

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Guinean soldiers have been implicated in regular acts of theft and violence against businesspeople and ordinary citizens since a new government took power in a military coup in December 2008, Human Rights Watch said today. The new government should put a stop to these attacks and make certain that the police, gendarmerie, and judiciary carry out independent investigations and prosecute implicated soldiers.
Human Rights Watch collected accounts from victims and witnesses to 19 such incidents, nearly all committed by heavily armed soldiers wearing red berets and traveling in both civilian and official military vehicles without license plates. Soldiers in groups numbering up to 20 have raided offices, shops, warehouses, medical clinics, and homes in broad daylight as well as at night. Soldiers have stolen cars, computers, generators, medicines, jewelry, cash, mobile phones, and large quantities of wholesale and retail merchandise, among other items. Victims include Guineans and foreigners. Many witnesses to these incidents reported that the soldiers appeared to be intoxicated. Many of the victims were also threatened or physically assaulted.
"The coup seems to have opened up a rash of abuses by the military; the impunity enjoyed by these soldiers must come to an end," said Corinne Dufka, senior West Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The coup leaders need to bring the rank and file under control, and ensure those responsible for these abuses are promptly investigated and prosecuted."
Human Rights Watch also documented numerous cases of extortion by soldiers during routine identification checks; the March 31 rape by a soldier of a 15-year-old girl; and several incidents of intimidation of the judiciary, during which small groups of soldiers interrupted judicial proceedings or threatened lawyers in an apparent attempt to influence the outcome of the proceedings.
A group of Guinean military officers calling themselves the National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD) seized power hours after the death on December 22, 2008, of Lansana Conte, Guinea's president for 24 years. The coup leaders, led by a self-proclaimed president, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, quickly suspended the country's constitution, and pledged to hold elections in 2009 and relinquish control to a civilian-led government.
It is unclear at what level the acts documented by Human Rights Watch were either ordered or sanctioned by senior members of the military. In some cases of theft, the attackers announced that they were on an official mission for the CNDD. However, none of the victims was shown any official documentation justifying the actions, such as a search or arrest warrant.
Most of the criminal acts and intimidation of the judiciary documented by Human Rights Watch involved soldiers wearing red berets. Prior to the coup, two divisions within the Guinean security services were routinely issued with red berets: the Autonomous Presidential Security Battalion, or presidential guard (BASP); and the Autonomous Battalion of Airborne Troops (BATA), an elite group of commandos. Since the coup, however, both units and a few other elite battalions have been folded into one unit based in the CNDD's headquarters at the Alpha Yaya Diallo military camp. Human Rights Watch was also told that soldiers of other divisions have been seen wearing red berets.
Since coming to power, the CNDD has led an official crackdown against drug traffickers, criminals involved in the production and sale of counterfeit medicines, and former government officials accused of corrupt practices. Ironically, many of the human rights abuses documented by Human Rights Watch appeared to have been committed within the context of this crackdown.
For example, following the January 2009 detention of several Chinese citizens suspected of making and selling fake antibiotics, several Chinese-owned businesses, including medical clinics and restaurants, and at least one Guinean-run pharmacy were robbed by soldiers who claimed they were looking for counterfeit medicines. None of the military involved in these operations produced a search warrant, nor officially seized suspected counterfeit medicines. In three cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the business owners were arbitrarily detained and whisked away in a military vehicle. They were robbed of their money, mobile phones, and other valuables by the soldiers and then ordered out of the vehicles some kilometers away.
Human Rights Watch documented numerous cases in which soldiers had robbed Guinean citizens living near the homes or businesses of individuals suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. Victims described how they were robbed by soldiers searching their homes or businesses for contraband the military alleged was there. A Guinean lawyer representing six clients seeking damages for forced entry and armed robbery said the soldiers had broken down doors, destroyed furniture, and stolen a generator, seven cars, computers, clothing, and money. The lawyer told Human Rights Watch:
"The fight against drug trafficking is noble, but they're using it as an excuse to act as common criminals - taking vehicles, money, jewelry - what does all this have to do with drugs? They didn't find any of my clients with drugs. In none of these cases is there a legitimate complaint, or at least not one that has been substantiated."
Numerous other cases of breaking and entering were seemingly unrelated to the crackdown. These included attacks against small family-run kiosks during which the contents were emptied into vehicles driven by the military, roadside stores selling construction materials, private homes, primarily of wealthy Guineans, and warehouses holding imported items.
Military personnel interviewed by Human Rights Watch suggested that individuals posing as soldiers were responsible for the criminal acts. However, several factors cast doubt on this claim. First, many witnesses told Human Rights Watch of soldiers committing abuses in broad daylight in public places and dressed in full military uniform, some with bars indicating rank up to the level of sergeant. Second, in two cases, businessmen whose cars were stolen at gunpoint by soldiers later saw their cars being driven by men in military uniform; in one case, the car was seen driven in and out of a military camp in Conakry. Third, several victims told Human Rights Watch that they recognized individual soldiers whom they knew to be members of the military. Fourth, the soldiers committing many crimes operated in groups of 10 or more, and circulated in small convoys of two or more vehicles.
Under Guinean law, it is the gendarmerie and police who are mandated to investigate crimes, whether the alleged perpetrators are civilians or members of the military. However, victims consistently told Human Rights Watch that since the coup, the military has increasingly taken over some police tasks, including criminal investigation. The owners of five businesses robbed at around the same time on February 16 filed a police report, but were told by the police that since the coup, they were no longer "authorized by the military to conduct investigations." The business owners were told to file a complaint directly with the military.
When Human Rights Watch asked police officers how they were responding to a wave of crimes apparently perpetrated by soldiers in one Conakry suburb, the officers said that the military had "forbidden" them to conduct patrols and investigations; one police officer described how a civilian suspect he had detained for questioning in connection with a burglary at the station was removed from police custody and put into a military vehicle for questioning at a military camp. Another victim told Human Rights Watch that after he complained to the police, they told him that if he wanted action he would need to either file a complaint with the military or denounce it on the radio. Yet another victim filed a complaint at the local police station and later at the head office of the judicial police in charge of investigating crimes, which is under the authority of the prosecutor. Both referred her to the military.
Five victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch had lodged complaints with military authorities in which they had asked for an official investigation into what they claimed were criminal acts by soldiers. No follow-up investigation has been conducted in any of these cases. One victim visited the military camp five times asking for an investigation, and lamented, "I've been to the [military] camp and made many follow-up calls, but not once heard back. The case is going nowhere."
The only case documented by Human Rights Watch where there had been a response by the military involved the rape of the 15-year-old girl. According to family members and community leaders, the accused soldier's superior visited the family and arranged to settle the case outside of court. The soldier was detained for several days in the military camp. The family decided not to file a police report after the military agreed to pay the girl's medical costs.
Under article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the government of Guinea is under the obligation to protect the right to property, which includes ensuring that state officials (including the military) do not seize property arbitrarily and without compensation.
"The military's duty is to protect and safeguard the Guinean people, not take advantage of them. The lawlessness seen in these abuses is without excuse," said Dufka. "The military should end the abuses and allow the police, gendarmerie, and judiciary to uphold the rule of law."
Accounts from victims and witnesses of abuses by the Guinean military in Conakry
Abuses committed under the pretext of the crackdown on drug trafficking, counterfeit medicines, and corruption:
The Guinean owner and manager of a transport company described the theft of his car and other items on February 15 by a dozen uniformed soldiers ostensibly searching for drugs. He said the soldiers, who smelled of alcohol, were heavily armed, and several were draped with bandoliers:
"They arrived in a Nissan pickup truck without license plates. They told me they were there on a mission ordered by the CNDD to recover 4x4 trucks that I was hiding for the leader of a Guinean opposition party. Some of the Red Berets accused me of hiding drugs and weapons. I told them I am not a military, so I don't have weapons, but they searched the warehouse and ransacked my secretary's office and mine. I am not hiding anything. They did not tell me their names, but I noticed that they all addressed one of them with 'Excellence.' I asked for a mission order, but they said that they didn't have one, that mission orders are nonsense. They said, 'Did you not see what kind of vehicle we came in?' The military threatened my employees and told them to lie down on the floor, face down. They were told, 'You will not get out of here alive' and 'Nothing will leave this place.' They did not find any drugs or weapons, but they took two computers, my own car, and a large amount of cash. Several people have told me they've seen my car being driven around town by an army man."
A Guinean woman who resides next door to a group of Nigerians allegedly suspected of involvement in drug trafficking was robbed twice by soldiers. The first time they came, they claimed to be looking for Nigerians. She described the incidents that took place on February 25 and March 13:
"The first night, they woke me up when they climbed the walls of my compound. They asked me if there were any Nigerians hidden and searched my house. They did not have a search warrant. They apologized and left. I later noticed my mobile phone was missing. Then on March 13, eight heavily armed Red Berets returned to the residence at 10 p.m. I wasn't there, but my aunt told me what happened. The military threatened to shoot if my aunt did not open the door, so she let them in. When my aunt asked why they were there after not finding anything the first time, they yelled at her to shut up. They took a black backpack with a laptop, 3 million Guinean francs [about US$600], and jewelry. This time, it was clearly not a mistake like the first time they came. Because of these visits, I decided to move out of my house."
The owner of a medical clinic raided by soldiers at 1 p.m. on January 26 described what happened during an attack on his clinic:
"My brother and I are Chinese medical doctors and run a clinic in Conakry. The military came in a gray truck and three motorcycles. There were eight of them and they all wore red berets. Three had rifles and all were in camouflage uniform. They came in saying they were looking for fake medicine, but they went through the house and stole many things, including two diagnostic machines, two mobile phones, 3 million FG [Guinean francs, about US$600], US$3,000, a TV and DVD [player], and bags full of all our clothing. They even went into the freezer and stole the meat we had there! They also stole [my brother's] car - we have yet to see it. They didn't take any medicines; they came to steal. [My brother] was taken in the car by the military, like they were going to arrest him, but they then let him go - stopped the car and told him to get out. Many people from the neighborhood used to come into the clinic, but for the moment we've closed."
A restaurant owner who was robbed in the middle of the day in late January described what happened:
"At about 3 p.m., 10 soldiers came to the restaurant; they were dressed in soldier uniforms and several had guns. As they entered, they kicked at our door, pointed their guns at me and hit me in the stomach. They said they were looking for fake medicines - that it was us the Chinese selling them. I told them this was a Chinese restaurant! What do we have to do with medicines? I even told them it's OK to check, knowing they wouldn't find any of it here. They stole several phones, took two cartons of beer and our personal things, including our clothes. They were very aggressive."
A Guinean businessman whose pharmacy was robbed by 10 soldiers on January 28 described the events to Human Rights Watch:
"At 2 p.m., I was in my pharmacy when 10 Red Berets burst into the place saying they wanted to check if the medicines in my pharmacy were fake. They pretended to look at the medicines, but then went straight for the small safe I have in the corner. They broke it open and stole the 50 million FG [about US$10,000] we had there. They came in a green military pickup without license plates. After stealing the money, they took me along with them, as if to make it look like it was me who'd done something wrong. They stuffed me in the car, but let me go a few kilometers down the road. They wanted to make it look like a proper operation but they just wanted to steal the money - they didn't even take any medicine with them!"
Abuses against judges and lawyers
Human Rights Watch spoke with a judge in Conakry who described an attempt by six soldiers to intimidate him into changing a judicial decision he had made in a civil dispute involving two businesswomen, one of whom had a family member in the military. The incident took place on February 17:
"On the day in question, I was to hand over the official decision in a civil case involving two businesswomen. Suddenly, six soldiers entered my courtroom. To me, it seemed like the woman whose relative was a soldier had organized the red berets to intervene on her behalf. They were armed, uniformed, and wore red berets. I said, 'You have nothing to do with this process - I have rendered a judicial decision which is entirely independent of the military!' They got very angry and one of them responded, 'Things have changed; you must change this decision.' They threatened to see that I was removed from power - they said they are the ones in power now. I stood my ground and they eventually left."
A lawyer described how on February 23, two armed soldiers apparently acting on behalf of a plaintiff - a retired general - attempted to intimidate the judge presiding over the case:
"That day I was in court on behalf of an indigent client. Being heard at the same time was a civil case - a dispute over money - between a retired general and another man. The general's lawyer was pushing for the case to be decided that day, but the other man's lawyer was pushing for a postponement on account of a technicality - that the second man had not been formally summoned to appear. Shortly thereafter, two armed soldiers came into the courtroom. They paraded with their long guns up and down the courtroom for 10-15 minutes. When the man's lawyer saw this, he abandoned the courtroom and I took over. The soldiers didn't point their gun directly at the judge, but their presence was really frightening for everyone. It was obvious the judge was afraid, but in the end, the judge held his ground and postponed the case. When the general heard this, he started insulting and yelling at the judge and me! He said, 'If you do this, you will see what we'll do.' I was extremely frightened. When we went outside the court, I saw about five to seven soldiers, all with red berets, inside a vehicle without license plates."
General criminal acts by members of the military
The unarmed security guard for the residence of a wealthy Guinean businessman described a robbery by about 10 soldiers on March 13:
"I was sitting outside with a few friends. It was around 9 p.m. We heard a car pull up, then around 10 of them - all wearing camouflage, red berets, and with long guns - burst through the compound door. They came in a white truck that they parked outside our gate - it did not have number plates. One of them had one bar on his uniform - I believe he is a sergeant; and I recognized another one - I'd seen him around Conakry in uniform. They entered pointing their guns at us; one of them yelled at the owner's wife to give him the keys to their car. She told them her husband wasn't there and that he had the keys to the car. They got angry and went into the house to look for the key. They found her purse, searched through it and eventually found the key. As one of them was getting in the car, the others were looking for things to steal. They stole two computers, three telephones, a 2 KVA generator, jewelry, and money - around 500,000 CFA [US$1000]. They were drinking - I could smell alcohol on their breath."
A Guinean businessman described the theft by a group of soldiers of 50 cartons of red wine he had recently imported from Europe. He explained how a few days after the theft, he saw and photographed the stolen goods being sold in a shop just outside the Alpha Yaya Diallo military camp:
"On January 8 at around 6 p.m., 10 Red Berets - all uniformed and with arms - arrived at my house in a pickup truck. They entered my house and asked my brother for the key to the container. He didn't want to give it to them, but they beat him up and eventually he gave them the key. They then stole all 50 cartons of the wine. Earlier, I'd approached a store just outside Alpha Yaya camp and asked them if they'd like to sell my wine; it [the store] is owned by a gendarme. I left a sample bottle for them to try. I had a feeling the stolen wine was there and after the robbery, I went there and yes, the wine was in that shop! I took pictures of my wine, which I thought could be used as evidence. I asked the people where they'd gotten the wine and they said the military had come a few days before asking if we wanted to buy the wine. I took the pictures to the police and to a gendarme, who gave me a paper that authorized me to retake possession of the wine, but the second time I went to the shop, the wine was all gone. I've gone to the military several times to sort out this problem, but as of yet have had no luck."
Human Rights Watch urged the government of Guinea to take the following actions:
To the International Contact Group on Guinea:
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Bigotry has been his brand since day 1," said Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.
As President Donald Trump refuses to apologize for a now-deleted social media post in which former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama are portrayed as apes, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus on Friday blasted what she called the "bigoted and racist regime" in the White House.
“It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video,” Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-NY) said in an interview with the Associated Press. "Every week we are, as the American people, put in a position where we have to respond to something very cruel or something extremely off-putting that this administration does. It’s a part of their M.O. at this point."
After dismissing the widespread revulsion—including by some Republican lawmakers—over Trump's sharing of the racist election conspiracy video on his Truth Social network as "fake outrage," the White House subsequently claimed that an aide "erroneously made the post," which was deleted after nearly 12 hours online.
The president told reporters aboard Air Force one Friday evening, "I didn't make a mistake" and that he is the "least racist president you've had in a long time."
Trump launched his political career by amplifying the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and his 2016 presidential campaign by calling Mexicans "rapists." Since then, he has made numerous bigoted statements about racial minorities, immigrants, Muslims, women, and others.
Brushing off the administration's explanation for Trump's post, Clarke said that "they don’t tell the truth."
"If there wasn’t a climate, a toxic and racist climate within the White House, we wouldn’t see this type of behavior regardless of who it’s coming from," she contended.
"Here we are, in the year 2026, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of Black history, and this is what comes out of the White House on a Friday morning," the congresswoman added. "It’s beneath all of us."
Asked what it means that Trump—who rarely retracts anything—deleted the post, Clarke said, "I think it’s more of a political expediency than it is any moral compass."
"As my mother would say," she added, "'Too late. Mercy’s gone.'"
Civil rights groups also condemned Trump, with Color of Change posting on Facebook that "this is white supremacy expressed from the Oval Office."
"Trump resents what the Obamas represent: A Black family that is accomplished, respected, and widely admired," the group continued. "Their success contradicts the worldview he has spent years promoting. His attacks follow a clear trajectory—from birther conspiracies questioning Obama's legitimacy, to false accusations of treason, to now circulating imagery rooted in centuries of racial dehumanization used to justify slavery, lynching, and violence."
"Republican leadership has been silent," Color of Change added. "Elected officials who refuse to condemn this behavior are choosing to normalize it."
NAACP president Derrick Johnson said in a statement that "Donald Trump's video is blatantly racist, disgusting, and utterly despicable."
Johnson asserted that Trump is attempting to distract from the cost of living crisis and Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
"You know who isn't in the Epstein files? Barack Obama," he said. "You know who actually improved the economy as president? Barack Obama."
“Our concern remains centered on Liam and all children who deserve stability, safety, and the opportunity to be in school without fear," said an advocate for the family.
The Trump administration's bid to expedite deportation proceedings against 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his family faltered Friday as a judge granted them more time to plead their asylum case.
Danielle Molliver, an attorney for Ramos' family, told CNN that a judge issued a continuance in the case, meaning it is postponed to a later date.
The US Department of Homeland Security filed a motion Wednesday seeking to fast-track the Ecuadorian family's deportation. The family responded by asking the court for additional time to reply to the DHS motion.
Zena Stenvik, superintendent of the Columbia Heights Public Schools, where Ramos is a student, told CNN that Friday’s ruling “provides additional time, and with that, continued uncertainty for a child and his family."
“Our concern remains centered on Liam and all children who deserve stability, safety, and the opportunity to be in school without fear," Stenvik added. "We will continue to advocate for outcomes that prioritize children."
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Ramos and his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, in the driveway of their Columbia Heights home on January 20 during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration's ongoing deadly immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities.
They were taken to the Dilley Immigration Processing Center southwest of San Antonio, Texas. Run by ICE and private prison profiteer CoreCivic, the facility has been plagued by reports of poor health and hygiene conditions and accusations of inadequate medical care for children.
Detainees report prison-like conditions and say they’ve been served moldy food infested with worms and forced to drink putrid water. Some have described the facility as “truly a living hell.”
Ramos, who fell ill during his detention in Dilley, and his father were ordered released earlier this month on a federal judge's order, and is now back in Minnesota.
Molliver accused the Trump administration of retaliating against the family following their release. Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin claimed that “there is nothing retaliatory about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws."
Arias told Minnesota Public Radio Friday that he is uncertain about his family's future.
"The government is moving many pieces, it's doing everything possible to do us harm, so that they’ll probably deport us," he said. "We live with that fear too."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), who helped accompany Ramos and his father back to Minnesota, said at a Friday news conference that DHS "should leave Liam alone."
“His family came in legally through the asylum process,” Castro said. “And when I left the Dilley detention center, one of the ICE officers explained to me that his father was on a one-year parole in place, so they should allow that to continue.”
"This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people," one critic noted.
A divided federal appellate panel ruled Friday in favor of the Trump administration's policy of locking up most undocumented immigrants without bond, a decision that legal experts called a serious blow to due process.
A three-judge panel of the right-wing 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled 2-1 that President Donald Trump's reversal of three decades of practice by previous administrations is legally sound under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The ruling reverses two lower court orders.
"The text [of the IIRIRA] says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior administrations," Judge Edith Jones—an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—wrote for the majority. "That prior administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority... does not mean they lacked the authority to do more."
Writing in dissent, Judge Dana M. Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, asserted that "the Congress that passed IIRIRA would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people. For almost 30 years there was no sign anyone thought it had done so, and nothing in the congressional record or the history of the statute’s enforcement suggests that it did."
This is a very, very bad decision from one of the two Reagan judges left on the Fifth Circuit, joined by one of the two most extreme Trump appointees on the court.And, it is about the issue I walked through at Law Dork earlier this week, in the context of Minnesota: www.lawdork.com/i/186796727/...
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) February 6, 2026 at 6:50 PM
"Nonetheless, the government today asserts the authority and mandate to detain millions of noncitizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, on the same terms as if they were apprehended at the border," Douglas added. "No matter that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent, and in the teeth of one of the core distinctions of immigration law. The overwhelming majority elsewhere have recognized that the government’s position is totally unsupported."
Past administration generally allowed unauthorized immigrants who had lived in the United States for years to attend bond hearings, at which they had a chance to argue before immigration judges that they posed no flight risk and should be permitted to contest their deportation without detention.
Mandatory detention by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was generally reserved for convicted criminals or people who recently entered the country illegally.
However, the Trump administration contends that anyone who entered the United States without authorization at any time can be detained pending deportation, with limited discretionary exceptions for humanitarian or public interest cases. As a result, immigrants who have lived in the US for years or even decades are being detained indefinitely, even if they have no criminal records.
According to a POLITICO analysis, more than 360 judges across the country—including dozens of Trump appointees—have rejected the administration's interpretation of ICE's detention power, while just 26 sided with the administration.
While US Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed Friday's ruling as a "significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn," some legal experts said the decision erodes constitutional rights.
"AWFUL news for due process," American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said on social media in response to Friday's ruling. "This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people detained in or transported to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi by ICE."
While Friday's ruling only applies to those three states, which fall under the 5th Circuit Court's jurisdiction, there are numerous legal challenges to the administration's detention policy in courts across the country.