March, 23 2012, 12:43pm EDT
Malawi: Arrests Signal Deteriorating Rights Environment
The Malawi government's recent surge of arrests and threats against critics reflects its broader crackdown on free speech and other basic rights, Human Rights Watch said today. On March 9, 2012, Malawi's State House, the President's office, issued a statement warning journalists and human rights activists that those who insulted President Bingu wa Mutharika faced prosecution and up to two years in prison.
JOHANNESBURG
The Malawi government's recent surge of arrests and threats against critics reflects its broader crackdown on free speech and other basic rights, Human Rights Watch said today. On March 9, 2012, Malawi's State House, the President's office, issued a statement warning journalists and human rights activists that those who insulted President Bingu wa Mutharika faced prosecution and up to two years in prison.
On March 16, police without a warrant arrested John Kapito, the chairman of the government-funded Malawi Human Rights Commission and a prominent critic of the government's human rights record in Lilongwe, the capital, accusing him of possessing guns and seditious materials. Police conducted an extensive search of Kapito's home and car, apparently did not find weapons or the materials, but nonetheless charged him with possessing "materials with seditious words," and undocumented foreign exchange. He was released on bailon the same day.
On March 21, police arrested Atupele Muluzi, a prominent member of the opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) party and son of former President Bakili Muluzi, and charged him with inciting violence. Three days earlier, police and party supporters engaged in violent clashes at a party rally in Lilongwe, which Muluzi had been scheduled to address. Local civil society activists believe the charges against Muluzi are politically motivated.
"Arresting government critics is just the latest sign of increasing repression in Malawi," said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "President Mutharika should take urgent steps to end the harassment and arrests of people seen as opposing the government."
Kapitohas been threatened frequently by senior government officials who accuse the Malawi Human Rights Commission of operating outside its jurisdiction. In August 2011, the commission reported on the killing of 19 people by police during July protests throughout the country. The report concluded that the police used excessive force against the protesters, and called on the government to investigate the killings.
Kapito and Muluzi are among several critics of the government, including human rights activists, journalists, and opposition members, who have been targeted by state security forces and supporters of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in the past year for criticizing the government on human rights, governance, and the economy. Several human rights activists have been arbitrarily arrested while others have received death threats and been forced to go into hiding.There have been several firebomb attacks by unidentified assailants at the homes and offices of government critics.
On February 13, police arrested a prominent lawyer, Ralph Kasambara, and five of his security guards in Blantyre, after the guards apprehended three men carrying a petrol bomb at Kasambara's offices. Police charged Kasambara and his guards with assault. Several days earlier, two national newspapers had published interviews in which Kasambara criticized President Mutharika's record on human rights and governance, and called for his resignation. While the guards were immediately released on bail, Kasambara was detained for several days before being let out on bail.The three men who attempted the attack were released without charge.
In October 2011, police arrested five civil society activists - Habiba Osman, Billy Mayaya, Brian Nyasulu, Ben Chiza Mkandawire, and Comfort Chiseko - on charges of "holding an illegal demonstration." They were taking part in a small, peaceful demonstration outside parliament, calling on President Mutharika to hold a referendum, resign, and hold an early election. The activists were released on bail five days later.
In September, unidentified assailants threwpetrol bombsat the homes and offices of several government critics, including the activists Mcdonald Sembereka and Rafiq Hajat, and an opposition politician,Salim Bagus.
Police and ruling party supporters have also been implicated in the intimidation, arbitrary arrest, and beating of journalists attempting to report on political events.On October 11, police summoned and questioned two journalists from theMalawi News, Innocent Chitosi, a deputy editor, Archibald Kasakura,a reporter,andGeorge Kasakula of Weekend Nation, after the two papers published stories about the death of a student activist,Robert Chasowa.
On September 12, police arrested and questioned a journalist, Ernest Mhwayo, for taking pictures of President Mutharika's farm. Mhwayo was charged with "conduct likely to cause breach of peace" and released on the following day. Several journalists were beaten and detained by police in July as they covered demonstrations throughout the country.
"The Malawi government's increasing intolerance of any dissent should be strongly condemned byconcerned governments," Lefkow said.
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.
LATEST NEWS
Listen Live: US Supreme Court Hears Outrageous Argument That Trump Is Above the Law
"The American people deserve a Supreme Court that does not hesitate to declare that no one is above the law, including a former president," said one campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
After months of delay, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will hear oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss—an argument that legal experts say is both absurd and dangerous.
Listen live to the oral arguments, which are set to begin at 10:00 am ET:
Thursday's proceedings mark the high court's final argument of its current term, and pro-democracy campaigners are calling on the justices to quickly reject the former president's sweeping immunity claim so he can face trial on federal election subversion charges before his November rematch with President Joe Biden.
As Bloomberg's Greg Stohr noted earlier this week, Thursday's oral arguments give "Special Counsel Jack Smith only a narrow window to put the former president in front of a Washington jury before voters go to the polls on November 5."
"With the trial on hold until the high court rules," Stohr added, "Smith needs a clear-cut victory, and he needs it quickly."
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's right-wing majority has already handed Trump a temporary victory by stalling this case for months, allowing him to delay accountability for his criminal attempts to cling to power."
"With so much at stake for our democracy, the Supreme Court should rule swiftly and decisively in this case," said Eldridge. "Accountability delayed could mean accountability denied."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular