UK and US considered Nigeria naval blockade over Saro-Wiwa execution - BBC News

The UK and US considered a navy-backed oil embargo against Nigeria, following the 1995 execution of writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, a document released by the UK government reveals.

Saro-Wiwa and eight other campaigners from the Ogoni ethnic group were hanged on 10 November 1995.

They had been found guilty by a secret military tribunal of the murder of four Ogoni chiefs by a mob.

The nine denied the charge and said they had been framed.

Saro-Wiwa led mass protests against oil pollution in Nigeria's Ogoniland.

The protests were seen as a major threat to Nigeria's military ruler at the time, Gen Sani Abacha, and Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell.

• Fishermen at risk amidst the oil

• Militants cripple Nigeria's oil sector

The executions led to Nigeria suspension from the Commonwealth.

The UK's then Prime Minister, John Major, called it a "fraudulent trial" and described the executions as "judicial murder".

Notes of a meeting between Mr Major and US President Bill Clinton, nearly three weeks after the executions, show the steps the leaders contemplated to isolate Nigeria.

The two men met while Mr Clinton was on a visit to the UK.

According to the notes, the UK believed that an oil embargo would "only be effective" if done through the UN Security Council and "could only be made to work by a naval blockade".

Such steps would result in "wrecking Nigeria's economy" as it was heavily reliant on oil exports.

'Sycophants surround Abacha'

Mr Clinton agreed, but said the US would only implement an embargo if "all other parties" were willing to do so, pointing out that sanctions would be vetoed by China if brought before the UN Security Council.

There had been pleas from across the world for Nigeria's military leader at the time, Sani Abacha, to exercise clemency, but Western governments had struggled to reach the leader.

Mr Clinton's special envoy to Nigeria, Donald T McHenry, had been unable to see Abacha and concluded that he was "almost wholly insulated from the outside world" and "information was filtered by sycophants: they had no idea of genuine opinion within Nigeria or internationally".

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The hanging of the Ogoni campaigners took place just as Commonwealth heads of state were meeting in New Zealand for their biennial gathering.

The UK issued a statement condemning the executions, but it was South African President Nelson Mandela who led the international criticism.

He called for Nigeria to be suspended from the Commonwealth "at once" and that the suspension should not be lifted until the country had shown "much quicker" progress in returning from military to civilian rule. All political prisoners should be released, he argued.

In this, Mandela was backed by his Zimbabwean counterpart Robert Mugabe and Kenya's Daniel arap Moi, but the suggestion was criticised by a number of other African leaders, including Ghana's President Jerry Rawlings.

Mandela outspoken

The Commonwealth went ahead with the suspension, but Mandela was determined that the measures should not end there.

He continued his international engagement, making phone calls to Mr Clinton and keeping in touch with Mr Major by phone after the Commonwealth summit ended.

In demanding strong action Mandela appeared to have been isolated from the rest of his government.

Newspaper reports at the time indicate that then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Aziz Pahad, had been reluctant to pursue sanctions against Nigeria.

The UK, together with the European Union (EU), took a number of steps.

Ambassadors to Nigeria were recalled, military training and aid were suspended and an EU-wide arms embargo was instituted.

While Mr Major was willing to consider wider economic sanctions, he was unwilling to do so alone.

The UK accounted for just 1% of Nigeria's oil exports, while the US took 40%.

As a result, Mr Major told Mr Clinton, "we were not well placed to press for [sanctions]".

The UK also had a good deal to lose if Nigeria retaliated.

Pressure from Shell

There was a considerable British expatriate community in Nigeria and UK investments in the country totalled between $3.9bn and $6.5bn (£3bn and £5bn).

This included Shell, which extracted half of the country's oil and was contemplating building a major natural gas project.

The Shell chairman at the time, Cornelius Herkströter, wrote to Mr Major at the height of the controversy, pointing out just how important these investments were.

He argued that the gas liquefaction plant would "make a major contribution to environmental improvement in the region" since it would reduce the need for the flaring of gas.

In the end, the problem of getting UN Security Council approval for an oil embargo appeared to have blocked progress on wider sanctions.

Nigeria was only re-admitted to the Commonwealth in May 1999, on the day on which the country's new civilian government assumed power - ending three-and-a-half years of isolation.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiLmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC1hZnJpY2EtNTA4OTIzMDbSATJodHRwczovL3d3dy5iYmMuY29tL25ld3MvYW1wL3dvcmxkLWFmcmljYS01MDg5MjMwNg?oc=5

2019-12-31 09:05:07Z
CBMiLmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC1hZnJpY2EtNTA4OTIzMDbSATJodHRwczovL3d3dy5iYmMuY29tL25ld3MvYW1wL3dvcmxkLWFmcmljYS01MDg5MjMwNg

Ayia Napa Briton guilty over false rape claim - BBC News

A 19-year-old British woman has been found guilty of lying about being gang-raped by Israeli youths in Ayia Napa, Cyprus.

She had been arrested after withdrawing an allegation that she was attacked by 12 young Israelis in a hotel in July.

The woman had said Cypriot police made her falsely confess to lying about the incident - but the police denied this.

She was found guilty on a charge of causing public mischief, at a court in Paralimni.

The judge at the Famagusta District Court adjourned sentencing until 7 January. She could face up to a year in jail and a £1,500 fine, but her lawyers have asked for a suspended sentence.

Lawyer Michael Polak, director of Justice Abroad which is assisting the woman, told BBC News that "there were a number of bases for appealing the decision".

• Ayia Napa false rape claim accused 'unsupported'

He said those reasons included the court relying on a retraction statement which was given when no lawyer was present, which he said was a breach of European human rights law.

He also criticised the handling of the case by Judge Michalis Papathanasiou, who he said refused to hear any evidence about whether the alleged rape took place.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Prosecutors said the woman willingly wrote and signed a statement retracting her claims 10 days after making the initial allegations.

The woman told the court this happened under duress with the threat of arrest and that she had been denied access to a lawyer.

The trial began at the start of October - with the verdict delayed until now.

The judge said the teenager did not tell the truth and had tried to deceive the court.

He said the reason she initially gave a false statement was because she felt "embarrassed" after finding out some of the group had filmed her having sex on their mobile phones.

Her lawyers had argued that the video found on some of the Israelis' phones showed her having consensual sex with one of the group while others tried to enter the room as she told them to leave.

Twelve men were arrested in connection with the allegations but were later released and returned home.

The Briton spent more than a month in prison before she was granted bail at the end of August, but had not been allowed to leave the island.

Following the verdict, the woman was heard saying to her lawyers "I thought you were asking for a fine", after Ritsa Pekri asked the judge to impose a suspended sentence.

Another of the woman's lawyers, Nicoletta Charalambidou, told reporters outside court that they were planning to appeal against the decision to Cyprus' Supreme Court, and if that failed they would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

BBC Europe correspondent Kevin Connolly said the woman's family spent Christmas with her on the Mediterranean island.

Earlier this month, her mother told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme the past few months had been a "living nightmare".

She said her daughter, who was in Cyprus for a working holiday and had been due to start university after the summer, had post-traumatic stress disorder and the symptoms had become "much, much worse" since the alleged rape.

She also criticised what she saw as a lack of support from the authorities, saying that her daughter's human rights had been "violated the whole way through" the process.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiJGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay01MDk0NTIwNtIBKGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstNTA5NDUyMDY?oc=5

2019-12-30 10:18:12Z
52780528787582

Briton guilty over Ayia Napa false rape claim - BBC News

A 19-year-old British woman has been found guilty of lying about being gang-raped by Israeli youths in Ayia Napa, Cyprus.

She had been arrested after withdrawing an allegation that she was attacked by 12 young Israelis in a hotel in July.

The woman had said Cypriot police made her falsely confess to lying about the incident - but the police denied this.

She was found guilty on a charge of causing public mischief, at a court in Paralimni.

The judge at the Famagusta District Court adjourned sentencing until 7 January. She could face up to a year in jail and a £1,500 fine, but her lawyers have asked for a suspended sentence.

Lawyer Michael Polak, director of Justice Abroad which is assisting the woman, told BBC News that "there were a number of bases for appealing the decision".

• Ayia Napa false rape claim accused 'unsupported'

He said those reasons included the court relying on a retraction statement which was given when no lawyer was present, which he said was a breach of European human rights law.

He also criticised the handling of the case by Judge Michalis Papathanasiou, who he said refused to hear any evidence about whether the alleged rape took place.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Prosecutors said the woman willingly wrote and signed a statement retracting her claims 10 days after making the initial allegations.

The woman told the court this happened under duress with the threat of arrest and that she had been denied access to a lawyer.

The trial began at the start of October - with the verdict delayed until now.

The judge said the teenager did not tell the truth and had tried to deceive the court with "convenient" and "evasive" statements.

He said she told investigators she made up the claims because she felt "ashamed" after finding out some of the Israelis had filmed her having sex on their mobile phones.

Twelve Israelis were arrested in connection with the allegations but were later released and returned home.

The Briton spent more than a month in prison before she was granted bail at the end of August, but had not been allowed to leave the island.

Following the verdict, the woman was heard saying to her lawyers "I thought you were asking for a fine", after Ritsa Pekri asked the judge to impose a suspended sentence.

Another of the woman's lawyers, Nicoletta Charalambidou, told reporters outside court that they were planning to appeal against the decision to Cyprus' Supreme Court, and if that fails they would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

BBC Europe correspondent Kevin Connolly said the woman's family spent Christmas with her on the Mediterranean island.

Earlier this month, her mother told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme the past few months had been a "living nightmare".

She said her daughter, who was in Cyprus for a working holiday and had been due to start university after the summer, had post-traumatic stress disorder and the symptoms had become "much, much worse" since the alleged rape.

She also criticised what she saw as a lack of support from the authorities, saying that her daughter's human rights had been "violated the whole way through" the process.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiJGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay01MDk0NTIwNtIBKGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstNTA5NDUyMDY?oc=5

2019-12-30 01:42:47Z
52780528787582

Briton guilty over Ayia Napa false rape claim - BBC News

A 19-year-old British woman has been found guilty of lying about being gang-raped in Ayia Napa, Cyprus, by Israeli youths.

She had been arrested after withdrawing an allegation that she was attacked by 12 young Israelis in a hotel in July.

The woman had said Cypriot police made her falsely confess to lying about the incident - but the police denied this.

She was found guilty on a charge of causing public mischief, at a court in Paralimni.

The judge at the Famagusta District Court adjourned sentencing until 7 January. She could face up to a year in jail, but her lawyers have asked for a suspended sentence.

• Ayia Napa false rape claim accused 'unsupported'

Prosecutors said she willingly wrote and signed a statement retracting her claims 10 days after making the initial allegations.

The woman told the court this happened under duress with the threat of arrest and that she had been denied access to a lawyer.

Twelve Israelis were arrested in connection with the allegations but were later released and returned home.

The Briton spent more than a month in prison before she was granted bail at the end of August, but had not been allowed to leave the island.

The trial began at the start of October - with the verdict delayed until now.

BBC Europe correspondent Kevin Connolly said the woman's family spent Christmas with her on the Mediterranean island.

He said that lawyers representing the woman had indicated they were willing to challenge the verdict as far as the European Court of Human Rights.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiJGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay01MDk0NTIwNtIBKGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstNTA5NDUyMDY?oc=5

2019-12-30 01:01:29Z
52780528787582

New Year Honours: Government apologises after addresses published - BBC News

The government has apologised "to all those affected" after it accidentally published addresses of more than 1,000 New Year Honour recipients online.

The file - which included details of senior police officers and politicians - was uploaded to an official website on Friday evening and removed Saturday.

The Cabinet Office told the BBC it was "looking into how this happened".

Among the addresses were those of Sir Elton John and former director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders.

Also on the list of 1,097 honours recipients were high-profile names such as cricketer Ben Stokes, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, TV cook Nadiya Hussain, and former Ofcom boss Sharon White.

The data breach was described as "farcical and inexcusable" by privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch.

The organisation's director, Silkie Carlo, said: "It's extremely worrying to see that the government doesn't have a basic grip on data protection, and that people receiving some of the highest honours have been put at risk because of this.

"It's a farcical and inexcusable mistake, especially given the new Data Protection Act passed by the government last year. It clearly can't stick by its rules."

A government spokesman said: "A version of the New Year Honours 2020 list was published in error which contained recipients' addresses.

"The information was removed as soon as possible.

"We have reported the matter to the ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] and are contacting all those affected directly."

The ICO, which has the power to fine organisations for data breaches, said it will be "making enquiries".

'Much depends on the attitude of those affected'

There is no doubt that this is a serious data breach and the government, of all organisations, should be better acquainted with the law on disclosing sensitive personal information.

But while some of the celebrities and the police officers awarded honours may be concerned about their privacy and security, it would have been far more serious if the home addresses of those on the list of gallantry awards had been leaked.

The Information Commissioner's Office has so far only levied one fine under the new Data Protection Act which came into effect in 2018 - a London pharmacy was fined £275,000 for careless storage of the very sensitive medical data of half a million people.

Lawyers who specialise in data protection think the ICO will see this as a less serious case of human error and may let the Cabinet Office escape with a warning about improving its practices.

But they say much now depends on the attitude of those who have seen their data leaked - they could decide to bring civil claims against the government for putting in the public domain information many of them have been determined to keep private.

Data rights lawyer Ravi Naik said the government could face legal action from those whose addresses were published, as well as from the ICO.

He also warned that anyone who came across the information should tell the ICO and not pass it onto others - because they themselves might face legal action.

'Sensitive names'

Simon Winch, a sustainability professional from London, was among those who were able to access the sensitive information.

He told the BBC: "I clicked on the link on the gov.uk website at around 11pm on Friday and the spreadsheet opened up.

"At first I thought everyone on the list had given their permission to publish their personal addresses. But then I saw that some quite sensitive names were on there."

Another source told the BBC they accessed the file just after midnight on Saturday but were unable to do so by 05:00 GMT.

The Cabinet Office said the document was visible for around an hour.

Most of the entries in the spreadsheet include full addresses - including house numbers and postcodes.

A separate list, that does not appear to be involved in the breach, covers gallantry awards for police, ambulance and fire staff and military personnel.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiJGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay01MDkyOTU0M9IBKGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstNTA5Mjk1NDM?oc=5

2019-12-29 07:01:37Z
52780523903621

New Year Honours: 1,000 addresses published in error - BBC News

A list of more than 1,000 addresses of New Years Honours recipients, including those of senior police officers and politicians, has been accidentally published by the government.

The file was uploaded to the official website, but has since been removed.

The Cabinet Office told the BBC: "We apologise to all those affected and are looking into how this happened."

Among the addresses are those of Sir Elton John and former director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders.

Also on the list of 1,097 honours recipients are high-profile names like cricketer Ben Stokes, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, TV cook Nadiya Hussain, and former Ofcom boss Sharon White.

A government spokesman said: "A version of the New Year Honours 2020 list was published in error which contained recipients' addresses.

"The information was removed as soon as possible.

"We have reported the matter to the ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] and are contacting all those affected directly."

The ICO, which has the power to fine organisations for data breaches, said it will be "making enquiries".

'Much depends on the attitude of those affected'

There is no doubt that this is a serious data breach and the government, of all organisations, should be better acquainted with the law on disclosing sensitive personal information.

But while some of the celebrities and the police officers awarded honours may be concerned about their privacy and security, it would have been far more serious if the home addresses of those on the list of gallantry awards had been leaked.

The Information Commissioner's Office has so far only levied one fine under the new Data Protection Act which came into effect in 2018 - a London pharmacy was fined £275,000 for careless storage of the very sensitive medical data of half a million people.

Lawyers who specialise in data protection think the ICO will see this as a less serious case of human error and may let the Cabinet Office escape with a warning about improving its practices.

But they say much now depends on the attitude of those who have seen their data leaked - they could decide to bring civil claims against the government for putting in the public domain information many of them have been determined to keep private.

Simon Winch, a sustainability professional from London, was among those who were able to access the sensitive information.

He told the BBC: "I clicked on the link on the gov.uk website at around 11pm on Friday and the spreadsheet opened up.

"At first I thought everyone on the list had given their permission to publish their personal addresses. But then I saw that some quite sensitive names were on there."

Another source told the BBC they accessed the file just after midnight on Saturday but were unable to do so by 05:00 GMT.

The Cabinet Office said the document was visible for around an hour.

Most of the entries in the spreadsheet include full addresses - including house numbers and postcodes.

A separate list, that does not appear to be involved in the breach, covers gallantry awards for police, ambulance and fire staff and military personnel.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiJGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay01MDkyOTU0M9IBKGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstNTA5Mjk1NDM?oc=5

2019-12-28 14:25:53Z
52780525983362

Chagos Islands dispute: UK accused of 'crimes against humanity' by Mauritius - BBC News

The UK has been accused of committing "crimes against humanity" for refusing to allow people to return to their former homes on the Chagos Islands, despite a ruling earlier this year by the United Nation's highest court.

Describing Britain's behaviour as stubborn and shameful, the prime minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth, told the BBC that he was exploring the possibility of bringing charges of crimes against humanity against individual British officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

"It is a violation of the basic principle of human rights. I fail to understand why Britain, this government, is being so stubborn," said Mr Jugnauth.

Elderly Chagossians, living in Mauritius, have echoed that criticism and accused Britain of deliberately dragging its heels on the issue in the hope that the community will simply die out.

Earlier this year, Mauritius won a major victory against Britain when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled - in an advisory opinion - that the Chagos Islands should be handed over to Mauritius in order to complete its "decolonisation."

The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin that process. Britain has steadfastly refused to comply.

It is half a century since Britain took control of the Chagos Islands from its then colony, Mauritius, and evicted the entire population of more than 1,000 people in order to make way for an American military base - part of a secret deal negotiated behind Mauritius's back as it was seeking to secure independence from the UK.

"Britain has been professing, for years, respect for the rule of law, respect for international law… but it is a pity the UK does not act fairly and reasonably and in accordance with international law on the issue of the Chagos archipelago," said Mr Jugnauth.

Philippe Sands, a lawyer representing the Mauritian government, said: "Britain is on the edge of finding itself as a pariah state.

"We now have a situation where Chagossians - a deported population, want to go back and have a right to go back. And the UK is preventing them from going back.

"Question - is that a crime against humanity? My response is that, arguably, it is."

Britain continues to insist that the ICJ ruling is wrong. But it has apologised for its past treatment of the Chagossians and promised to hand the islands over to Mauritius when they are no longer needed for security purposes.

In a statement, Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) told the BBC: "The defence facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory help protect people in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats and piracy.

"We stand by our commitment to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it's no longer required for defence purposes."

The FCO said Britain had pledged more than £40m to improve the livelihoods of Chagossians living in Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK.

The UK has also begun to take small groups of Chagossians back to the archipelago for brief "heritage" visits.

But in Mauritius, those tours have been condemned as a crude attempt to "divide and rule" the Chagos community.

"I boycott those trips. The British are trying to buy our silence. That's why we say our dignity is not for sale," said Olivier Bancoult, who heads the Chagos Refugees Group.

In a graveyard in the Mauritian capital, Port Louis, the graves of several Chagossians are marked with headstones mourning their failure to return to the islands.

"I fear my wish will not come true before I die - to see my motherland again," reads the script beside the grave of Mr Bancoult's mother, Marie Rita Elysee Bancoult.

"Every day, one by one, we're dying. I believe the British are waiting for us to die so there will be no one to claim the islands," said Liseby Elyse, 66, who was 20 when she left the archipelago.

"We're like birds flying over the ocean, and we have nowhere to land. We must keep flying until we die," said 81-year-old Samynaden Rosemond.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiJ2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC01MDkyNDcwNNIBK2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvd29ybGQtNTA5MjQ3MDQ?oc=5

2019-12-28 07:01:25Z
CBMiJ2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC01MDkyNDcwNNIBK2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvd29ybGQtNTA5MjQ3MDQ