Tanzania releases Ugandan activist at border, Kenyan colleague alleges torture
FILE PHOTO: Kenyan social-political activist Boniface Mwangi speaks during a Reuters interview before the screening of the Kenyan documentary 'Softie' at the Prestige Cinema in Nairobi, Kenya October 16, 2020. Picture taken October 16, 2020. REUTERS/Thomas Mukoya/File Photo
KAMPALA - Tanzania has released the second of two foreign activists who had come to support an opposition leader charged with treason, her organisation said on Friday, after a Kenyan fellow activist said they had both been badly tortured.
Ugandan lawyer and activist Agather Atuhaire, who had been in custody since Monday, was abandoned at the border between Tanzania and Uganda, Agora Centre for Research, the Uganda-based rights group that she leads, posted on X.
"We are relieved to inform the public that (Agather) has been found," it said.
On Thursday, Kenyan activist Boniface Mwangi, who was also detained after arriving in Dar es Salaam to attend the first court appearance of Tanzanian opposition leader Tundu Lissu, had been dumped on the Kenyan border.
In a post on X, he said the last time he had been held together with Atuhaire was on Tuesday, when he had heard her groaning in pain after being tortured. Reuters could not reach Atuhaire directly.
"Our (torturers) were acting on orders from a 'state security' employee who came to Immigration offices and followed us to Central Police Station and ordered we should be taken to a secret location to be given a 'Tanzanian treatment'," Mwangi said.
Tanzanian officials had not commented on Atuhaire and Mwangi's detentions specifically, but President Samia Suluhu Hassan warned foreign activists in public comments on Monday against "invading and interfering in our affairs".
Lissu, who came second in Tanzania's last presidential poll, was arrested last month and charged with treason over what prosecutors said was a speech calling on the public to rebel and disrupt elections due in October.
The case has highlighted a growing crackdown on opponents of Hassan, whose party has nominated her to stand again.
She won plaudits after coming to power in 2021 for easing the political repression that had proliferated under her predecessor, but has faced mounting criticism over a series of arrests and unexplained abductions and killings of political opponents.
Hassan has said the government is committed to respecting human rights, and ordered an investigation into reported abductions last year.
Spokespeople for Tanzania's government, police force and immigration service did not respond to repeated requests for comment about Mwangi's allegations of torture. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
36 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble
U.S. President Donald Trump walks after delivering an address to the nation at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool WASHINGTON - With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic U.S. strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the 'forever wars' that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as 'stupid' and promised never to be dragged into. 'The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,' said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. 'But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick.' In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were 'the right thing to do.' Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a 'high probability of success,' the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the U.S. to deliver the potentially crowning blow. NUCLEAR THREAT REMAINS Trump touted the "great success" of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive "bunker-buster bombs" on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. 'In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,' the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan U.S.-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. 'Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran's program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,' the group said. Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran's next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit 'soft targets' of the U.S. and Israel inside and outside the region. But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – 'though they would be doing so in an even weaker position' – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets. Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: 'Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It's unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.' 'REGIME CHANGE' Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking 'regime change' if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. That, in turn, would bring additional risks. 'Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,' said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. 'You'll find the bones of many failed U.S. moral missions buried in Middle East sands.' Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in 'disproportionate attacks' if it felt its survival was imperiled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential U.S. inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second. Even if he hopes U.S. military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents. Trump's slogan of 'peace through strength' will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. 'Trump is back in the war business,' said Richard Gowan, U.N. director at the International Crisis Group. 'I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble
Most importantly, US President Donald Trump is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear programme. PHOTO: REUTERS Follow our live coverage here. WASHINGTON – Over the past two decades, the United States has used sanctions, sabotage, cyberattacks and diplomatic negotiations to try to slow Iran's long march to a nuclear weapon. At roughly 2.30am on June 22 in Iran, President Donald Trump unleashed a show of raw military might that each of his last four predecessors had deliberately avoided, for fear of plunging the United States into war in the Middle East. After days of declaring that he could not take the risk that the mullahs and generals of Tehran who had survived Israel's strikes would make a final leap to a nuclear weapon, he ordered a fleet of B-2 bombers halfway around the world to drop the most powerful conventional bombs on the most critical sites in Iran's vast nuclear complexes. The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment centre at Fordow, which Israel was incapable of reaching. For Mr Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest – and potentially most dangerous – gamble of his second term. He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 US troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques – terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks – as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear programme. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast programme underground. That is why Mr Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordow, the facility Iran built in secret in the mid-2000s that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Mr Trump's aides were telling those allies on June 21 night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear programme. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late on June 21, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment centre at Fordow, which Israel was incapable of reaching. PHOTO: AFP But, the diplomat added, Osama had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on June 21 night, flanked by Vice-President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Mr Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' In essence, Mr Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Mr Rubio emphasised that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran', adding that the United States was 'not involved'. But then, a few days ago, Mr Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And on June 21 night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Mr Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Mr Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness – the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear programme as Iran's ultimate defence. It was always more than just a scientific project – it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Along with the repression of dissent, the programme had become the ultimate means of defence for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordow. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Mr Trump's gamble paid off. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Airlines continue to avoid Middle East airspace after US attack on Iran
Airlines continued to avoid large parts of the Middle East on June 22 after US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, according to flight tracking website FlightRadar24. PHOTO: REUTERS Airlines continue to avoid Middle East airspace after US attack on Iran Airlines continued to avoid large parts of the Middle East on June 22 after US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, according to flight tracking website FlightRadar24, with traffic already skirting airspace in the region due to recent missile exchanges. "Following US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, commercial traffic in the region is operating as it has since new airspace restrictions were put into place last week," FlightRadar24 said on social media platform X. Its website showed airlines were not flying in the airspace over Iran, Iraq, Syria and Israel. They have chosen other routings such as north via the Caspian Sea or south via Egypt and Saudi Arabia, even if it results in higher fuel and crew costs and longer flight times. Missile and drone barrages in an expanding number of conflict zones globally represent a high risk to airline traffic. Since Israel launched strikes on Iran on June 13, carriers have suspended flights to destinations in the affected countries, though there have been some evacuation flights from neighbouring nations and some bringing stranded Israelis home. Japan's foreign ministry said on June 22 it had evacuated 21 people, including 16 Japanese nationals, from Iran overland to Azerbaijan. It said it was the second such evacuation since Thursday and that it would conduct further evacuations if necessary. New Zealand's government said on June 22 it would send a Hercules military transport plane to the Middle East on standby to evacuate New Zealanders from the region. It said in a statement that government personnel and a C-130J Hercules aircraft would leave Auckland on Monday. The plane would take some days to reach the region, it said. The government was also in talks with commercial airlines to assess how they may be able to assist, it added. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
