“Kenyan Revolutionary Human Rights Activist Boniface Mwangi arrested at his Home”
This was the headlines that seemingly caught many Kenyans unaware, given that Boniface Mwangi is known to have been on the forefront on the war against corruption. Kenyans from all over social media demanded that the Police free the ‘young Mandela’ with the trending #FreeBonny hashtag. Boniface Mwangi then went on to tweet his location, and quoted that he was arrested for reasons unknown. See tweet below.
Upon further investigation at the Central Police Station where he was supposedly held, something is amiss. The statement that he submitted had no police case number. Well, for the Kenyans that may have not been caught by the arm of the Law know very well that each and every case has a number, and the absense of such, may pave way for either bribery or failure to follow Police protocol in dealing with cases.
Moving on, a statement issued by boniface Mwangi read that “I’m the above mentioned Kikuyu male…” is contrary to everything the anti tribalism protests have been working to eradicate, classification of a person by his tribal affiliation. This therefore means that the statement was supposed to trigger an emotion. But some Kenyans were quick to spot the blurred lines.
Thereafter, a detective from Central Police emerged from the station moments before Boniface’s release. He clarified that Boniface was not in any police custody, and that he wasnt really picked up from his home, but was rather brought in for questioning, concerning a “Revolution likely to cause Civil Unrest”.
As he struggled to explain to the press, who actually appeared to have broken the script by constantly invoking the term “arrest” and “Detained” to the officer, Boniface appeared from the station to address the gathering supporters. In extraordinary fashion, Boniface is comfortably rallying about a revolution that the Police had him questioned for in the first place. In a normal arrest situation, such words could have landed him in Trouble, as part of the evidence of a revolution.
The time is ripe for a revolution indeed, but not with fellows who are after fame, donor funding and sympathy. Real revolution means that one must give selfless committment to the fight against bad governance. But as for Boniface Mwangi, maybe its his time to eat the fruits of his labour. Besides, Even Ruto braved the scorching sun to sell chicken to motorists at the railway crossing point then, as a student. That was years before he got his big break.
Earlier this week, residents along Kangundo Road woke up to rumbling noises from wide load trucks, loaded with earthmovers and bulldozers. This resulted in nerve wrecking traffic jams, but for the better.
The Kenya Urban Roads Authority has embarked on an expansion of Kangundo Road, in an effort to ease traffic from Mombasa road, by providing a link to the Eastern Bypass.
“The project has been long overdue and we are confident that finally these painful traffic jams will finally go away” Said one Maina, a resident from Njiru Estate
Being a popular destination to land owners, the expansion of the link road will obviously see a shoot up in land prices, as this has been the main reason why land is cheap in the area.
“People have been complaining about how underdeveloped this area is because of the narrow road but at least now we will be able to convince them to invest in this part of town” Mugure, Real estate agent
Other major developments to be witnessed along the road include Nairobi’s Wakulima Market, City County Fire Station
A yearslong saga between a middle-distance runner and her sport’s ruling body may be nearing something that resembles a conclusion.
In 2018, the International Association of Athletics Federations dictated that female runners with naturally occurring high testosterone levels and specific “differences of sex development” must lower their testosterone in order to compete in events ranging from 400 meters to one mile.
Two-time Olympic champion Caster Semenya challenged the 2018 policy. It was discriminatory, she argued, lacked scientific grounding and did “irreparable harm to affected female athletes.”
But on May 1, in a blow to Semenya and an untold number of other women, the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the regulations. The policy is now set to go into effect on May 8
As a scholar who studies women’s sports I’ve been following this story closely. At the heart of the conflict is how to define “femaleness” for the purpose of athletic competitions. Since sports are segregated by sex, what criteria – if any – should we use to distinguish female from male?
Originally, athletes presented affidavits from their personal and team physicians confirming that they were, in fact, women. In the 1960s, athletic administrators turned to gynecological examinations, visual inspections and chromosomal analyses. In the 1990s, they implemented genetic testing.
By the 21st century, most systematic testing had been discontinued, unless someone “challenged” a female athlete’s sex. This happened to Semenya at the 2009 Track and Field World Championships. Someone apparently issued such a challenge and the press caught wind of it. The International Association of Athletics Federations confirmed that she was undergoing “gender verification” procedures, just before she cruised to victory in the 800-meter race.
Although her test results were never made public, the IAAF subsequently issued a new policy for women with hyperandrogenism, or high testosterone. Arguing that high testosterone gave these athletes an unfair advantage, hyperandrogenic female athletes had two choices: suppress their testosterone or drop out of the sport.
Indian sprinter Dutee Chand refused to do either. In 2014, the Sports Authority of India diagnosed her as hyperandrogenic and disqualified her from competition. Chand challenged that disqualification in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, where adjudicators ruled the IAAF had “insufficient evidence” to enforce its policy. The decision gave the organization two years to find evidence that associated enhanced performance with naturally high levels of testosterone. If not, the policy would be invalidated.
As the 2017 deadline approached, researchers affiliated with the IAAF published a study that claimed women with high testosterone performed as much as 3% better than those with lower testosterone in a handful of events.
Although it rejected Semenya’s claims, the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s panel conceded that the regulations are “discriminatory” but “necessary” to preserve “the integrity of female athletics.” The regulations are additionally discriminatory, panel members noted, because they “do not impose any equivalent restrictions on male athletes.”
No one is concerned about male athletes with unusually high, naturally occurring testosterone. Taking hormones out of the equation, there are a host of biological advantages that some athletes enjoy over others. Nordic skier Eero Mäntyranta, for example, had a genetic condition that caused the excessive production of red blood cells, giving him an advantage in endurance events. Michael Phelps’ unique and optimally shaped swimming body allows him to cut through the water with remarkable speed and efficiency. No one suggests these men should muzzle their assets.
This is because we don’t divide sport into categories based on hemoglobin or foot size, regardless of the advantages each confers.
We do, however, carve sport into male and female categories, and for good reason. Studies show that elite male athletes tend to outperform elite female athletes by about 10%. Segregating men and women in most elite sports gives women more opportunities to compete and succeed.
Here’s where it gets tricky. If we insist on sexual segregation in sport, how do we decide who’s a female and who’s a male? Do those criteria influence sport performance? And what happens when athletes do not fit neatly into sport’s definition of femaleness?
This is precisely what the new regulations attempt to address, albeit in a clumsy and confounding way. Specifically, the policy is aimed at women who are legally recognized as women but who are diagnosed with specific differences of sex disorders and have high levels of functional testosterone. The IAAF explains that these disorders involve male-typical sex chromosomes and the presence of testes or testicular development. The threshold for women’s testosterone is below the “normal” male range but more than two times higher than the upper limit of the “normal” female range.
Semenya and her supporters argue that since the women affected by the policy are, in fact, women, they should be allowed to compete without restriction.
“I just want to run naturally, the way I was born,” she said. “It is not fair that I am told I must change.”
It’s worth noting that although Semenya is the top athlete in her class, her times don’t come anywhere near the times of elite male runners – despite allegedly having “male levels” of testosterone.
Semenya blows away her female competitors, but her times wouldn’t allow her to compete against the top male runners.AP Photo/Claude Paris
Sporting rights versus human rights
The controversy has divided activists for sporting rights and human rights.
The IAAF regards women’s sport as a “protected class” and insists that it must “place conditions” on the female category in order “to ensure fair and meaningful competition.”
Human rights activists disagree. If an athlete is legally a woman, that should be good enough. In fact, the United Nations Human Rights Council resolved that the new regulations “may not be compatible with international human rights norms and standards.” Citing the assertions of esteemed scientists and bioethicists, the council criticized the “lack of legitimate and justifiable evidence for the regulations.” Put differently, there is no conclusive, incontrovertible correlation between high natural testosterone and better performance. Without such evidence, they argued, the IAAF’s regulations shouldn’t be enforced.
The Court of Arbitration panel members did note that they’re concerned about how the IAAF’s regulations will be practically applied. In addition, the IAAF regards the regulations as a “living document,” which means that it can and probably will change as time goes on.
Will the testosterone restrictions expand to additional track and field events?
Meanwhile, the International Olympic Committee is reportedly working on guidelines to help international federations devise their own policies regarding “gender identity and sex characteristics.” In other words, we can expect to see policies similar to the IAAF’s in other sports.
Semenya has 30 days to appeal the arbitration ruling to the Swiss Federal Tribunal. If this appeal fails, she and countless other women must reduce their testosterone, probably with medication, to keep competing in women’s events. What will this do to their bodies? To the sport? To issues of fairness and human rights?
The Court of Arbitration decision is just one leg in what looks to be a never-ending and perhaps futile relay to establish “fairness” in women’s sports.
PRUDENCE WANZA – Joseph Kuria Irungu alias Jowie, the man being accused of killing business woman, will know if he will have temporary freedom in two weeks. This is after he made an application in High Court seeking to review his bail terms.
Jowie in his application for bail also maintained his innocence over the chilling murder of Ms Kimani at her Lamuria Gardens Apartment in Kilimani on the night of September 19. Justice James Wakiaga directed that the application be heard in two weeks. He also directed the prosecution to respond to Irungu’s application for bail review before the hearing.
“The application of the bail review will be heard in May 21, 2019.” said Wakiaga. The judge also ordered the prosecution to have the accused be furnished with all the statements and details of the case. Jowie and his co-accused Jacque Maribe had appeared before the judge for a mention of their case which is coming up for hearing. Jowie’s earlier application to be released on bail to seek specialized treatment for his wounded left shoulder was declined six months ago.
Justice Wakiaga denied him bail on grounds that he is likely to interfere and intimidate witnesses and that he is a flight risk. In his ruling, the judge further said that Jowie who he described as a ‘man in love with guns’ needs close supervision for his security. “The first accused person needs custodial protection which can only be provided if he is under supervision,” he ruled. Maribe was, however, granted Sh 2 Million bond and an alternative cash bail of Sh 1 Million.
the chief of armed forces general samson mwathethe’s term has been officially extended for 1 year.
In a statement sent to Uzalendo News rooms, General Mwathethe’s term took off yesterday, May 6th. He has been in office for 4 years since he took over from Major Gen. Julius Karangi.
During his term as the KDF boss, Samson Mwathethe oversaw the registration of his soldiers to the inaugural Huduma Namba exercise, which seeks to register all citizens for easier access of government services and protection of its citizens.
Perhaps the highlight of his tenure is the institution of the 17th Battalion Kenya Rifles. The 17th Battalion Kenya Rifles (17KR), a relatively young Infantry Unit of the Kenya Army, witnessed the consecration of their colors and then received them formally from the President. They then paraded the colors before the Commander-In-Chief.
The selection of the Chief of Armed Forces process solely belongs to the Defence Forces Council which is headed by the Cabinet Secretary Raychelle Omamo.
PRUDENCE WANZA – The trial of Sharon Otieno’s murder case involving Governor Okoth Obado has been adjourned.
This follows after the advocates of Sharon’s family opposed the application by the 2nd and 3rd accused persons; Michael Oyamo and Caspal Obiero, in the case wanting Judge Jessie Lessit to recuse herself from the case.
The advocates have sited in their response that the 2nd and 3rd accused should have a made the application after they were denied bond. They have also added that it is a tactic to delay the case.
The lawyers representing the suspects also want the lawyers of the victim to be blocked from participating in the case since the state is the complainant in the matter.
Judge Jessie Lessit has issued directions that the defense makes their responses by 15th May.
Extinction Rebellion burst onto everybody’s screens with disruptions and mass arrests across the UK and around the world in protest against government inaction on climate change. Radical disruptions have been at the heart of Extinction Rebellion’s activism since it was founded in 2018 – from January’s disruption of London Fashion Week, to the infamous naked protest in Parliament at the beginning of April. But the scale of the most recent actions has finally succeeded in forcing mainstream news cycles to start giving the politics of climate change the attention it deserves.
One could argue that Extinction Rebellion’s week of action was fortunately timed – the extension of Article 50 to October has created something of a news vacuum while everyone takes a momentary breather from Brexit. Nevertheless, activists would rightly claim that climate change is the bigger looming catastrophe.
In October 2018, the UN’s climate agency published grave projections of the enormity of the challenge ahead if we are to limit the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. For both Extinction Rebellion and the Fridays for Future school strike movement, the piecemeal response of nations at the UN’s annual climate change conference in Poland in December 2018 made it clear that there is no more time to lose.
The aim, then, is to force the issue. Through their blockades of iconic central London sites, Extinction Rebellion is keeping climate change at the forefront of the public and politicians’ lips, making the seemingly abstract problem facing all of us feel real. And rather than just warning of this climate emergency, it offers a vision of an alternative future, where a Citizens’ Assembly takes the lead in reducing UK emissions to net zero.
Older activists will surely point to the impact and legacy of 1999’s Battle of Seattle, when the Global Justice Movement successfully closed down the World Trade Organisation’s annual meeting. Not only was this extremely empowering for those involved, it crucially helped make resistance to a largely abstract neoliberal governance structure seem concrete and real.
Much like the Occupy demonstrations seven years ago, Extinction Rebellion’s latest eye-catching protests have been friendly and open, laden with artistic performances, talks and human connection. This good-natured spirit has so far meant that the movement has gained significant traction – not only on the airwaves, but on the streets too.
Extinction Rebellion’s efforts are aimed at building momentum and are based in political science – their website highlights that it takes just 3.5% of a nation’s population engaged in sustained nonviolent resistance to topple a dictatorship. In the UK, that’s less than 2.5m people.
Their clear demands and principles give the movement a clarity and focus that the Occupy movement may have lacked, and they are growing week by week – Extinction Rebellion says that 50,000 people have joined the movement since the protests started.
But contemporary mainstream news cycles are fast and fickle, so the movement will have to act quickly and carefully to maximise use of its new-found public platform.
Danger of diminishing returns
It’s extremely important that the movement’s purpose does not become overshadowed by its tactics. Extinction Rebellion has ransacked the playbook of direct action repertoires – blocking roads, using fake blood, recreating funeral marches, and surprise nakedness. While these have so far been successful in bringing the movement’s name and cause to the fore, using such tactics ad nauseum can quickly lose the public’s imagination and support. This was evident in the Global Justice Movement of the 2000s, as the desire to recreate the euphoria of Seattle resulted in tactical “summit hopping” with diminishing returns.
State agencies also learn quickly how to police repeated mobilisations more ruthlessly and extremely – although Extinction Rebellion’s “trademark” repertoire, the tactical use of mass arrests, so far appears to be combating this threat effectively. Police have powers to disperse protesters, but the sheer number of people now willing to be arrested shifts the balance of power between the public and the state. For example, police have so far been unable to clear any of the four sites in central London, as spates of arrests were closely followed by new wave of protesters arriving to entrench control. The city’s police stations do not have the capacity to hold hundreds of arrested protesters for long periods, and court costs will discourage officers from pursuing charges, limiting the punitive power of the state.
At the same time, Extinction Rebellion’s tactics risk fetishising the act of being arrested as a symbol of participants’ commitment to the cause. The movement’s co-founder, Roger Hallam, recently told the BBC that in order to achieve its goal of “getting in the room with government”, it may need to create a law and order crisis on the scale of 1,000 arrests. Such an arbitrary target is problematic, as it may encourage activists to take more risk in pursuit of a goal that is by no means guaranteed.
Even if one is critical of the politics seemingly behind many “aggravated trespass” charges, a criminal record can be extremely costly and cause significant problems for many younger activists – especially people of colour. This contrasts with the relative risks posed to seasoned activists whose job, lifestyle or privilege allows them to ride the consequences. It is crucial that Extinction Rebellion fulfils a duty of care to support those who are prepared to put their bodies on the line but, with more than 900 arrested already, its an expensive, high-risk game should multiple criminal charges be brought.
For now, Extinction Rebellion activists will consider recent events as a runaway success. They have gained visibility and traction – and have at least temporarily steered media attention away from Brexit. Most importantly, they have put climate change squarely in the middle of public conversation. Let’s hope it stays there.
Every death from malaria is a tragedy. But many infections can be prevented. This is particularly true for holidaymakers, travellers, or people visiting their families in malaria endemic areas. All they need to do is follow some very simple rules. Malaria is a complicated disease – I should know, after studying it for more than 30 years – but the solutions to avoiding and treating it can be as simple as “ABCD”. If the basics of prevention are followed, a great deal of unnecessary illness and mortality can be avoided.
Avoidance to detection
A is for Awareness and Avoidance of malaria risk
Several factors influence your chance of getting malaria in a particular area. Understanding these can help you to avoid or least minimise the risk.
The first question to ask is: how much malaria normally occurs in the area, and when? The answer will depend on altitude and climate – generally the lower, warmer and more humid the place, the more suitable it is for malaria vectors, the Anopheles mosquitoes.
In southern Africa, most malaria is seasonal. It increases during warmer and wetter summer months (September to May in the southern hemisphere). The risk in winter is generally lower, but that doesn’t mean it’s absent.
Longer exposure, involving overnight stays, puts you at higher risk than brief visits, for example day trips to game reserves. Hiking and camping outdoors is riskier than staying in air-conditioned accommodation.
Some people are at higher risk for severe malaria and should ideally avoid malaria transmission areas altogether. These include pregnant women, babies and young children, people who’ve had their spleens removed and those with weak immune systems.
B is for mosquito bites – and avoiding them
Avoiding mosquito bites is the most important preventive measure. This is because the mosquito bite is what transmits the parasite. No bite, no transmission.
Contact between mosquitoes and people isn’t random. Mosquitoes actively seek people out. They have sensory organs that detect people’s warmth, exhaled carbon dioxide, and odours from sweat.
There are a number of ways to avoid mosquito bites. These include staying indoors between dusk and dawn and covering up bare skin when outside at night. (Mosquitoes find ankles particularly attractive.)
There are also a number of repellents and insecticides that can deter mosquitoes. Repellents should be applied to bare skin, and clothes can be treated. Other ways to avoid being bitten include burning mosquito coils or using heated insecticide mats in living and sleeping areas at night, and using insecticide-treated mosquito nets.
Using ceiling fans and air conditioners discourages mosquito activity indoors, likewise making sure screens on windows are closed and in good condition. Just because you don’t hear mosquitoes buzzing around doesn’t mean you are safe – the malaria mosquitoes fly silently.
C is for Chemoprophylaxis and Compliance
You should consult a health care practitioner with travel medicine experience well before travelling to an endemic malaria area. During this consultation, you can figure out whether you need chemoprophylaxis (medication to prevent infection) in addition to personal protection measures.
Several factors will influence this decision. These include the risk of contracting malaria (the area and type of accommodation, time of year, and duration of visit); personal factors such as age, current medication and existing illness; and medication options, their availability and price, adverse effects and resistance.
There are two type of medications used for malaria prophylaxis, they act at different life stages of the parasite in the body. Atovaquone-proguanil products stop infection early, soon after the mosquito bite. The second type (doxycycline, mefloquine and atovaquone-proguanil) treat a later stage of infection, but before the parasites can multiply enough to cause symptoms.
Whichever medication your doctor recommends, if any, it’s important to take it exactly as directed and to finish the course.
There’s a dangerous myth that chemoprophylaxis “masks” symptoms and makes malaria more difficult to diagnose. Prophylactic medications are highly effective if taken properly. But the infection may take longer to show if compliance is poor and doses are missed or prematurely stopped. It’s important to understand that no prophylactic regimen is 100% effective – but infection is still likely to be milder than if no prophylaxis was used.
D is for Detection
Sometimes precautions can’t protect you entirely. That’s when it becomes important to diagnose malaria as early as possible. If you get ill with flu-like symptoms such as headache, fever, chills, joint and muscle pains up to three months after returning from a malaria area, be sure to mention this to your health care providers.
A single negative test doesn’t rule out malaria, and tests should be repeated until either malaria is confirmed, or an alternative diagnosis is made. Occasionally, malaria is transmitted outside endemic areas by mosquitoes that have hitched rides in cars or taxis, and because there’s no travel history to alert doctors to the possibility of malaria, the diagnosis is often delayed, sometimes with fatal consequences. One clue to malaria here is a low platelet count. This is often picked up accidentally when tests are being done for a feverish illness with no obvious cause.
To wrap it up
A number of steps are key to ensuring a quick recovery. These are: reporting the illness early after travelling in a malaria area; prompt diagnosis; and, finally, early and effective treatment.
If any of these steps are delayed the chances of developing severe and complicated malaria are much higher – and the rate of survival substantially lower.
John Frean, Principal Pathologist, Centre for Emerging, Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Diseases and Wits Research Institute for Malaria, University of the Witwatersrand
The first version of the Indian electronic voting machine debuted in the state election in Kerala in 1982. Now they’re used in elections throughout the country, which happen on different days in different areas.
How does it work?
When a voter arrives at the polling place, she presents a photo ID and the poll officer checks that she is on the electoral roll. When it’s her turn to vote, a polling official uses an electronic voting machine’s control unit to unlock its balloting unit, ready to accept her vote.
The balloting unit has a very simple user interface: a series of buttons with candidate names and symbols. To vote, the voter simply presses the button next to the candidate of her choice.
After each button press, a printer prints out the voter’s choice on paper and displays it to the voter for a few seconds, so the person may verify that the vote was recorded correctly. Then the paper is dropped into a locked storage box.
The whole system runs on a battery, so it does not need to be plugged in.
When it’s time for the polling place to close at the end of the voting day, each electronic voting machine device and paper-record storage box is sealed with wax and tape bearing the signatures of representatives of the various candidates in that election, and stored under armed guard.
A woman tests an electronic voting machine in India in advance of that country’s national elections.AP Photo/Manish Swarup
After the election period is over and it’s time to tally the votes, the electronic voting machines are brought out, the seals opened and the vote counts for each control unit are read out from its display board. Election workers hand-tally these individual machine totals to obtain the election results for each constituency.
Security protections – and concerns
The Indian electronic voting machine primarily runs on specialized hardware and firmware, unlike the voting machines used in the U.S., which are software-intensive. It is intended for the single purpose of voting and specially designed for that, rather than relying on a standard operating system like Windows, which needs to be regularly updated to patch detected security vulnerabilities.
Each machine requires only a connection between a balloting unit and a control unit; there are no provisions to connect an electronic voting machine to a computer network, much less the internet – including wirelessly.
As I and others have observed, when the machines are being made, there are a number of opportunities for someone to physically tamper with an electronic voting machine in ways that preelection device testing might not detect. The machines’ software is designed, written and tested at two electronics companies owned by the government of India: Bharat Electronics Limited and Electronics Corporation of India Limited. The chips for the machines are manufactured outside India. In earlier versions of the machine, the chip manufacturer also wrote the machine code into the chip; today the electronics companies do it themselves.
At any time during manufacture, testing and maintenance, it may be possible to introduce counterfeit chips or swap out other components that could let hackers alter the results.
The Election Commission of India argues that any manipulation or error would be detected because the electronic voting machine is tested frequently and candidate representatives have opportunities to participate in mock elections immediately before a machine is used in a real election. However, it is possible to make changes that will not be detected. Testing can reveal only some problems, and the absence of problems during testing does not mean that problems do not exist.
Auditing the machines’ results
There is, however, a mechanism for detecting attacks – that printed-out paper bearing the vote and stored securely with the electronic equipment. A 2013 Supreme Court directive asked the Election Commission to create that process to protect the integrity of the balloting process.
An Indian election official displays a sample paper record of an electronic ballot during a demonstration of how the equipment works.AP Photo/Manish Swarup
While the electronic voting machine system is useful and functional, officials and observers shouldn’t assume there’s no way to tamper with the results. The Election Commission should certainly continue to improve testing and provide public reports of independent testing. However, because no technology can be tamper-proof, each election outcome should be verified by a manual audit, to ensure that the results are correct, whatever they may be.
BY PRUDENCE WANZA – The four suspects captured on video assaulting a man at estate 24 along Kirichwa road in Kilimani area have been charged today at Milimani Law courts.
The four; Robert Omwenga Momanyi, Collins Orina Neriko, Stephen Kimeu Barisa and Stanley Rimbere Kithia were arrested by DCI officers after the video went viral on social media. They were captured beating and causing bodily harm to Kevin Mango Oduor.
Collins Orina Neriko faces a separate charge of malicious damage where he willingly destroyed an IPhone mobile phone which belonged to Kevin.
The DCI managed to arrest five of them and the fifth accused person, Jotham Ben Muga was arraigned at Kibera Law Courts where he took plea. However, Chief Magistrate Martha Mutuku at the Milimani Law Courts has issued an order that the fifth accused person be produced at Milimani during the pretrial of the case on 20th May, 2019.
The four have been released on a bond on Sh. 500,000 or an alternative cash bail of Sh. 300,000.
