justice

Tens of thousands of people have marched in cities across Europe, denouncing Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and demanding tougher global action against its continued and deadly violations of a United States-brokered ceasefire.

The demonstrations, held to mark the United Nations International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on Saturday, came as the death toll from Israel’s war on Gaza surpassed 70,000 people.

The latest victims include two boys, aged eight and 10, who were killed in an Israeli drone attack on the town of Bani Suheila, east of Khan Younis in southern Gaza.

In the French capital, Paris, an estimated 50,000 marched along the city’s major streets, chanting “Gaza, Gaza, Paris is with you” and “From Paris to Gaza, resistance!”.

They also waved Palestinian flags while denouncing “Israeli genocide”.

“This is not acceptable. We are still so far from justice or accountability,” one protester told Al Jazeera.

“We, the people, know that this [Israel’s war] is wrong. But why do the people in power not feel that this is wrong?” asked another protester.

Anne Tuaillon, head of the France Palestine Solidarity Association (AFPS), one of about 80 non-government organisations, unions and parties behind the call to protest, said that “nothing has been resolved” seven weeks after a ceasefire took effect on October 10.

“The ceasefire is a smokescreen. Israel violates it every day, blocks humanitarian aid and continues to destroy homes and infrastructure in Gaza. We are calling for a permanent ceasefire and an end to the genocide,” she told the AFP news agency.

Protests were also held in London, Geneva, Rome and Lisbon.

Al Jazeera’s Sonia Gallego, reporting from Paris, said that for the organisers, the march represents a “sustained pressure” on Israel at a time when negotiations for a more lasting peace in the Palestinian territory remain stalled.

“This worldwide mobilisation is not just maintaining focus on Gaza, but also [on] the broader unresolved issue of Palestinian rights.”

In the British capital, London, organisers said that up to 100,000 joined the march demanding accountability for Israeli “crimes” against Palestinians and pleading for “protection” of those still suffering under siege despite a ceasefire.

In Italy, where mass demonstrations and union-led strikes have repeatedly mobilised against Israel’s war, the UN’s special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, Francesca Albanese, and climate activist Greta Thunberg, attended the main demonstration in the capital, Rome.

The Wanted In Rome news website, in a report ahead of the rally, said some 100,000 were expected to take part.

In a statement posted on X, Albanese said that Israel is “committing genocide against the Palestinians” not just in Gaza, but in the occupied West Bank, too.

“Look at the totality of conduct/crimes against the totality of the Palestinians in the totality of the land slated for ethnic cleansing. Israel must be stopped, and we will,” she wrote.

Under the US-brokered ceasefire, Israel has pulled back to a so-called “yellow line” inside the Gaza Strip. But it remains in control of more than half of the besieged territory, and has launched several deadly attacks in breach of the agreement.

Since the ceasefire deal, at least 500 Israeli violations have been recorded, resulting in at least 347 Palestinians being killed and 889 being injured.

Fadi and Jumaa Tamer Abu Assi were aged eight and 10, respectively.

Alaa Abu Assi, an uncle of the two boys, said they were “innocent children who have no rockets and no bombs”.

“They were gathering firewood to help their disabled father, who has platinum plates in his legs. We went and found them in pieces, and we brought them back,” he told the AFP news agency.

In a statement, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that “the killing of so many civilians, the repeated displacement of an entire population and the obstruction of humanitarian aid should never be acceptable”.

Al Jazeera’s Hind Khoudary, reporting from Gaza City, said that even as Palestinians welcome the international support, most “are simply trying to survive”.

“It’s a daily struggle,” she said. “Palestinians are suffering to get their basic necessities; they’re suffering to find shelter.”

“There are lots of Palestinians still living in tents. They’re saying that they do not have any source of shelter. There’s no medication. Their children are without any education. The Palestinians are still dying slowly, despite the fact that it is ceasefire,” she added.

On Thursday, rights group Amnesty International warned that “Israeli authorities are still committing genocide” in Gaza, waging new attacks and curbing critical aid access, despite the declared ceasefire.

Nov. 28 (UPI) — Russia has designated Human Rights Watch as an “undesirable foreign organization,” the nation’s Ministry of Justice announced Friday.

This decision means the organization, which was founded in 1978, is banned from operating in Russia. HRW is in 78 nations.

“Designating rights groups undesirable is brazen and cynical,” Philippe Bolopion, executive director at Human Rights Watch, said in a news release. “It only redoubles our determination to document the Russian authorities’ human rights violations and war crimes, and ensure that those responsible are held accountable.”

HRW has documented human rights violations in Russia and the military committing war crimes in Ukraine.

“For over three decades, Human Rights Watch’s work on post-Soviet Russia has pressed the government to uphold human rights and freedoms,” Bolopion said. “Our work hasn’t changed, but what’s changed, dramatically, is the government’s full-throttled embrace of dictatorial policies, its staggering rise in repression, and the scope of the war crimes its forces are committing in Ukraine.”

In 2015, Russia introduced the “undesirable” law to silence independent media, opposition groups and foreign organizations.

Russian authorities have designated at least 280 organizations as “undesirable,” including the Moscow Times. Courts have issued administrative and criminal sentences, including in their absence, against several hundred people, HRW said.

“Undesirable” organizations, as determined by the Prosecutor’s Office, undermine Russia’s security, defense or constitutional order.

The Prosecutor General’s Office banned HRW on Nov. 10.

Those who continue to engage with these organizations, in Russia or abroad, may face administrative and criminal penalties, including a maximum six-year prison sentence. The authorities interpret “engagement” widely and arbitrarily, HRW said.

The organization leaders risk up to six years, according to Russian law.

In 2021, Andrei Pivovarov, a political activist, was sentenced to four years in prison for social media posts, which the authorities said promoted Open Russia, a political opposition movement designated “undesirable.” Russian authorities released and expelled him from the country in 2024 as part of a prisoner exchange with Western nations.

In May 2025, a Moscow court sentenced Grigory Melkonyants, a prominent Russian rights defender and election monitor, to five years in prison after authorities wrongly equated the Russian election monitoring group Golos with the European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations, which were designated “undesirable” in 2021.

After the initial full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022, HRW was among several international organizations and non-government organizations with offices shut down in Moscow.

HRW had operated in Russia since 1992 with the breakup of the Soviet Union. During the Soviet era, HRW began working there in 1978.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, a rapporteur for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Venice Commission, an advisory body to the Council of Europe, have criticized the legislation.

Nov. 25 (UPI) — The European Court of Justice ruled Thursday that European Union member nations must recognize the same-sex marriages of couples relocating from another EU state, even if same-sex unions are not permitted under their domestic law.

Judges in the court in Luxembourg, ruling in the case of two men lawfully married in Germany who were denied recognition of their union by authorities in Poland on their return to their home country, said it violated their fundamental right to a “normal family life,” the ECJ said in a news release.

The case was referred to the ECJ by Poland’s Supreme Court where the men were appealing against authorities’ refusal to transcribe their German marriage certificate into the civil register so that their marriage would be recognized, on grounds same-sex marriage is not legal in Poland.

Poland is a largely Catholic, socially conservative nation where LGBT rights are highly controversial import from permissive societies and LGBT-free zones are common.

The landmark decision said that while rules governing marriage fell under individual member states’ domestic law, they must comply with EU law in exercising that power.

Given EU citizens’ right to move and reside in any of the 27 member nations, couples who have built a family life in a host country “must have the certainty to be able to pursue that family life upon returning to their member state of origin,” the ruling said.

The judge said that where couples had opted to move, bans may cause serious inconvenience at administrative, professional and private levels, forcing spouses to “live as unmarried persons” in their own country.

“Such a refusal is contrary to EU law. It infringes not only the freedom to move and reside, but also the fundamental right to respect for private and family life,” the ruling states.

However, while the decision sets a precedent for recognition of same-sex marriage across the bloc it only mandates equal treatment of marriages conducted abroad, regardless of the sex of the couples.

It does not override national laws prohibiting same-sex marriage or require member states to provide for marriage between persons of the same sex.

The matter now returns to the Polish court, which must instruct authorities to officially recognize the couple’s marriage, but it can decide how that is done.

The case is an extension of a historic 2018 ECJ ruling that said married same-sex couples who were EU citizens had the legal right to live in any EU country, including nations that did not recognize same-sex unions.

Of the bloc’s 27 member states. at least two — Slovakia and Hungary — have legal or constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

However, both allow same-sex couples a mechanism for their relationship to be legally recognized.

WASHINGTON — The Texas redistricting case now before the Supreme Court turns on a question that often divides judges: Were the voting districts drawn based on politics, or race?

The answer, likely to come in a few days, could shift five congressional seats and tip political control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, who oversees appeals from Texas, put a temporary hold on a judicial ruling that branded the newly drawn Texas voting map a “racial gerrymander.”

The state’s lawyers asked for a decision by Monday, noting that candidates have a Dec. 8 deadline to file for election.

They said the judges violated the so-called Purcell principle by making major changes in the election map “midway through the candidate filing period,” and that alone calls for blocking it.

Texas Republicans have reason to be confident the court’s conservative majority will side with them.

“We start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” Alito wrote for a 6-3 majority last year in a South Carolina case.

That state’s Republican lawmakers had moved tens of thousands of Black voters in or out of newly drawn congressional districts and said they did so not because of their race but because they were likely to vote as Democrats.

In 2019, the conservatives upheld partisan gerrymandering by a 5-4 vote, ruling that drawing election districts is a “political question” left to states and their lawmakers, not judges.

All the justices — conservative and liberal — say drawing districts based on the race of the voters violates the Constitution and its ban on racial discrimination. But the conservatives say it’s hard to separate race from politics.

They also looked poised to restrict the reach of the Voting Rights Act in a pending case from Louisiana.

For decades, the civil rights law has sometimes required states to draw one or more districts that would give Black or Latino voters a fair chance to “elect representatives of their choice.”

The Trump administration joined in support of Louisiana’s Republicans in October and claimed the voting rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action” that should be ended.

If so, election law experts warned that Republican-led states across the South could erase the districts of more than a dozen Black Democrats who serve in Congress.

The Texas mid-decade redistricting case did not look to trigger a major legal clash because the partisan motives were so obvious.

In July, President Trump called for Texas Republicans to redraw the state map of 38 congressional districts in order to flip five seats to oust Democrats and replace them with Republicans.

At stake was control of the closely divided House after the 2026 midterm elections.

Gov. Greg Abbott agreed, and by the end of August, he signed into law a map with redrawn districts in and around Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio.

But last week federal judges, in a 2-1 decision, blocked the new map from taking effect, ruling that it appeared to be unconstitutional.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” wrote U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown in the opening of a 160-page opinion. “To be sure, politics played a role” but “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

He said the strongest evidence came from Harmeet Dhillon, the Trump administration’s top civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department. She had sent Abbott a letter on July 7 threatening legal action if the state did not dismantle four “coalition districts.”

This term, which was unfamiliar to many, referred to districts where no racial or ethnic group had a majority. In one Houston district that was targeted, 45% of the eligible voters were Black and 25% were Latino. In a nearby district, 38% of voters were Black and 30% were Latino.

She said the Trump administration views these as “unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,” citing a recent ruling by the conservative 5th Circuit Court.

The Texas governor then cited these “constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice” when he called for the special session of the Legislature to redraw the state map.

Voting rights advocates saw a violation.

“They said their aim was to get rid of the coalition districts. And to do so, they had to draw new districts along racial lines,” said Chad Dunn, a Texas attorney and legal director of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project.

Brown, a Trump appointee from Galveston, wrote that Dhillon was “clearly wrong” in believing these coalition districts were unconstitutional, and he said the state was wrong to rely on her advice as basis for redrawing its election map.

He was joined by a second district judge in putting the new map on hold and requiring the state to use the 2021 map that had been drawn by the same Texas Republicans.

The third judge on the panel was Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee on the 5th Circuit Court, and he issued an angry 104-page dissent. Much of it was devoted to attacking Brown and liberals such as 95-year-old investor and philanthropist George Soros and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“In 37 years as a federal judge, I’ve served on hundreds of three-judge panels. This is the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed,” Smith wrote. “The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas.”

The “obvious reason for the 2025 redistricting, of course, is partisan gain,” Smith wrote, adding that “Judge Brown commits grave error in concluding that the Texas Legislature is more bigoted than political.”

Most federal cases go before a district judge, and they may be appealed first to a U.S. appeals court and then the Supreme Court.
Election-related cases are different. A three-judge panel weighs the facts and issues a ruling, which then goes directly to the Supreme Court to be affirmed or reversed.

Late Friday, Texas attorneys filed an emergency appeal and asked the justices to put on hold the decision by Brown.

The first paragraph of their 40-page appeal noted that Texas is not alone in pursuing a political advantage by redrawing its election maps.

“California is working to add more Democratic seats to its congressional delegation to offset the new Texas districts, despite Democrats already controlling 43 out of 52 of California’s congressional seats,” they said.

They argued that the “last-minute disruption to state election procedures — and resulting candidate and voter confusion —demonstrates” the need to block the lower court ruling.

Election law experts question that claim. “This is a problem of Texas’ own making,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The state opted for a fast-track, mid-decade redistricting at the behest of Trump.

On Monday, Dunn, the Texas voting rights attorney, responded to the state’s appeal and told the justices they should deny it.

“The election is over a year away. No one will be confused by using the map that has governed Texas’ congressional elections for the past four years,” he said.

“The governor of Texas called a special session to dismantle districts on account of their racial composition,” he said, and the judges heard clear and detailed evidence that lawmakers did just that.

In recent election disputes, however, the court’s conservatives have frequently invoked the Purcell principle to free states from new judicial rulings that came too close to the election.

Granting a stay would allow Texas to use its new GOP friendly map for the 2026 election.

The justices may then choose to hear arguments on the legal questions early next year.

For Marina Lacerda, the upcoming publication of U.S. government files on Jeffrey Epstein represents more than an opportunity for justice.

She says she was just 14 when Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York mansion, but she struggles to recall much of what happened because it is such a dark period in her life.

Now, she’s hoping that the files will reveal more about the trauma that distorted so much of her adolescence.

“I feel that the government and the FBI knows more than I do, and that scares me, because it’s my life, it’s my past,” she told the Associated Press.

President Trump signed legislation last week that will force the Justice Department to release documents from its voluminous files on Epstein.

“We have waited long enough. We’ve fought long enough,” Lacerda said.

It isn’t clear yet how much new information will be in the files, gathered over two decades of investigations into Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse of many girls and women.

Some of his accusers expect the files to provide a level of transparency they had hardly allowed themselves to believe would materialize, but the release of the documents will be a more complicated moment for others.

Two federal investigations cut short

The FBI and police in Palm Beach, Fla., began investigating Epstein in the mid-2000s after several underage girls said he had paid them for sex acts. He pleaded guilty in 2008 to charges including procuring a minor for prostitution, but a secret deal with the U.S. attorney in Florida — future Trump Cabinet member Alex Acosta — allowed him to avoid a federal prosecution. He served little more than a year in custody.

Jena-Lisa Jones says she was abused by Epstein in Palm Beach in 2002, when she was 14. She did not report the abuse to the police at the time, but she later became one of many accusers to sue the multimillionaire.

The Miami Herald published a series of articles about Epstein in 2018 that exposed new details about how the federal prosecution was shelved. A year later, federal prosecutors in New York, where Epstein owned a mansion, revived the case and charged him with sex trafficking.

Jones said she was interviewed during that federal investigation and was prepared to testify in court.

“It was very important for me to have my moment, for him to see my face and hear my words, and me have that control and power back,” Jones said.

But that day never came.

Epstein killed himself in a federal jail cell in New York City in August 2019.

In lieu of her day in court, Jones and others are hoping for a public reckoning with the publication of the government files on Epstein.

While the government only ever charged two people in connection with the abuse case — Epstein and his longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell, who is in prison for her related crimes — at least one of Epstein’s accusers has claimed she was instructed to have sex with other rich and powerful men.

Jones didn’t make similar claims, but said she believes the documents could map out a “broad scheme” involving others.

“I’m hoping they’re shaking a little bit and that they have what’s coming for them,” Jones said.

Filling in the gaps

Lacerda, now 37, is also hoping the files will clarify her own personal experience, which is muddled by the pain she said she endured at that time in her life.

“I was just a child and it’s just trauma. That’s what trauma does to your brain,” Lacerda said.

An immigrant from Brazil, Lacerda said she was working three jobs to support herself and her family the summer before 9th grade when a friend said she could make $300 if she gave Epstein massages.

The first time she massaged Epstein, he told her to remove her shirt, she said.

Lacerda said she was soon spending so much time working for Epstein that she dropped out of school. The sexual abuse persisted until she turned 17, when Epstein informed her that she was “too old,” she said.

Lacerda wondered whether the files might include videos and photographs of her and other victims at Epstein’s properties.

“I need to know — for my healing process and for the adult in me — what I did as a child,” Lacerda said. “It will be re-traumatizing, but it’s transparency — and I need it,” she said.

Accusers wonder, why now?

For Lacerda, the elation around the upcoming release of the files gave way to familiar feelings for many women who survive abuse: fear and paranoia.

“In the heat of the moment, we were like, ‘Wow, this is like, everything that we’ve been fighting for.’ And then we had to take a moment and be like, ‘Wait a minute. Why is he releasing the files all of a sudden?’ ” Lacerda said.

The abrupt change in the political momentum made her uneasy. She wondered whether the documents would be doctored or redacted to protect people connected to Epstein.

Others echoed her concerns, and wondered if the government would sufficiently protect victims who have remained anonymous, who fear scrutiny and harassment if their names were to become public.

“For the rest of my life, I will never truly trust the government because of what they’ve done to us,” Jones said.

Haley Robson, who says she was abused by Epstein when she was 16, has the same concerns.

Robson was a leading voice in advocating for the Florida legislation signed in 2024 that unsealed the grand jury transcripts from the 2006 state case against Epstein.

She said the political maneuvering in recent months about the files led to nonstop anxiety, reminiscent of how she felt when she was abused as a teenager.

“I guess it really comes from the trauma I’ve endured, because this is kind of what Jeffrey Epstein did to us. You know, he wasn’t transparent. He played these manipulation tactics,” she said. “It’s triggering for anybody who’s been in that situation.”

Still, Robson said she is trying to savor the victory while she can.

“This is the first time since 2006 where I don’t feel like the underdog,” she said.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 21 (UPI) — A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday night at least temporarily paused a lower court’s decision to throw out Texas’ new congressional map to potentially add five House seats for Republicans.

Justie Samuel Alito, chosen to decide on emergency appeals in the state, granted the request, writing it “is hereby administratively stayed” with a response to the application to be filed by 5 p.m. Monday.

So, this puts the block on hold until the full court decides.

Earlier Friday, state lawyers formally asked for an emergency stay to allow the map borders that were approved this summer by the legislature.

On Tuesday, a three-member panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas threw out the mapsin a 2-1 vote.

President Donald Trump had urged Texas to change the maps to favor Republicans.

After the state filed its appeal, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a news release: “Texas engaged in partisan redistricting solely to secure more Republican seats in Congress and thereby better represent our state and Texans. For years, Democrats have aggressively gerrymandered their states and only cry foul and hurl baseless ‘racism’ accusations because they are losing.”

He described the legislation signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in August as Texas’ “Big Beautiful Map.”

The state had asked the high court by Monday night to decide on pausing the lower court ruling.

The lower court’s decision caused “chaos” for the election, the state said.

“Campaigning had already begun, candidates had already gathered signatures and filed applications to appear on the ballot under the 2025 map, and early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary was only 91 days away,” Texas officials told the Supreme Court.

Those seeking to run for House seats must declare their candidacy by Dec. 8.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by President Trump in his first term, and David Guaderrama, appointed by President Obama, threw out the maps.

Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, dissented, writing: “In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.

“If, however, there were a Nobel prize for fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate.”

In the 107 pages, he mentioned billionaire George Soros, a donor for Democrats, 17 times.

Brown, writing the majority opinion, directed the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

But Texas disagreed, saying: politics, not race, drove the new maps.

“This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics,” the state told the high court.

Texas said the lower court ruling “erroneously rests on speculation and inferences of bad faith.” And it said the state GOP’s chief mapmaker worked with data on partisanship rather than race.

After the decision, Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’ sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans now hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats.

Missouri and North Carolina approved a new map that could create another Republican-leaning district in each state.

Unlike those Republican-dominant states, California voters approved the new map that potentially can add five Democratic seats. Proposition 50 was approved by a 64.4-35.6%. The breakdown now is 43 Democrats and nine Republicans.

Other states are considering changes.

The U.S. House party breakdown is 219 Republicans, 213 Democrats and three vacancies. On Thursday, Democrat Mikie Sherill resigned her seat because she was elected New Jersey’s governor earlier this month.

Donald Trump has signed a law requiring the US Justice Department to release the remaining Epstein files within 30 days. The Attorney General said her department would comply – but hinted some documents could be withheld for legal reasons.

It’s sheer coincidence that I’m writing here on the same subject as my Los Angeles Times colleague Jonah Goldberg’s most recent column: The crying need to amend the Constitution to do something about the much-abused presidential pardon power, the only unchecked power that a president has.

The fact that both Goldberg, a right-of-center commentator, and I, center-left, would near-simultaneously choose to vent on this topic — to call, in effect, for a national uprising against this presidential prerogative despite the evident difficulty of amending the Constitution — is telling: It’s a reflection of Americans’ across-the-spectrum disgust with how modern presidents have perverted it for personal and political benefit, usually on their way out the door. (Goldberg makes the case to get rid of the pardon power altogether. I would give Congress a veto, so presidents still can right actual wrongs of the justice system, as the founders intended.)

Yes, “both sides” are culpable. And yet, Goldberg and I agree, one president has surpassed all others in the shamelessness of his pardons: Donald Trump. In just 10 months he’s built a track record sorrier than that of his first term, which is saying something, and elevated clemency reform to an imperative.

We can’t stop Trump before he pardons again. Nor, probably, would an amendment campaign succeed before (if?) he leaves office in January 2029. But Americans of all political stripes can at least join in getting the process rolling, if only to protect against future presidents’ abuses.

From his first day in office, when Trump granted clemency to nearly 1,600 rioters who beat cops and stormed the Capitol to overturn his 2020 defeat, already 20 times this year he’s either pardoned or commuted the prison sentences of additional scores of undeserving hacks, fellow election deniers, war criminals, donors, investors in Trump businesses and career criminals who just happen to support him. (Recidivism among Trump’s beneficiaries is proving a problem; among the new charges: child sex abuse.)

The clemency actions have come so fast and furious that they hardly register as the scandals that they are, especially as the news about them vies for attention with the many other outrages of Trump’s presidency.

“No MAGA left behind,” Trump pardon attorney “Eagle Ed” Martin brazenly posted in May and again this month in announcing preemptory pardons for former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and more than 75 other Republicans who were part of the fake-elector schemes to reverse Trump’s 2020 losses in battleground states, as well as other efforts after the 2020 election to keep him in power.

Those grants were followed last weekend by mercy for two more MAGA militants: Suzanne Kaye, a Florida woman sentenced to prison for threatening in video posts to “shoot their [expletive] a–” if FBI agents tried to question her about her involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection, and Daniel Edwin Wilson of Kentucky, who was among those pardoned for his crimes on Jan. 6 but later sentenced by a Trump-appointed district judge on gun charges related to an illegal cache of weaponry that agents found at his home.

To Trump, absolving his supporters as victims of a supposedly weaponized justice system in effect absolves him as well, and furthers his false narrative — his big lie — that the 2020 election was stolen from him. As Martin, the White House pardon attorney, wrote in this month’s passel of pardons: “This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election.” The opposite is true.

Lo, Trump’s mercy knows no bounds — of propriety, that is. The president won’t even rule out a pardon for convicted child-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime procurer for, and participant with, Jeffrey Epstein in the sexploitation of young girls.

Even if Trump’s abuse of the pardon power isn’t unprecedented, its scale and shamelessness is. His Day One mass pardons for Jan. 6 participants set the tone. That action kept his 2024 campaign promise to “free the J-6 hostages,” but it broke an earlier, videotaped vow he’d made on Jan. 7, 2021, when anger at the Capitol attack was near-universal: “To those who broke the law, you will pay.” Hundreds did pay, convicted by juries and judges of both parties and sentenced to up to 22 years in prison. Until Trump got back in power.

Need evidence of how Trump’s pardons corrode the rule of law? Last December, weeks before he returned to the White House, yet another Jan. 6 participant, Philip Sean Grillo, was sentenced. The Reagan-appointed federal judge in the case, Royce Lamberth, admonished: “Nobody is being held hostage. … Every rioter is in the situation he or she is in because he or she broke the law, and for no other reason.” Grillo shouted back, as U.S. marshals led him off: “Trump’s gonna pardon me anyways.” He was right, of course.

Then there’s this: In September, after a Republican former Tennessee House speaker and his aide were sentenced in a fraud case, the government’s announcement quoted a senior FBI agent in Nashville calling the punishment “a wake-up call to other public officials who believe there are no consequences for betraying the public trust.” On Nov. 7, Trump pardoned both men.

Trump’s promiscuous use of his power has even spawned a niche business of Trump-connected lawyers peddling their influence to pardon-seekers willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to get out of jail not-so-free.

Consider the case of Changpeng Zhao, billionaire founder of the crypto exchange Binance, who served time in 2023 for facilitating money laundering, including for terrorist groups. Zhao didn’t just hire Trump-friendly lawyers. His company helped secure a $2-billion investment in the Trump family’s crypto startup. Last month, Trump pardoned Zhao. “I heard it was a Biden witch hunt,” he nonchalantly told CBS News’ “60 Minutes.”

Zhao’s success alone should be scandal enough to fuel a campaign to repeal or reform the pardon power. But there is so much more. And we surely haven’t seen the last.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

The United States Department of Justice has acknowledged that the grand jury reviewing the case against James Comey, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), did not receive a copy of the final indictment against him.

That revelation on Wednesday came as lawyers for Comey sought to have the indictment thrown out of court.

At a 90-minute hearing in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, Comey’s lawyers argued that the case should be dismissed outright, not only for the prosecutorial missteps but also due to the interventions of President Donald Trump.

Comey is one of three prominent Trump critics to be indicted between late September and mid-October.

The hearing took place before US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, and Comey’s defence team alleged that Trump was using the legal system as a tool for political retribution.

“This is an extraordinary case and it merits an extraordinary remedy,” defence lawyer Michael Dreeben said, calling the indictment “a blatant use of criminal justice to achieve political ends”.

The Justice Department, represented by prosecutor Tyler Lemons, maintained that the indictment met the legal threshold to be heard at trial.

But Lemons did admit, under questioning, that the grand jury that approved the indictment had not seen its final draft.

When Judge Nachmanoff asked Lemons if the grand jury had never seen the final version, the prosecutor conceded, “That is my understanding.”

It was the latest stumble in the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute Comey for allegedly obstructing a congressional investigation and lying to senators while under oath.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to the two charges, and his defence team has led a multipronged effort to see the case nixed over its multiple irregularities.

Scrutiny over grand jury proceedings

Questions over the indictment — and what the grand jury had or had not seen — had been brewing since last week.

On November 13, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie raised questions about a span of time when it appeared that there appeared to be “no court reporter present” during the grand jury proceedings.

Then, on Tuesday, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick took the extraordinary step of calling for the grand jury materials to be released to the Comey defence team, citing “a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps”.

They included misleading statements from prosecutors, the use of search warrants pertaining to a separate case, and the fact that the grand jury likely did not review the final indictment in full.

Separately, in Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Nachmanoff pressed acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan about who saw the final indictment.

After repeated questions, she, too, admitted that only the foreperson of the grand jury and a second grand juror were present for the returning of the indictment.

Halligan oversaw the three indictments against the Trump critics: Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

All three have denied wrongdoing, and all three have argued that their prosecution is part of a campaign of political vengeance.

Spotlight on Trump-Comey feud

Wednesday’s hearing focused primarily on establishing that argument, with Comey’s lawyers pointing to statements Trump made pushing for the indictments.

Comey’s defence team pointed to the tense relationship between their client and Trump, stretching back to the president’s decision to fire Comey from his job as FBI director in 2017.

Comey had faced bipartisan criticism for FBI investigations into the 2016 election, which Trump ultimately won.

Trump, for example, accused the ex-FBI leader of going easy on his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, calling him a “slime ball”, a “phony” and “a real nut job”.

“FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds,” Trump wrote on social media in May 2017.

Comey, meanwhile, quickly established himself as a prominent critic of the Trump administration.

“I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president. I think he’s morally unfit to be president,” Comey told ABC News in 2018.

He added that a president must “embody respect” and adhere to basic values like truth-telling. “This president is not able to do that,” Comey said.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Comey’s defence also pointed to the series of events leading up to the former FBI director’s indictment.

Last September, Trump posted on social media a message to Attorney General Pam Bondi, calling Comey and James “guilty as hell” and encouraging her not to “delay any longer” in seeking their indictments.

That message was “effectively an admission that this is a political prosecution”, according to Dreeben, Comey’s lawyer.

Shortly after the message was posted online, Halligan was appointed as acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

She replaced a prosecutor, Erik Siebert, who had reportedly declined to indict Comey and others for lack of evidence. Trump had denounced him as a “woke RINO”, an acronym that stands for “Republican in name only”.

Dreeben argued that switcheroo also signalled Trump’s vindictive intent and his spearheading of the Comey indictment.

But Lemons, representing the Justice Department, told Judge Nachmanoff that Comey “was not indicted at the direction of the president of the United States or any other government official”.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Justice Department acknowledged in court Wednesday the grand jury that charged former FBI Director James Comey was not presented with a copy of the final indictment, a concession that may further imperil a prosecution already subject to multiple challenges and demands for its dismissal.

The revelation is the latest indication of a troubled presentation of the case to the grand jury by an inexperienced and hastily appointed U.S. attorney named to the job just days earlier by President Trump.

Concerns about the process surfaced earlier in the week when a different judge in the case said there was no record in the transcript he had reviewed of the grand jury reviewing the indictment that was actually presented against Comey.

Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney in charge of the case, said under questioning that only the foreperson of the grand jury and a second grand juror were present for the returning of the indictment.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to charges accusing him of making a false statement and obstructing Congress and has denied any wrongdoing.

The Justice Department has denied that the prosecution was vindictive or selective and insists that the allegations support the indictment.

Trump fired Comey as FBI director in May 2017 as Comey was overseeing an FBI investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. The two have been publicly at odds ever since, with Trump deriding Comey as “a weak and untruthful slime ball” and calling for his prosecution.

Tucker and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press.

In the days and weeks after the 2020 election, partisans across the country used lies and deceit to try to defraud the American people and steal the White House.

Although Joe Biden was the clear and unequivocal winner, racking up big margins in the popular vote and electoral college, 84 fake electors signed statements certifying that Donald Trump had carried their seven battleground states.

He did not.

The electoral votes at issue constituted nearly a third of the number needed to win the presidency and would have been more than enough to reverse Biden’s victory, granting Trump a second term against the wishes of most voters.

To some, the attempted election theft is old (and eagerly buried) news.

The events that culminated in the violent assault on the Capitol and attempt to block Biden from taking office occurred half a decade ago, the shovel wielders might say, making them as relevant as those faded social-distancing stickers you still see in some stores. Besides, Trump was given a second turn in the White House by a plurality of voters in 2024.

But it’s only old news if you believe that justice and integrity carry an expiration date, wrongdoing is fine with the passage of enough time and the foundational values of our country and its democracy — starting with fair and honest elections — matter only to the extent they help your political side prevail.

It bears repeating: “What we’re talking about here is an attempt to overturn the outcome of a presidential election,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, who heads the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy think tank at New York University. “If people can engage in that kind of conduct without consequence or accountability, then we have to worry about it happening again.”

Which is why punishment and deterrence are so important.

Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the criminal case against six Republicans who signed certificates falsely claiming Trump had won the state’s electoral votes. Those charged include Nevada’s GOP chairman, Michael McDonald, and the state’s representative on the Republican National Committee, Jim DeGraffenreid.

The ruling focused on a procedural matter: whether the charges should have been brought in Douglas County, where the fake certificates were signed in the state capital — Carson City — or in Clark County, where they were submitted at a courthouse in Las Vegas. A lower court ruled the charges should have been brought in Douglas County and dismissed the case. The high court reversed the decision, allowing the prosecution on forgery charges to proceed.

As well it should. Let a jury decide.

Of course, the Nevada Six and other phony electors are but small fry. The ringleader and attempted-larcenist-in-chief — Donald “Find Me 11,780 Votes” Trump — escaped liability by winning the 2024 election.

This month, he pardoned scores of fake electors and others involved in the attempted election heist — including his bumbling ex-attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani — for any potential federal crimes. The move was purely symbolic; Trump’s pardoning power does not extend to cases brought in state courts.

But it was further evidence of his abundant contempt for the rule of law. (Just hours after taking office, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 defendants — including some who brutalized cops with pepper spray and wooden and metal poles — who were involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.)

Efforts around the country to prosecute even those low-level schemers, cheaters and 2020 election miscreants have produced mixed results.

In Michigan, a judge threw out the criminal case against 15 phony electors, ruling the government failed to present sufficient evidence that they intended to commit fraud.

In New Mexico and Pennsylvania, fake electors avoided prosecution because their certification came with a caveat. It said the documentation was submitted in the event they were recognized as legitimate electors. The issue was moot once Trump lost his fight to overturn the election, though some in Trump’s orbit hoped the phony certifications would help pressure Pence.

Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, looks askance at many of the cases that prosecutors have brought, suggesting the ballot box — rather than a courtroom — may be the better venue to litigate the matter.

“There’s a fine line between what’s distasteful conduct and what’s criminal conduct,” Muller said. “I don’t have easy answers about which kinds of things should or shouldn’t be prosecuted in a particular moment, except to say if it’s something novel” — like these 2020 cases — “having a pretty iron-clad legal theory is pretty essential if you’re going to be prosecuting people for engaging in this sort of political protest activity.”

Other cases grind on.

Three fake electors are scheduled for a preliminary hearing on forgery charges next month in Wisconsin. Fourteen defendants — including Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — face charges in Georgia. In Arizona, the state attorney general must decide this week whether to move forward with a case against 11 people after a judge tossed out an indictment because of how the case was presented to grand jurors.

Justice in the case of the 2020 election has been far from sure and swift. But that’s no reason to relent.

The penalty for hijacking a plane is a minimum of 20 years in federal prison. That seems excessive for the fake electors.

But dozens of bad actors tried to hijack an election. They shouldn’t be let off scot-free.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department engaged in a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” in the process of securing an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, a federal judge ruled Monday in directing prosecutors to provide defense lawyers with all grand jury materials from the case.

Those problems, wrote Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, include “fundamental misstatements of the law” by a prosecutor to the grand jury that indicted Comey in September, the use of potentially privileged communications during the investigation and unexplained irregularities in the transcript of the grand jury proceedings.

“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Fitzpatrick wrote “However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”

The 24-page opinion is the most blistering assessment yet by a judge of the Justice Department’s actions leading up to the Comey indictment. It underscores how procedural missteps and prosecutorial inexperience have combined to imperil the prosecution pushed by President Trump for reasons separate and apart from the substance of the disputed allegations against Comey.

The Comey case and a separate prosecution of New York Atty, Gen. Letitia James have heightened concerns that the Justice Department is being weaponized in pursuit of Trump’s political opponents. Both defendants have filed multiple motions to dismiss the cases against them before trial, arguing that the prosecutions are improperly vindictive and that the prosecutor who filed the charges, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed.

A different judge is set to decide by Thanksgiving on the challenges by Comey and James to Halligan’s appointment.

Though grand jury proceedings are presumptively secret, Comey’s lawyers had sought records from the process out of concern that irregularities may have tainted the case. The sole prosecutor who defense lawyers say presented the case to the grand jury was Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience who was appointed just days before the indictment to the job of interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

In his order Monday, Fitzpatrick said that after reviewing the grand jury transcript himself, he had come away deeply concerned about the integrity of the case.

“Here, the procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct resulting in prejudice to Mr. Comey,” Fitzpatrick said.

The Justice Department responded to the ruling by asking that it be put on hold to give prosecutors time to file objections. The government said it believed Fitzpatrick “may have misinterpreted” some facts in issuing his ruling.

Fitzpatrick listed, among nearly a dozen irregularities in his ruling, two comments that a prosecutor — presumably, Halligan — made to the grand jury that he said represented “fundamental misstatements of the law.”

The actual statements are blacked out, but Fitzpatrick said the prosecutor seems to have ignored the fact that a grand jury may not draw a negative inference about a person who exercises his right not to testify in front of it. He said she also appeared to suggest to grand jurors that they did not need to rely only on what was presented to them and could instead be assured that there was additional evidence that would be presented at trial.

The judge also drew attention to the jumbled manner in which the indictment was obtained and indicated that a transcript and recording of the proceedings do not provide a full account of what occurred. Halligan initially sought a three-count indictment of Comey, but after the grand jury rejected one of the three proposed counts and found probable cause to indict on the other two counts, a second two-count indictment was prepared and signed.

But Fitzpatrick said it was not clear to him in reviewing the record that the indictment that Halligan presented in court at the conclusion of the process had been presented to the grand jury for its deliberation.

“Either way, this unusual series of events, still not fully explained by the prosecutor’s declaration, calls into question the presumption of regularity generally associated with grand jury proceedings, and provides another genuine issue the defense may raise to challenge the manner in which the government obtained the indictment,” he wrote.

The two-count indictment charges Comey with lying to Congress in September 2020 when he suggested under questioning that he had not authorized FBI leaks of information to the news media. His lawyers say the question he was responding to was vague and confusing but the answer he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee was true.

The line of questioning from Sen. Ted Cruz appeared to focus on whether Comey had authorized his former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, to speak with the news media. But since the indictment, prosecutors have made clear that their indictment centers on allegations that Comey permitted a separate person — a close friend and Columbia University law professor, Dan Richman — to serve as an anonymous source in interactions with reporters.

The FBI executed search warrants in 2019 and 2020 to access messages between Richman and Comey as part of a media leaks investigation that did not result in charges. But Fitzpatrick said he was concerned that communications between the men that might have been protected by attorney-client privilege — Richman was at one point functioning as a lawyer for Comey — were exposed to the grand jury without Comey having had an opportunity to object.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Tens of thousands of people have thronged the streets of an Amazonian city hosting the COP30 talks, dancing to pounding speakers in the first large-scale protest at a United Nations climate summit in years.

As the first week of climate negotiations limped to a close with nations deadlocked, Indigenous people and activists sang, chanted, and rolled a giant beach ball of Earth through Belem under a searing sun.

Others held a mock funeral procession for fossil fuels, dressed in black and posing as grieving widows as they carried three coffins marked with the words “coal”, “oil” and “gas”.

It was the first major protest outside the annual climate talks since COP26 four years ago in Glasgow, as the last three gatherings had been held in locations with little tolerance for demonstrations – Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Azerbaijan.

Called the “Great People’s March” by the organisers, the Belem rally came at the halfway point of difficult negotiations and followed two Indigenous-led protests that disrupted proceedings earlier in the week.

“Today we are witnessing a massacre as our forest is being destroyed,” said Benedito Huni Kuin, a 50-year-old member of the Huni Kuin Indigenous group from western Brazil.

“We want to make our voices heard from the Amazon and demand results,” he added. “We need more Indigenous representatives at COP to defend our rights.”

Their demands include “reparations” for damages caused by corporations and governments, particularly to marginalised communities.

After a 4.5km (2.8-mile) march through the city, the demonstration halted a few blocks from the COP30 venue, where authorities deployed soldiers to protect the site.

Inside the venue, COP30 President Andre Correa do Lago admitted that the first exhaustive week of negotiations had failed to yield a breakthrough and urged diplomats not to run down the clock with time-wasting manoeuvres.

Countries remained at odds over trade measures and weak climate targets, while a showdown looms over demands that wealthy nations triple the finance they provide to poorer states to adapt to a warming world.

The Justice Department on Thursday sued to block new congressional district boundaries approved by California voters last week, joining a court battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026.

The complaint filed in California federal court targets the new congressional map pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas backed by President Trump. It sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political fight between the Republican administration and the Democratic governor, who is seen as a likely 2028 presidential contender.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in an emailed statement. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that changes the state’s congressional boundaries to give Democrats a shot at winning five seats currentlyheld by Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

The Justice Department is joining a case challenging the new map that was brought by the California Republican Party last week. The Trump administration accuses California of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Latino voters with the new map. It asks a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50 — the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit says.

Proposition 50 was Newsom’s response to Trump’s maneuvers in Texas, where Republicans rejiggered districts in hopes of picking up five seats of their own ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when House control will be on the line.

Democrats need to gain just a handful of seats next year to take control of the chamber, a win that would imperil Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term and open the way for congressional investigations into his administration. Republicans currently hold 219 seats, to Democrats’ 214.

The showdown between the nation’s two most populous states has spread nationally, with Missouri, Ohio and a spray of other states either adopting new district lines to gain partisan advantage or considering doing so.

The national implications of California’s ballot measure were clear in both the money it attracted and the high-profile figures who became involved. Tens of millions of dollars flowed into the race, including a $5-million donation to opponents from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super political action committee tied to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Former action movie star and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the measure, while former President Obama, a Democrat, appeared in ads supporting it, calling it a “smart” approach to counter Republican moves aimed at safeguarding House control.

The contest provided Newsom with a national platform when he has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028.

Richer and Blood write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Chicago.

Cape Town, South Africa – On an August evening in 1977, 30‑year‑old Steve Biko was on his way back from an aborted secret meeting with an anti-apartheid activist in Cape Town, taking the 12‑hour drive back home to King William’s Town. But it was a journey the resistance fighter would never finish, for he was arrested and, less than a month later, was dead.

Against the backdrop of increasingly harsh racist laws in South Africa, Biko, a bold and forthright youth leader, had emerged as one of the loudest voices calling for change and Black self-determination.

A famously charming and eloquent speaker, he was often touted as Nelson Mandela’s likely successor in the struggle for freedom after the core of the anti-apartheid leadership was jailed in the 1960s.

But his popularity also made him a prime target of the apartheid regime, which put him under banning orders that severely restricted his movement, political activities, and associations; imprisoned him for his political activism; and ultimately caused his death in detention – a case that continues to resonate decades later, largely because none of the perpetrators have ever been brought to justice.

On September 12 this year, 48 years after Biko died, South Africa’s Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi ordered a new inquest into his death. The hearing resumed at the Eastern Cape High Court on Wednesday before being postponed to January 30.

There are “two persons of interest” implicated in Biko’s death who are still alive, according to the country’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which aims to determine whether there is enough evidence that he was murdered, and therefore grounds to prosecute his killers.

While Biko’s family has welcomed the hearings, the long wait for justice has been frustrating, especially for his children.

“There is no such thing as joy in dealing with the case of murder,” Nkosinathi Biko, Biko’s eldest son, who was six at the time of his father’s death, told Al Jazeera. “Death is full and final, and no outcome will be restorative of the lost life.”

The Biko inquest is one of several probes into suspicious apartheid-era deaths that South Africa’s justice minister reopened this year. The inquiries are part of the government’s plan to address past atrocities and provide closure to families of the deceased, the NPA says.

But analysts note that the inquest comes amid growing public pressure on the government to bring about the justice it promised 30 years ago, as a new judicial inquiry is also probing allegations that South Africa’s democratic government intentionally blocked prosecutions of apartheid-era crimes.

Biko: ‘The spark that lit a fire’

Steve Biko was a medical student and national youth leader who, in the late 1960s, pioneered the philosophy of Black Consciousness, which encouraged Black people to reclaim their pride and unity by rejecting racial oppression and valuing their own identity and culture.

The philosophy inspired a generation of young activists to take up the struggle against apartheid, pushed forward by the belief that South Africa’s future lay in a socialist economy with a more equal distribution of wealth.

In his writings, Biko said he was inspired by the African independence struggles that emerged in the 1950s and suggested that South Africa had yet to offer its “great gift” to the world: “a more human face”.

By 1972, Biko’s student organisation had spawned a political wing to unify various Black Consciousness groups under one voice. A year later, he was officially banned by the government. Yet, he continued to covertly expand his philosophy and political organising among youth movements across the country.

In August 1977, despite the banning order still being in effect, Biko had travelled to Cape Town with a fellow activist to meet another anti-apartheid leader, though the meeting was aborted over safety concerns, and the duo left.

According to some reports, Biko heavily disguised himself for the road journey back east, but his attempts at going unnoticed were to no avail: When the car reached the outskirts of King William’s Town on August 18, police stopped them at a roadblock – and Biko was discovered.

The two were taken into custody separately, with Biko arrested under the Terrorism Act and first held at a local police station in Port Elizabeth before being transferred to a facility in the same city where members of the police’s “special branch” – notorious for enforcing apartheid through torture and extrajudicial killings – were based. For weeks in detention, he was stripped and manacled and, as was later discovered, tortured.

On September 12, the apartheid authorities announced that Biko had died in detention in Pretoria, some 1,200km (746 miles) away from where he was arrested and held. The minister of justice and police alleged he had died following a hunger strike, a claim immediately decried as false, as Biko had previously publicly stated that if that was ever cited as a cause of his death, it would be a lie.

Weeks later, an independent autopsy conducted at the request of the Biko family found he had died of severe brain damage due to injuries inflicted during his detention. Following these revelations, authorities launched an investigation. But the inquest cleared the police of any wrongdoing.

Saths Cooper, who was a student activist alongside Biko, remembers the moment he found out about his friend’s death. Cooper was in an isolation block on Robben Island – the prison that also held Mandela – where he spent more than five years with other political prisoners who had taken part in the 1976 student revolt.

“The news stilled us into silence,” the 75-year-old told Al Jazeera, recalling Biko’s provocatively “Socratic” style of engagement and echoing Mandela’s description of Biko as an inspiration. “Living, he was the spark that lit a veld fire across South Africa,” Mandela said in 2002. “His message to the youth and students was simple and clear: Black is Beautiful! Be proud of your Blackness! And with that, he inspired our youth to shed themselves of the sense of inferiority they were born into as a result of more than 300 years of white rule.”

After initial shock at the news of Biko’s death, “then the questions flowed of what had occurred,” Cooper recalled, “to which we had no answers.”

About 20,000 people, including Black and white anti-apartheid activists and Western diplomats, attended Biko’s funeral in King Williams Town on September 25. The day included a five-hour service, powerful speeches and freedom songs. Though police disrupted the service and arrested some mourners, it marked the first large political funeral in South Africa.

His death sparked international condemnation, including expression of “concern” from Pretoria’s allies, the US and the UK. It also led to a United Nations arms embargo against South Africa in November 1977.

Three years later, the British singer Peter Gabriel released a song in his honour, and in 1987, his life was depicted in the film Cry Freedom, in which Biko was played by Denzel Washington.

Nevertheless, Biko’s stature did nothing to hasten justice.

‘The unfinished business of the TRC’

Under the apartheid regime, any further investigation into Biko’s death was effectively put to rest for decades following the official 1977 inquest.

Then in 1996, two years after the end of apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up to investigate past rights violations, with apartheid-era perpetrators given the opportunity to disclose their crimes and apply for amnesty from prosecution.

Former security police officers Major Harold Snyman, Captain Daniel Siebert, Warrant Officer Ruben Marx, Warrant Officer Jacobus Beneke and Sergeant Gideon Nieuwoudt – the five men suspected of killing Biko – applied for amnesty.

At TRC hearings the following year, the men said that Biko had died days after what they called “a scuffle” with the police at the Sanlam Building in Port Elizabeth, while he was held in shackles and handcuffs. Up to that point, the commission heard, Biko had spent several days in a cell – naked, they claimed, in order to prevent him from taking his life.

In the decades since, it’s come to light that after being badly beaten at the Sanlam Building on September 6 and 7, Biko suffered a brain haemorrhage and was examined by apartheid government doctors, who said they found nothing wrong with him. Days later, on September 11, the police decided to transfer him to a prison hospital hours away in Pretoria. Still naked and shackled, Biko was put in the back of a van and moved. Although he was examined in Pretoria, it was too late, and Biko died on September 12 alone in his cell.

Despite admitting to beating Biko with a hose pipe and noticing his disoriented, slurred speech, the former officers claimed at the TRC that they had no indication of the severity of his injuries. Therefore, they saw nothing wrong with transporting him 1,200km away.

Eventually, the men were denied amnesty in 1999, partly for their lack of full disclosure of the events that caused Biko’s death. The suspected killers, some of whom have since died, were recommended for prosecution by the commission.

However, like most TRC cases, the prosecutions never materialised.

“The Biko case, along with others, must be viewed as the delayed activation of the unfinished business of the TRC – a matter that is a national imperative if we are to instigate a culture of accountability in South Africa,” Nkosinathi, now 54, said of the reopened inquest into his father’s death.

Though the scope of the Biko inquest has not been publicly stated, Gabriel Crouse, a political analyst and fellow with the South African Institute for Race Relations, worries that it will not examine new evidence, but that its goal will simply be to decisively determine whether Biko was murdered.

If this is the case, it would leave many questions unresolved, he says. For example, who pressured the initial forensic pathologist to declare a hunger strike as the cause of death; who ordered Biko’s killing; and what was the official chain of command?

‘The worms are among us’

Although the Biko inquest has renewed hope among his family that some of the perpetrators of his death will finally be brought to justice, analysts warn that the process may reveal uncomfortable truths about the nation’s past – including possible collusion between South Africa’s current government and the apartheid regime.

Nkosinathi now heads a foundation that promotes his father’s legacy. He points out that it is only pressure on the government that brought about this moment.

Months before the Biko inquest reopened, President Cyril Ramaphosa ordered the establishment of a commission of inquiry into whether previous governments led by his African National Congress (ANC) party intentionally suppressed investigations and prosecutions of apartheid-era crimes.

His move in April came after 25 survivors and relatives of victims of apartheid-era crimes launched a court case against his government in January, seeking damages.

The allegations of probes being blocked go back more than a decade. In 2015, former national prosecutions chief Vusi Pikoli caused a stir when he submitted an affidavit in a court case about the death of anti-apartheid fighter Nokuthula Simelane, in which he blamed the stalled cases on senior government officials interfering in the work of the NPA.

Former President Thabo Mbeki, who was head of state during Pikoli’s tenure, has denied that any such political interference took place. But the judicial inquiry, announced in April and now under way, lists former senior officials among those it considers interested parties.

The inquiry will look at why so few of the 300 cases that the TRC referred to the NPA for prosecution, including Biko’s, have been investigated in the last two decades.

“That it has become necessary to have to look into such an allegation tells much about how the huge sacrifice that was made for our democracy has been betrayed,” Nkosinathi told Al Jazeera.

Cooper believes the delayed prosecutions are a result of a compromise made by the apartheid regime and the ANC to conceal one another’s offences, including alleged cases of freedom fighters colluding with the white minority government.

“It’s justice clearly denied,” Cooper said, adding that he once questioned TRC commissioners about why they had concealed the names of rumoured apartheid-era collaborators who went on to work in the new democratic government. “The response was, ‘Broer, it’ll open a can of worms,’” Cooper told Al Jazeera.

“I see one of the commissioners died, the other is around, and when I see him, I say, ‘There’s no more can of worms, the worms are among us.’”

Like Cooper, political analyst Crouse also believes some kind of “backdoor deal” was struck following the transition from apartheid to democracy in 1994.

Many political actors failed to apply for amnesty, he says, despite prima facie evidence of their guilt. “And so it became very apparent that white Afrikaner supremacists and Black ANC liberationists, some from both camps, had gotten together and said, ‘Let’s both keep each other’s secrets and go forward into the new South Africa on that basis,’” he said.

Pikoli’s 2015 affidavit seems to echo such analysis. In his document, Pikoli recalls a meeting in 2006, where former ministers grilled him about the prosecution of suspects implicated in the attempted murder of Mbeki’s former chief of staff, Frank Chikane. Pikoli does not specify what the ministers objected to but says it became clear they did not want the suspects prosecuted “due to their fear of opening the door to prosecutions of ANC members, including government officials.”

A plea bargain was struck with the suspects while Pikoli was on leave in July 2007, as part of which the suspects refused to reveal the masterminds behind the compilation of a hit-list targeting activists. Pikoli believes a court trial would have forced them to disclose more details.

‘A stress test’ for democratic South Africa

Mariam Jooma Carikci, an independent researcher who has written extensively about the failure of justice in the democratic era, believes the official inquiry into the hundreds of unprosecuted TRC cases, including Biko’s, is “a stress test” of democratic South Africa’s honesty.

“For three decades we treated reconciliation as an end in itself – truth commissions instead of prosecutions, memorials instead of justice,” she said.

She sees Biko’s ideas continuing to flourish in today’s student movements, for example, in the #FeesMustFall campaign that called for free university tuition and the decolonisation of education in 2015.

“You see his echo in decolonisation debates and student movements, but the truest honour is policy – land, work, education, healthcare – designed around human worth, not investor or political comfort,” Jooma Carikci said.

While the country waits to hear the outcomes of the Biko inquest and the wider TRC inquiry, Nkosinathi Biko remains haunted by constant reminders of his father.

His younger brother Samora, who recently turned 50, looks exactly like Biko, he says, but being only two at the time of his death, “he was unfortunate not to have had memories of his father because of what happened.”

Meanwhile, for the country in general, Nkosinathi sees connections between Biko’s death and the 2012 Marikana massacre, during which police shot and killed 34 striking miners – the highest death toll from police aggression in democratic South Africa.

In his mind, the image of police opening fire on unarmed protesting workers echoes the country’s dark history – a sign that the state brutality that ended his father’s life has spilled over into democratic South Africa.

Justice Minister German Galushchenko allegedly took part in the scheme involving state nuclear power firm Energoatom.

Ukraine has suspended Justice Minister German Galushchenko for his alleged involvement in a corruption scandal involving the state-run nuclear power company, Energoatom, during his tenure as the country’s energy minister.

Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko announced on Wednesday that Galushchenko had been suspended from his duties, which will be carried out by Deputy Justice Minister for European Integration Lyudmyla Sugak.

Galushchenko, who served as energy minister for four years before taking over the justice portfolio in July, is accused of profiting from a scheme that laundered money from Energoatom.

Ukraine’s Pravda news outlet reported that anticorruption authorities raided Galushchenko’s offices on Monday.

‘I will defend myself in court’

In a statement, Galushchenko said he had spoken with the prime minister and agreed his suspension is appropriate while he defends his case.

“A political decision must be made, and only then can all the details be sorted out,” said Galushchenko. “I believe that suspension for the duration of the investigation is a civilised and correct scenario. I will defend myself in court and prove my position.”

According to Ukraine’s Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), the alleged $100m scheme was orchestrated by businessman Timur Mindich, a close ally of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

SAPO’s investigators say Galushchenko helped Mindich manage illicit financial flows in the energy sector, while contractors working with Energoatom were forced to pay bribes of 10 to 15 percent to avoid losing contracts or facing payment delays.

Accusations of kickbacks in the energy sector are particularly sensitive in Ukraine, much of which is facing lengthy daily blackouts as it fends off massive Russian attacks on its infrastructure.

The scandal also highlights a potential challenge to Ukraine’s European Union membership bid, for which eradicating corruption remains a key condition.

Addressing the country on Monday, Zelenskyy urged full cooperation with the anticorruption inquiry and said anyone implicated should be held to account.

Zelenskyy’s comments come just months after he was forced to reverse plans to curb the independence of the country’s key anticorruption watchdogs – SAPO and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine – following widespread protests.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Tuesday that it would investigate security at two liberal California bastions — the campus of UC Berkeley and the city of Berkeley — after multiple people were taken into custody following clashes as protesters tried to shut down a Turning Point USA event.

“I see several issues of serious concern regarding campus and local security and Antifa’s ability to operate with impunity in CA,” Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, posted on X.

Conflict erupted when a large group of anti-fascist protesters showed up Monday afternoon to voice opposition to the conservative group’s event at UC Berkeley’s Zellerbach Hall, which sits on the campus’ famed Sproul Plaza, ground zero of the historic 1960s campus free speech movement.

The event was Turning Point USA’s first in California since Charlie Kirk, the group’s founder, was shot and killed at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. It was also the final stop on the group’s “American Comeback Tour.”

As Kirk’s killing has intensified concerns about how colleges balance free speech and safety in an era of rising political intolerance and violence, Turning Point seized on the Berkeley protests to present the college as a case study of illiberal, leftist extremism.

“UC Berkeley currently looks like a war zone,” Frontlines TPUSA, a video journalism offshoot of Turning Point USA, posted on X Monday evening as it shared footage of a protester lighting a flare outside the event.

It then posted a stream of videos of protesters jostling metal barricades, a woman hurriedly herding two young women past a screaming crowd, and a protester pointing to his neck — a reference to the part of Kirk’s body that was shot — as he held a sign that said “Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences.”

Dan Mogulof, a spokesperson for UC Berkeley, initially downplayed the conflict that occurred as about 150 protesters gathered outside the event on the edge of campus.

About 900 people attended the Turning Point event, Mogulof said, and four people were arrested. The Berkeley Police Department arrested two people who fought with each other off campus, he said, and an additional two arrests were made on campus by university police.

“At this point, we’re aware of a single incident of violence between two individuals who fought with each other,” Mogulof said Tuesday morning. “And that was the arrest made by the city that happened, not on the campus, but on the streets.”

According to Mogulof, university police arrested a 48-year-old with no affiliation to the school and booked him into the Santa Rita jail for willfully resisting, delaying or obstructing a public officer or peace officer and interfering with peaceful activities on campus. A 22-year-old current or former student was also cited for willfully resisting, delaying or obstructing a public officer or peace officer and refusing to leave private property.

“Nearly 1,000 people went to the event,” Mogulof said. “It occurred without disruption. We don’t have a single reported incident of any member of the audience being injured or prevented from attending.”

But later Tuesday, Mogulof updated his account and said an injury had taken place: a 45-year-old man who arrived at Berkeley to attend the Turning Point event reported being struck in the head with a glass bottle or jar.

“The victim suffered a laceration to his head and was transported to Highland Hospital for further treatment,” Mogulof said.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Dhillon, an attorney who ran a San Francisco law practice focused on free speech before she was appointed by President Trump, has long complained of UC Berkeley’s liberal bias.

In 2017, Dhillon filed a lawsuit against the university on behalf of two conservative groups — Berkeley College Republicans and Young America’s Foundation — after the college placed restrictions on hosting conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos on campus, citing security concerns.

“We saw all of this at Berkeley back in 2017,” Dhillon said on X. “@UCBerkeley was sued, and settled the case.”

Frontlines TPUSA depicted Monday’s nights protests as chaotic and out of control.

“An ANTIFA member just lit off a flare resulting in TPUSA event attendees being rushed inside,” the group posted on X. “A car then comes and starts backfiring visibly scaring multiple attendees who feared they were hearing gunshots.”

On Tuesday, Dhillon took to social media to warn the university and the city of Berkeley that they should expect correspondence from the Justice Department.

“In America, we do not allow citizens to be attacked by violent thugs and shrug and turn our backs,” Dhillon posted on X. “Been there, done that, not on our watch.”

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi also weighed in, saying that the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force is investigating Monday night’s “violent riots.”

“Antifa is an existential threat to our nation,” Bondi said. “We will continue to spare no expense unmasking all who commit and orchestrate acts of political violence.”

Since Trump issued a September executive order designating Antifa a domestic terrorist organization, Bondi said, her agency has been working with law-enforcement partners to dismantle “violent networks that seek to intimidate Americans and suppress their free expression and 1st Amendment rights.”

Mogulof said the university would cooperate with any investigation but had yet to receive any communication from the Justice Department. He disputed Dhillon’s suggestion that the event was out of control.

“Was there a protest?” Mogulof added. “Yes, there was a protest. Were there isolated incidents of people misbehaving during the protest? Yes, there were. Did our police force react? Yes, it did.”

In the run up to the event, the anti-fascist group By Any Means Necessary handed out flyers dubbing Turning Point USA a “White Nationalist, Neofascist organization.”

“They have fooled people into thinking that what Charlie Kirk stood for was freedom of speech and open debate,” Haku Jeffrey, BAMN national organizer, said in a videotaped speech on Sproul Plaza ahead of the event. “But all Charlie Kirk and Turning Point stood for is organizing racist, bigoted violence to intimidate and bully us into silence. And we refuse to be silenced.”

As dusk fell Monday, Frontlines TPUSA posted footage of tense scenes on the edge of Berkeley’s campus.

In one video, a crowd banging pots and chanting “Fascists out of Berkeley” faced off with a line of police officers in helmets and wearing batons. A masked protester at the front of the crowd repeatedly veered toward the police line as he held up a placard.

Suddenly, the officers pulled the protester behind the police line. The crowd roared as they dragged the protester away.

Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for Turning Point USA, emphasized that a large group of conservatives defied the protesters to gather inside the Berkeley auditorium.

“Despite Antifa thugs blocking our campus tour stop with tear gas, fireworks, and glass bottles, we had a PACKED HOUSE in the heart of deep blue UC Berkeley,” Kolvet said. He shared a video on X of a crowd standing up, holding placards of Charlie Kirk’s face and chanting “Charlie Kirk! Charlie Kirk!”

Asked about reports of incendiary devices and the video showing protesters lighting flares outside the event, Mogulof said “the flames were not there for a long time.”

“The crowd was controlled, and the event happened without disruption,” Mogulof said.

Yet later Tuesday, Mogulof said that UC Berkeley would conduct a full investigation into the incident and work with the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force to identify “outside agitators” who tried to disrupt the event.

“There is no place at UC Berkeley for attempts to use violence or intimidation to prevent lawful expression or chill free speech,” Mogulof said in a statement.

Ultimately, Mogulof stressed, efforts to shut down Turning Point on campus did not succeed.

“The University remains steadfast,” he said, “in its commitment to uphold open dialogue, respect, and the rule of law.”