3 killed as Kenya police, protesters clash during elections

Protesters throw stones during clashes with police forces in the Kibera district, Nairobi, on October 26, 2017. (AFP)
Updated 26 October 2017
0

3 killed as Kenya police, protesters clash during elections

NAIROBI: Kenyan police on Thursday fired bullets and tear gas at stone-throwing protesters in some opposition areas during the repeat of the disputed presidential election, reflecting bitter divisions in a country whose main opposition leader urged followers to boycott the vote.
Three people were killed in protests, a police source said: One in the opposition stronghold of Kisumu County, another in Homa Bay in the west and the third in Athi River town outside the capital, Nairobi. The police source spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.
Protesters set fires and blocked roads in Kisumu, where 25 were injured during clashes with police, said Aloyce Kidiwa, a county medical officer. The injuries included many gunshot wounds, Kidiwa said. Violence also erupted in Nairobi’s Kibera slum.
Not a single ballot box was delivered to central Kisumu’s 190 polling stations, said a senior election official, John Ngutai Muyekho. He sat with the uncollected boxes in a school guarded by security forces.
“If anyone comes to collect, I’m ready. But so far no one has,” Muyekho said.
One Kisumu school that saw huge lines of voters in the Aug. 8 election was closed, its gates locked.
“We are not going to vote and we are not going to allow it,” said Olga Onyanga, an opposition supporter.
Voting proceeded in areas where President Uhuru Kenyatta has support, but fewer voters were turning out in comparison to the August election that the Supreme Court nullified because it found illegalities and irregularities in the election process.
Kenyatta said 90 percent of the country was calm and said Kenya must remove ethnic loyalties from its politics in order to succeed. The president, who was declared the winner in August with 54 percent of the vote, had said security forces would be deployed nationwide to ensure order on Thursday, and he urged Kenyans to vote while respecting the rights of those who didn’t.
Voters lined up before dawn at a polling station in Kenyatta’s hometown of Gatundu and electoral workers prepared ballot papers by flashlight after heavy rains knocked out power to the site.
“Our hope for the country is that whoever emerges the winner will be able to unite the country, which is already torn apart by politicians and politics of the day,” said Simon Wambirio, a Gatundu resident.
Opposition leader Raila Odinga, who got nearly 45 percent of the vote in August, has said the new election won’t be credible because of a lack of electoral reform and accused Kenyatta of moving a country known for relative stability and openness toward authoritarian rule.
Odinga’s call for a boycott resonated strongly in Kisumu, Kenya’s third-largest city. He has urged followers to stay away from polling stations because of concerns about a crackdown by security forces. Human rights groups said police killed at least 67 people during protests after the August vote; authorities confirmed a smaller number of deaths and said they had to take action against rioters.
Odinga has said the opposition coalition, National Super Alliance, will become a resistance movement. On Thursday, he said the movement will constitute a “People’s Assembly to guide the country to a fresh free and fair presidential election” as part of a peaceful resistance that will include boycotting goods and services by those who have supported Kenyatta’s “lawless grab of the presidency.”
Odinga and Kenyatta, who seeks a second term, also faced off in a 2013 election similarly marred by opposition allegations of vote-rigging. The opposition leader also ran unsuccessfully in 2007 — ethnic-fueled animosity after that vote killed more than 1,000 people and forced 600,000 from their homes.
Many observers say Kenya’s ethnic-based politics overshadow the promise of its democracy. Kenyatta is a Kikuyu, while Odinga is a Luo.


US top court blocks USS Cole sailors from $315m in compensation from Sudan

Updated 26 March 2019
0

US top court blocks USS Cole sailors from $315m in compensation from Sudan

  • Overturns lower court’s decision that had allowed the sailors to collect the damages from certain banks that held Sudanese assets
  • Sudan denies that it provided any support to Al-Qaeda for the attack

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Tuesday prevented American sailors injured in the deadly 2000 Al-Qaeda bombing of the Navy destroyer USS Cole from collecting almost $315 million in damages from the government of Sudan for its alleged role in the attack.
In a 8-1 ruling, the justices overturned a lower court’s decision that had allowed the sailors to collect the damages from certain banks that held Sudanese assets. The decision represented a major victory for Sudan, which denies that it provided any support to Al-Qaeda for the attack in Yemen.
Sudan was backed by President Donald Trump’s administration in the case.
In the ruling, the justices agreed with Sudan that the lawsuit had not been properly initiated in violation of US law because the claims were delivered in 2010 to the African country’s embassy in Washington rather than to its minister of foreign affairs in the Sudanese capital Khartoum.
A lower court had levied damages by default because Sudan did not defend itself against allegations that it had given support to the extremist group.
The Oct. 12, 2000, attack killed 17 sailors and wounded more than three dozen others when two men in a small boat detonated explosives alongside the Navy guided-missile destroyer as it was refueling in the southern Yemeni port of Aden, blasting a gaping hole in its hull. The vessel was repaired and later returned to full active duty.
Fifteen of the injured sailors and three of their spouses sued the government of Sudan in 2010 in Washington. At issue was whether mailing the lawsuit to Sudan’s embassy violated the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a US law governing when foreign governments may be sued in American courts.
Writing for the court’s majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said that other countries’ foreign ministers must be reached where they normally work, “not a far flung outpost that the minister may at most occasionally visit.”
Alito expressed sympathy toward the sailors, writing that the ruling may seem like it is enforcing an empty formality.
“But there are circumstances in which the rule of law demands adherence to strict requirements even when the equities of a particular case may seem to point in the opposite direction,” Alito said, adding that the case had sensitive diplomatic implications.
Alone in his dissent, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said that allowing litigants to send notices of lawsuits to embassies would comply with both US and international law.
The Trump administration had told the justices that a ruling against Sudan could impact how the US government is treated by foreign courts because the United States rejects judicial notices delivered to its embassies.
The sailors were highly critical of the administration’s position. “Particularly given this administration’s solicitude for veterans, its decision to side with a state sponsor of terrorism, against men and women who are seeking to recover for grievous injuries suffered in the service of our country, is inexplicable and distressing,” they said in a legal brief.
In 2012, a federal judge in Washington issued a default judgment of $314.7 million against Sudan. Individual plaintiffs were to receive between $4 million and $30 million each.
A separate judge in New York later ordered certain banks to turn over assets they had held for Sudan to partially satisfy the judgment. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld those orders in 2015.
A lawyer representing Sudan and a representative for Sudan’s embassy in Washington could not immediately be reached for comment. An attorney for the sailors also could not be reached for comment.