Clashes injure 11 as Kenyans protest death of blogger in police custody
Kenyan police have shot an apparent bystander at close range during the latest protests over the killing of a blogger in police custody this month, triggering even more public fury and demands for accountability.
According to witness accounts, a police officer who had concealed his face shot the unarmed man in the head on Tuesday with what appeared to be a shotgun.
The man was believed to be a vendor caught up in a confrontation with two officers while standing on a Nairobi sidewalk. He was being treated at Kenya's largest referral government hospital, which said through a spokesperson that his injuries included gunshot wounds.
Police in a statement expressed concern and said the officer had been arrested.
At least 10 other people were injured in the demonstration as hundreds of men on motorbikes, armed with whips and clubs, attacked protesters in downtown Nairobi.
The swarm of men on motorbikes could be heard shouting, 'No protest!' in footage shared by local broadcaster NTV.
Amnesty International's Kenya chapter condemned the attack, writing on X that the 'use of militia will escalate confrontation, lawlessness and chaos'.
The incident came more than a week after the death of Albert Ojwang, a 31-year-old teacher and blogger. He died just two days after being arrested in the town of Homa Bay in western Kenya for allegedly criticising Eliud Lagat, the country's deputy police chief.
A Kenyan police officer has been arrested in connection with Ojwang's death.
The protests reflect a wider concern about police violence. Rights groups said more than 60 people were killed by security forces last year during demonstrations in June and July against a bill that would have increased taxes.
Speaking about the clashes on Tuesday, which also saw police fire tear gas at protesters, Ndungi Githuku of the civil rights group Kongamano La Mapinduzi said Kenya was turning into 'a lawless country'.
'We see hundreds of paid goons with whips and weapons, crude weapons, coming to brutalise our people,' he said.
One of the demonstrators, Hanifa Adan, who was a leading voice in last year's Gen Z-led protests, told the AFP news agency that the men on motorbikes had 'overwhelmed' her and others.
'They cornered us and beat us with whips, and the police were just watching them do it,' she said.
Demonstrations were also held on Tuesday in Kenya's second largest city, Mombasa, with the crowd holding placards saying, 'Stop killing us.'
Public anger grew after an autopsy revealed that Ojwang had not fatally injured himself by banging his head against a cell wall, as the Kenyan police had originally claimed.
The government's pathologist found that his injuries, which included blunt force trauma, were 'unlikely to be self-inflicted'.
President William Ruto admitted on Friday that Ojwang had died 'at the hands of the police', calling his death 'heartbreaking and unacceptable'.
The country's leader promised to 'protect citizens from rogue police officers'.
In the past four months, more than 20 people have died in police custody in Kenya, according to the Independent Policing Oversight Authority.
As part of the investigation into Ojwang's death, two senior police officers and a civilian have so far been arrested.
Lagat, the deputy police chief, announced on Monday that he was temporarily stepping down from his role.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
5 hours ago
- Politico
Decoding the megabill's threat to clean energy
Presented by The fate of hundreds of clean energy projects hangs in the balance as House and Senate lawmakers negotiate just how far they are willing to go to bulldoze Biden-era tax credits ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline. In a new POLITICO analysis, Kelsey Tamborrino and Jessie Blaeser identified 794 imperiled wind farms, solar plants, battery storage facilities and other planned clean electricity generation projects located in overwhelmingly Republican districts. The projects, which have not yet begun construction, could be at risk of losing two critical tax breaks if House lawmakers prevail in rolling back Democrats' 2022 climate law. While the Senate's competing version of President Donald Trump's megabill would soften the tax credit assault, hundreds of those projects may still be affected if they don't move fast enough to start construction — a tricky if not infeasible task. How the battle unfurls could have major implications for the nation's ability to tackle its share of climate pollution and meet an anticipated spike in power demand as more data centers and manufacturing facilities come online. Clean energy makes up the majority of new power capacity expected to be added to the nation's electric grid during the next five years, according to a POLITICO analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 'Now is not the time to be taking new generation off the grid, and especially new cheap generation off the grid,' Tom Taylor with research firm Atlas Public Policy said about clean energy. The details are crucialThe House bill aims to fulfill Trump's promise of rolling back what he calls former President Joe Biden's 'Green New Scam' by aggressively sunsetting the clean energy credits. It would require projects to begin construction within 60 days of the bill's passage and start operating by 2028 to qualify — a tall order that could be easily thwarted by factors outside a project sponsor's control, such as permitting or interconnection delays. The House bill offers an exception for nuclear facilities. But EIA's data shows only one project that could potentially be done in time to benefit — rendering the exemption largely inconsequential. The Senate version would keep the credits intact for certain power sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower and energy storage. For wind and solar, however, it would require projects to begin construction by the end of 2025 to receive the full credit and before 2028 for a partial credit. The slightly more relaxed approach to cutting clean energy credits could spare a minimum of 57 projects, POLITICO found, while still raising questions about the future of as many as 569 wind and solar initiatives. Clean power advocates are warning about the consequences of both versions of the bill, including some Republican lawmakers and GOP-led lobbying groups. But House conservative hard-liners are threatening to tank the bill entirely unless the Senate version more closely mirrors the House draft. (Other sections of the Senate bill are facing additional obstacles from the chamber's parliamentarian, but more on that below). All in all, the megabill battle could make for a dramatic July 4 weekend on Capitol Hill if it doesn't prove too heavy of a lift for Congress to meet Republican leaders' aggressive deadline. Thank goodness it's Friday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to askibell@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Alex Guillén breaks down how the Trump administration lost a court battle this week after it tried to roll back hundreds of millions of dollars in Biden-era climate funding. Power Centers Senate parliamentarian: Not so fast, y'all Major energy and climate components of Republicans' party-line bill could fall out in the coming days after the Senate parliamentarian ruled those provisions would run afoul of budget reconciliation rules, writes Andres Picon. The parliamentarian has advised that eight sections would not meet the strict budget-related requirements, including ones that would target Democrats' 2022 climate bill, repeal vehicle emissions rules and amend the National Environmental Policy Act to streamline certain permitting processes. The parliamentarian has yet to review the much-debated Senate Finance portion of the bill that seeks to unravel the Biden-era clean energy tax credits. Trump admin eyes Mojave Desert groundwaterThe Trump administration is contemplating endorsing a contentious proposal to pump ancient groundwater from beneath the Mojave Desert and sell it to parched customers in Arizona, write Annie Snider and Camille von Kaenel. The proposal from the Los Angeles-based water company Cadiz Inc. comes as the Colorado River water supply situation becomes increasingly dire. The waterway's flows have shrunk 20 percent since the turn of the century and climate scientists say it's not unreasonable to think that another 20 percent could be lost in the coming decades. Suits on suits: California AG is sued by his office California Attorney General Rob Bonta's decision to hire an outside law firm to handle a high-profile climate lawsuit has drawn its own legal challenge — from lawyers in his office, writes Lesley Clark. The labor union that represents attorneys in Bonta's office has filed a lawsuit, arguing the Democratic AG should not have enlisted an outside law firm in the state's lawsuit against some of the world's largest oil companies. In Other News Summer's first heatwave: A heat dome is about to bring extreme heat and humidity to more than 200 million people. Scientists warn: The world has three years left to limit warming below a critical threshold. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. Trump's actions to purge the federal workforce and budget threaten to undermine one of his goals: getting wildfires in the United States under control. The Supreme Court opened the door Friday for fuel producers to challenge California vehicle emissions standards in a decision that sparked a stinging rebuke from one of the court's liberal justices. The Trump administration is arguing that Congress' watchdog overstepped when it advised lawmakers they could not nullify California's clean vehicle waivers via the Congressional Review Act. That's it for today, folks. Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend!
UPI
6 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court OKs challenge to California stricter emission standards
1 of 2 | Electric cars sit on a Tesla parking lot in Fremont, Calif. (May 2020). Fossil fuel companies can challenge California's stricter standards to reduce pollution from vehicles, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo June 20 (UPI) -- Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years. In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California's clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices. "This case concerns only standing, not the merits," Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. "EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA's approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers' challenge to EPA's approval of the California regulations is evident." The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California's stricter standard. The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia. The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term. When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions. Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California's electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order. "You couldn't buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts," Trump said last week. "They don't have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you'd have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants." Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California's regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit. Automakers were involved in the case. California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff's injury. The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California's mandate and hence the regulations wouldn't have an impact. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit. "If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?" Kavanaugh wrote. "The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell." Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot. "I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below," Sotomayor wrote. She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again. Jackson said her colleagues weren't applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent," Jackson wrote. The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian. "The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money," Patton said. "While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself."
San Francisco Chronicle
7 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
North Carolina Green Party retains official status despite failing vote thresholds
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The Green Party will remain an official party in North Carolina, able to field candidates statewide through the 2028 elections, even though their 2024 nominees for governor and president failed to get the votes required by state law. The Republican-led State Board of Elections voted 3-2 on Thursday to continue recognizing the North Carolina Green Party, potentially affecting close contests for president, U.S. Senate and governor or other statewide and local offices. Without Thursday's action, the party would have joined four other small parties who also failed to reach the vote thresholds necessary and are thus no longer recognized — the Constitution, Justice for All, No Labels and We the People parties. None of their candidates received at least 2% of the total vote for governor or president to remain an official party. That means voters who are registered with those four parties are moved to unaffiliated status on voter rolls starting next week. Those groups also would have to collect about 14,000 signatures to regain official party status — an effort that takes time and money. But the North Carolina Green Party petitioned the board this spring to apply another standard. State law also says a group of voters can become a political party if they 'had a candidate nominated by that group on the general election ballot' in at least 35 states in the prior presidential election. The group presented a Federal Election Commission document showing Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, appeared on the November 2024 ballot in 38 states. In seven states, however, she was not the nominee of the party or of a Green Party affiliate, according to the commission document. For example, she was an independent candidate in three of the seven. Democratic board member Jeff Carmon said he wasn't convinced the standard was met because Stein failed to be nominated in 35 states by the Green Party or an affiliate. Republican members decided otherwise. Although Stein may have been listed as the nominee for a different party or as independent, she was the national Green Party candidate, board Chairman Francis De Luca said. The three Republican members agreed that the North Carolina Green Party could remain an official party. The two Democrats voted no. The board shifted from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority last month after a 2024 state law took appointment authority away from the governor and to the state auditor. With Thursday's action, there will be four recognized political parties in North Carolina — Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green. As of last week, the largest bloc of North Carolina's 7.53 million registered voters are unaffiliated, at 2.85 million. About 4,000 voters are registered with the Green Party.
