National Guard followed two days of protests that began Friday in Los Angeles before spreading on Saturday to Paramount, a heavily Latino city south of the city, and neighbouring Compton. Federal agents arrested immigrants in LA's fashion district, in a Home Depot parking lot and at several other locations on Friday. The next day, they were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office near another Home Depot in Paramount, which drew out protesters who suspected another raid. Federal authorities later said there was no enforcement activity at that Home Depot. The weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the LA area climbed above 100, federal authorities said. Many more were arrested while protesting, including a prominent union leader who was accused of impeding law enforcement. The protests did not reach the size of past demonstrations that brought the National Guard to Los Angeles, including the Watts and Rodney King riots, and the 2020 protests against police violence, in which Newsom requested the assistance of federal troops. The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor's permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Centre for Justice. In a directive on Saturday, Trump invoked a legal provision allowing him to deploy federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States'. He said he had authorised the deployment of 2000 members of the National Guard. Trump told reporters as he prepared to board Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, Sunday that there were 'violent people' in Los Angeles 'and they're not going to get away with it'. Asked if he planned to send US troops to Los Angeles, Trump replied: 'We're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country.' He did not elaborate. About 500 marines stationed at Twentynine Palms, about 125 miles (200 kilometres) east of Los Angeles were in a 'prepared to deploy status' on Sunday afternoon, according to the US Northern Command.
