Ugandan lawmakers pass bill to try civilians before military courts, defying concern and criticism
KAMPALA, Uganda — Ugandan lawmakers on Tuesday passed a government-backed bill to authorize civilian trials in military courts, defying widespread criticism by opposition figures and others who called it a backward gesture.
The contentious legislation was introduced earlier this year after the Supreme Court ruled that civilians can't be court-martialed, questioning the competence of untrained military officers to dispense justice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
33 minutes ago
Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction
Just over a year after Donald Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, an appeals court is set to hear the president's bid to move his case to federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has scheduled oral arguments Wednesday to consider whether to move the president's criminal hush money case from state to federal court. Trump was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct. Trump's lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included "official acts" undertaken while he was president, giving the president broad immunity for his actions and the right to remove the case to federal court. They say that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts -- which was decided after Trump was convicted in May -- would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction. "The fact that it was not until after the conclusion of his state criminal trial that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision defining the contours of presidential immunity -- including a broad evidentiary immunity prohibiting prosecutors from inviting a jury to probe a President's official acts, as President Trump's removal notice alleges occurred here -- supplies good cause for post-trial removal," Department of Justice lawyers argued in an amicus brief filed with the court. Trump decried the prosecution as politically motivated and successfully delayed his sentencing multiple times before New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, sentenced the former president to an unconditional discharge -- the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law -- saying it was the "only lawful sentence" to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land." "I did my job, and we did our job," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, said following Trump's conviction. "There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken." Bragg has pushed back on Trump's attempt to remove the case from state court, arguing that a case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing. "These arguments ignore statutory indicia that Congress intended for removal of criminal cases to happen before sentencing by anticipating that essential federal proceedings will take place prior to a final criminal judgment," prosecutors have argued. Trump's appeal will be heard by a panel of three federal judges, each of whom was nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents. With Trump's former defense attorneys now serving top roles at the Department of Justice, the president will now be represented by former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall of the elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. In an usual step, lawyers with the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Trump's request. "The United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal," they argued. If the appeals court grants Trump's request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Moving the case into federal court could also open up the possibility that Trump could potentially pardon himself.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
China, Africa ask US to return to 'right track' on trade differences
HONG KONG (Reuters) -China and 53 African countries called on nations, especially the United States, to return to the "right track" of resolving trade differences, the official Xinhua news agency reported on Wednesday. The statement came after China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with African officials in the city of Changsha located in southern Hunan province. The White House, in its April 2 "Liberation Day" tariff announcement, imposed some of the highest tariffs on several African countries. That included levies of up to 50% on goods from Lesotho, 47% for Madagascar, 40% for Mauritius, 38% for Botswana and 31% for South Africa, the continent's biggest exporter to the U.S. The China-Africa statement, made on behalf of China, 53 African countries and the African Union Commission said it "firmly opposed any party reaching a compromise deal at the expense of the interests of other countries." "We call on all countries, especially the United States, to return to the right track of resolving trade differences through consultation on an equal, respectful and reciprocal basis," the statement said. China is willing to implement zero-tariff measures for the 53 African countries that it has diplomatic relations with, the statement said, apart from Eswatini, the only African country that supports Taiwan. China's relations with African countries have strengthened as its own economy slows and it has emerged as Africa's biggest lender. In recent years, China has stepped up cooperation in areas from agriculture to infrastructure. The continent offers a much needed avenue for Chinese state-owned infrastructure firms struggling for projects as indebted local governments hold off on spending, and as a market for its electric vehicles and solar panels, areas where the U.S. and EU say China has over-capacity.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: A win for the rule of law — Abrego Garcia return is first step in accountability for Trump deportations
Finally obeying the Supreme Court's ruling 9-0 to return to the U.S. Kilmar Abrego García, the Maryland man with legal protections who was illegally sent to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador, the Trump administration has followed the law and brought him back. That is good. But this being the Trump administration, Abrego García is now suddenly facing multiple federal criminal charges surrounding the allegation that he once ferried people in the country illegally to different states. Whether the indictment is solid or not, Abrego García will now have competent legal defense and will be before independent judges. He is entitled to all protections that are due under the Constitution, which the disappearance of him to El Salvador abrogated. There are no new facts in this case, only what was substantially already known to investigators and prosecutors. There could be myriad reasons why federal law enforcement did not take any action beforehand, ranging from lack of evidence to simple resource allocation. But what is certain is that only reason why they're pursuing it now: to send the signal that the Trump government won't tolerate questioning its enforcement efforts, and that if you become enough of a public thorn in their side — even if it is the result of popular outrage you don't have any hand in — they'll go after you. As predictable as a ploy, as this is, it's at least a good thing that he will not remain in the Salvadoran prison system; at this point, he's the only publicly-known person to ever leave CECOT alive. In the United States, he'll have access to the still-active protections of our legal system and can actually fight acknowledged charges with his attorneys. To state the obvious, this is a pretty clear indication that the administration always could get the Salvadorans to return custody. The insistence of Attorney General Pam Bondi and others that they had no ability to correct their acknowledged error was always a lie, and there should be consequences for that lie. Maryland Federal Judge Paula Xinis, who issued the original order for his return, has already set the groundwork to hold federal officials in contempt, and she should continue to explore that avenue even though he's now been brought back. The fact of Abrego Garcia's return does not mean that everything is above board with regards to the administration's use of CECOT or Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, under which most of the other detainees were sent. This was merely the case where the administration had most individually and egregiously violated the law, but, as D.C. Federal Judge James Boasberg recently ruled, every single removal under that policy — which to remind readers is based on the absurd conceit that the United States is in something akin to war against Venezuela — was unlawful. This isn't over until the government returns every person removed under the AEA and stops contracting with a foreign government to indefinitely imprison people on no charge, a policy for which it has never laid out any legal basis. The public outrage that was struck by Abrego Garcia's detention and removal should extend to all others who remain held there without charge, and to all of the people the administration continues to detain every day just for trying to follow the law. _____
