East Africa

East Africa

Details: East Africa; 21 August 2021; 788

Britain and the United States imposed sanctions on Friday on men they said were Russian intelligence operatives responsible for the poisoning one year ago of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.

The two countries both targeted seven Russians with sanctions and also issued a joint statement warning Russia over chemical weapons. Washington separately imposed sanctions on another two men and four Russian institutes it said were involved in chemical weapons research or what it described as an assassination attempt against Navalny.

Navalny was flown to Germany for medical treatment after being poisoned in Siberia on Aug. 20 last year with what Western experts concluded was the military nerve agent Novichok.

Moscow has rejected their findings and accused the West of a smear campaign against it.

An updated version of the British sanctions list published by the government on the first anniversary of Navalny’s poisoning included seven new names.

“The sanctioned individuals are directly responsible for planning or carrying out the attack on Mr Navalny,” a Foreign Office statement said.

British foreign minister Dominic Raab said the move was a warning to Russia. “We are sending a clear message that any use of chemical weapons by the Russian state violates international law, and a transparent criminal investigation must be held.”

Russian Foreign Ministrys spokesperson Maria Zakharova said on social media that the “unilateral sanctions are illegitimate as they have not been approved by the UN Security Council”.

“Russia has destroyed the chemical weapons arsenal in line with international obligations it has taken upon itself. You can’t say the same about the NATO countries, for example, the USA,” she said.

The sanctions will affect those people named who have overseas assets.

The U.K. document listed Alexey Alexandrov, Vladimir Panyaev, Ivan Osipov, Vladimir Bogdanov, Kirill Vasilyev, Stanislav Makshakov and Alexei Sedov. It said they were all members of Russia’s FSB security service and were either directly or indirectly involved in the poisoning.

The U.S. Treasury later said it was imposing sanctions on the same seven men and two additional Russian officials it said were involved in the poisoning: Konstantin Kudryavtsev and Artur Zhirov.

It also targeted the FSB Criminalistics Institute, a lab where most of those implicated in the attack worked, and the Russian defence ministry’s State Institute for Experimental Military Medicine.

The State Department also imposed sanctions on two other Russian military scientific institutes involved in chemical weapons, it said.

The individuals cited have not offered any immediate comment.

The British government cited evidence including phone and travel records showing some of the operatives were present in the Siberian city of Tomsk at the time of the poisoning.

For others it said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that, due to their positions in the intelligence service, they had “responsibility for, provided support for, or promoted the actions of the operatives who carried out the operation”.

Navalny was jailed for parole violations on what he says were politically motivated charges when he flew back to Russia earlier this year from Germany.

“We call on Russia to comply fully with the Chemical Weapons Convention, including its obligations to declare and dismantle its chemical weapons programme,” the joint U.S.-British statement said.

“We remain determined to uphold the global norm against the use of chemical weapons.”

(Reporting by William James in London and Simon Lewis in Washington; additional reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin in Moscow; Editing by Timothy Heritage, Mark Heinrich, Frances Kerry and Cynthia Osterman) Metro

Details: East Africa; 21 August 2021; 867

Security forces gather on election day in Kampala, Uganda, Jan. 14, 2021. Authorities in Uganda recently suspended 54 aid groups, but those groups say they are being targeted for political reasons. Photo AP

KAMPALA, UGANDA - Authorities in Uganda have suspended 54 aid groups, accusing them of failing to comply with regulations. In return, the heads of the accused groups say they are being harassed for political purposes.

Addressing journalists Friday in Kampala, Steven Okello, the executive director for the National Bureau of Non-Government Organizations, said the 54 NGOs were not complying with the country's NGO law.

He said some organizations are operating with expired permits, some have failed to file annual tax returns, and others are operating without registering. He said all must halt their operations with immediate effect.

Okello, speaking at Uganda's Media Center, cited examples.

"The first one is Chapter Four Uganda that has not filed returns from 2016-2020. The second is Citizens Coalition for Democracy in Uganda, commonly known as CCEDDU. Now CCEDDU does not only have issues with the filing of returns, they have issues like they proceeded to observe elections without accreditation from the Electoral Commission," he said.

In December 2020, the executive director of human rights group Chapter Four, Nicholas Opio, was arrested on allegations of money laundering.

At the time, the organization was reportedly collecting evidence surrounding the killings and arrests that occurred during two days of protests in Uganda that began on November 18.

Reaction from aid groups

A top official of the Citizens' Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda, Miria Matembe, says they have only failed to file tax returns for one year because of COVID-19.

"And we went into lockdown. And the challenges have been quite a lot. And if within that year, you are a bit late in submitting returns, I do not think that that should earn us a suspension. So, me, I'm thinking, maybe, I don't know whether there could be another reason behind as you may imagine," Matembe said.

Godber Tumushabe heads a research group, the Great Lakes Institute for Strategic Studies, which the NGO Bureau says is operating without registration.

Godber says a suspension letter received Friday morning accused the NGO of not disclosing its activities.

He argues that by law, his organization is only required to register and comply with requirements under the Companies Act and not the NGO Bureau.

He says the NGO Bureau was instituted by the government to harass organizations.

"The NGO Bureau has been consistently used as a tool to politically and administratively harass Ugandan NGOs and Ugandan NGO leaders. And actually even pro-democracy activists," Godber said.

Okello says all district NGO monitoring committees have been put on alert to ensure all the NGOs named do not operate.

Previous government action

This is not the first time the government has targeted NGOs.

In February, several NGOs were forced to either close or scale down activities after the government ordered the suspension of the International NGO Democratic Governance Facility.

Eight development partners formed the DGF in 2011 to provide well-coordinated support to state and non-state entities in order to strengthen pro-democracy campaigns and protect human rights.

In suspending the DGF, President Yoweri Museveni said that the fund was exclusively foreign managed, and that its activities were calculated to subvert the government. - Halima Athumani, Voice of America

Details: East Africa; 20 August 2021; 852

Agenda 111 plan

According to him, the NPP thinks their dreams are an achievement and cited the Agenda 111 project as one of such dreams.

"It is only the NPP that will rejoice at a dream. They don’t look at the pros and cons of their dream. Ever since the President won election 2020, he has not done anything to grace the Ashanti Region. The project being launched in the region will only end up bringing disgrace to us. When you plan to do something and it is not realized, that is a failed agenda. I am surprised the NPP is not doing a thorough analysis of the project," he said on Accra-based Kingdom FM.

He noted that the $100million released for the commencement of the project will not be enough to even complete the preliminary construction stages.

President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo

"They say 88 hospitals will be funded by the government and the rest will be constructed from loans that will be acquired later on and meanwhile these projects are supposed to be finished in 12 months,” he added.

To him, it is not smart to start a project for which you have not secured full funding.

"The NPP is just trying to create the impression they are doing something and working on a project they have no funding for," he stated.

Mahdi Gibrill said President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo failed to fulfill his earlier promise of constructing 88 district hospitals due to a lack of funds and poor planning.

He insisted that the same way the president promised those hospitals in the same way he is also promising these ones. By KOJO EMMANUEL, Pulse

Details: East Africa; 21 August 2021; 771

Lady Justice Fatuma Sichale of the Court of Appeal listens to a lawyer during the ruling of the Building Bridges Initiatives (BBI) case, a key part of jostling, ahead of a presidential election due next year, at the Court of Appeal in Nairobi, Kenya August 20, 2021. Photo REUTERS/Thomas Mukoya

NAIROBI, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a decision to stop President Uhuru Kenyatta from making broad constitutional changes, limiting his ability to prevent his estranged deputy from succeeding him next year.

The proposed amendments, popularly known as the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI), would have been the biggest change to governance since a new constitution in 2010.

The court upheld a High Court decision in May that declared the proposed reforms illegal on the basis that Kenyatta acted unconstitutionally.

"The days of (an) unaccountable presidency are long gone," said Patrick Kiage, one of the appellate judges, rejecting the government's appeal.

The BBI has served as a lightning rod for the rhetoric of politicians jostling ahead of a general election due in August 2022. Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto have fallen out and they and their supporters are at odds over the proposals.

"I don't see the need to change the constitution," said Mwangi Kiunjuri, a Ruto backer who was sacked from the Cabinet by Kenyatta early last year.

Kenyatta argued that the constitutional overhaul would promote power sharing among competing ethnic groups and was not intended to deny anyone the presidency.

The proposed amendments would have created 70 new constituencies and establish several powerful new posts: a prime minister, two deputies and an official leader of the parliamentary opposition.

Ruto's Kalenjin ethnic community teamed up with Kenyatta's Kikuyu in the last two elections to defeat former Prime Minister Raila Odinga from the Luo, another large ethnic group.

The amendments are partly designed to tame Ruto's political ambitions to succeed Kenyatta by making it possible to weave an alliance against him, according to anti-graft campaigner John Githongo.

Ruto has been campaigning vigorously to inherit Kenyatta's Kikuyu voting bloc in the central region, some of whom have embraced his message.

"We don't want BBI ... This is about politicians and their search for power," said Beatrice Kagure, a college student in the central town of Nyeri.

To win support for his reform drive, Kenyatta proposes to more than double county governments' allocation to 35% of the budget, to spread more resources to the grassroots. Some critics say the government has struggled to disburse the current 15% counties budgetary allocation on time. - Reuters Reporting by Duncan Miriri; editing by Grant McCool

Details: East Africa; 20 August 2021; 833

Appeals Court President Daniel Musinga during the ruling on the BBI on August 20, 2021. Image: EZEKIEL AMING'A

In Summary

At the Court of Appeal, BBI proponents put up a spirited fight, arguing that the bill was promoted by the secretariat and not the president.
There was also a heated argument on finding that it was unconstitutional for the Kenya Bill to directly allocate and apportion constituencies.

The High Court’s finding that the BBI Bill touched on unamendable clauses of the Constitution is among the contentious determinations at the center of focus as the Court of Appeal rules on the drive.

In their scathing ruling nullifying the entire BBI process on May 14, the High Court found that the bill sought to interfere with the doctrine of basic structure that protects certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution.

“There are certain provisions in the Constitution which are insulated from any amendment at all because they are deemed to express categorical core values,” the bench ruled.

The Judges said the provisions are unamendable and cannot be changed through the exercise of ‘secondary constituent power or constituted power.’

The finding arouses bitter arguments during the hearing at the Court of Appeal, with proponents’ lawyers bitterly faulting the Judges for the ruling.

“It is inconceivable that we can even attempt to entrench the doctrine of basic structure when the Constitution expressly provides the opposite and allows for any amendment through a parliamentary process or through a popular initiative,” senior counsel George Oraro said.

Former Attorney General Githu Muigai argued that the Constitution bestows the powers to change any part of the constitution on the people.

“We cannot agree on who the people are and can’t agree on basic structure when our constitution is very clear on what can be done to change it,” Githu said.

In their ruling, the Judges said that the Basic Structure of the Constitution consists of the foundational structure of the Constitution as provided in the Preamble; the eighteen chapters; and the six schedules of the Constitution.

“It also includes the specific substantive areas Kenyans thought were important enough to pronounce themselves through constitutional entrenchment including land and environment; Leadership and Integrity; Public Finance; and National Security,” they said.

The Judges declared it as unconstitutional, null and void the entire BBI process that culminated in the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2020.

Also at the core of attention is the High Court determination that the BBI steering committee appointed by President Uhuru Kenyatta was unconstitutional.

They said that President does not have constitutional mandate to initiate constitutional amendments through Popular Initiative under Article 257 of the Constitution.

“To the extent that the BBI Steering Committee was employed by the President to initiate proposals to amend the Constitution contrary to Article 257 of the Constitution, the BBI Steering Committee is an unconstitutional entity,” they ruled.

At the Court of Appeal, BBI proponents put up a spirited fight, arguing that the bill was promoted by the secretariat and not the president.

The President, through his lawyers, argued that he was condemned unheard when the court declared that he has breached the constitution by the finding that he initiated the constitutional amendment process.

“In taking initiatives to amend the Constitution other than through the prescribed means in the Constitution, the President failed to respect, uphold and safeguard the Constitution and, to that extent, he has fallen short of the leadership and integrity threshold set in Article 73 of the Constitution and, in particular, Article 73(1)(a) thereof,” the judgement reads.

They also found that there was no enabling legislation as regards the conduct of referenda.

There was also a heated argument on finding that it was unconstitutional for the Kenya Bill to directly allocate and apportion constituencies.

IBEC, through its lawyers, sought to fight the High Court’s determination that it cannot conduct any proposed referendum as it had no quorum to conduct any business.

“It has not carried out nationwide voter registration and has no legal or regulatory framework for the verification of signatures as required by Articles 257(4) of the Constitution,” the court ruled. Edited by D Tarus, By Julius Otieno, The Star