politician

Police spokesperson Randulf Tuano says one person has been arrested after gunshots rang out in Senate.

⁠The ⁠Philippine Senate President says that a politician wanted by the International Court (ICC) was no longer in the Senate building where he had ⁠been taking refuge, fearing his arrest.

Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, the former national police chief and top enforcer of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody “war on drugs”, has ⁠been under Senate protection and is wanted for crimes against humanity, the same charges Duterte is accused of.

“The ⁠sergeant-at-arms has confirmed that he ⁠is no ⁠longer in the ⁠building,” Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano told reporters on Thursday.

The announcement comes a day after gunfire rang out at the Senate, where dela Rosa had been holed up. Confusion and chaos filled the legislature as people inside scrambled for cover on Wednesday, hours after dela Rosa, had appealed to his supporters on social media to mobilise and said law enforcement agents were planning on arresting him.

The incident caused chaos, with a heavy police presence and armed guards at the Senate. Protests were also held outside, and more than a dozen shots were fired after the Marines were called in to help the situation.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr held an emergency meeting with government and security chiefs on Thursday, as police spokesperson Randulf Tuano told DZBB radio that one person had been arrested following the shooting and investigations were under way.

“The person has provided names, but these still need confirmation,” Tuano told the radio station.

Dela Rosa has denied involvement in the illegal killings, but on Monday, the ICC unsealed an arrest warrant for him.

Duterte is also accused of crimes against humanity and has been held in ICC custody in The Hague since March 2025. The ICC estimates that between 12,000 and 30,000 people were killed from 2016 to 2019 in the former president’s “war on drugs”.

Reporting from Manila, Al Jazeera’s Jamela Alindogan said two independent, credible sources confirmed that dela Rosa had fled the building.

“He was able to escape at around 2 or 3 this morning,” she said.

Lawyer Jimmy Bondoc, who represents dela Rosa, also told reporters that he spoke to the lawmaker late at night and believed he was inside the Senate after the incident.

“As his lawyer, I asked him if you have plans to leave, he said none,” Bondoc told reporters.

In an interview that aired on DZBB radio on Thursday morning, dela Rosa said he would “exhaust all available remedies” to block his transfer to the ICC, and after learning about the conditions Duterte was being held under, he was no longer willing to fight his case at The Hague.

It remains unclear when the interview was initially conducted.

Banksy has unveiled a new sculpture of a man stepping off a stone base with his face obscured by a flag. The overnight installation in Waterloo Place, London, was revealed in a video shared by the artist, and has drawn fans of his politically charged works.

The implosion of Eric Swalwell’s gubernatorial campaign and his once-promising political career has left a great many questions rising from the smoldering wreckage.

Questions about his character, judgment and staggering recklessness.

The question — as misguided as it is inevitable — of why his accusers hadn’t come forward sooner. (My columnizing colleague, Anita Chabria, incisively addressed that one, discussing the nature of suppressed trauma and the believability hurdle that many victims of sexual assault unduly face.)

Then there’s the question of how and why Swalwell’s creepy and allegedly criminal behavior stayed hidden from public view for so long — especially when the impossible-to-miss fixture of cable TV embarked on a high-profile campaign to lead the nation’s most-populous state.

Swalwell, 45 and married, had a widely whispered about reputation for showering inappropriate and unwelcome attention on younger women. Rumors — vague, unsubstantiated — were a source of incessant dirt-dishing among political insiders and also circulated extensively online. (Not, however, the more serious allegations of sexual assault.)

The veil was finally pierced last week when the San Francisco Chronicle published a graphic account of a woman alleging sexual encounters with Swalwell while the Democratic lawmaker was her boss. She said he sexually assaulted her twice when she was too intoxicated to consent.

A few hours later, CNN followed up with a report that three other women had recounted various kinds of sexual misconduct. On Tuesday, yet another alleged victim came forth, saying she was drugged and raped by Swalwell in 2018.

The former congressman has flatly and vigorously denied criminal wrongdoing while acknowledging and apologizing for unspecific “mistakes.”

Those vociferous, flat-out denials had been enough to sway the politicians and union leaders who endorsed Swalwell’s gubernatorial bid, until the weight of evidence made Swalwell’s assertions untenable.

If the allegations are true and Swalwell is, in fact, a liar, lecher and sexual assailant, why wasn’t that widely reported up until now? Was it negligence, or gullibility on the part of the political press corps? The short answer is that a wide gulf exists between rumor and fact and Swalwell lurked in that gray space, living and thriving in the shadows between provability and denial.

It’s not unusual for rumors about financial, sexual or other peccadilloes to attend a campaign. They’re often trafficked by political rivals, which automatically raises suspicion and invites particular skepticism.

Much of the chatter never moves past a relatively small, dishy circle of political gossips because the supposed misdeeds, while titillating, can’t stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Or a legal challenge. That’s the baseline for many news outlets to broadcast or publish a story. Call them what you will — legacy, corporate, mainstream, lamestream — many of the largest, most influential sources of news and information won’t pass along allegations they can’t independently verify and, if necessary, defend in court.

The challenge is verifying all that loose talk.

Politicians don’t wear body cams, or broadcast their lives 24/7. (OK, Beto O’Rourke did livestream from a Texas laundromat during his 2018 Senate bid, holding up a soggy pair of underwear when he addressed the “boxers or briefs” question. But he’s an exception.)

Journalists don’t have subpoena power and can’t force people to tell them what they know. A reporter is only as good as his or her sources, their knowledge, truthfulness and credibility.

Reporting on misdeeds of an intimate nature can be especially difficult and complex. There’s rarely black-and-white documentation, such as a money trail leading to a hotel bedroom. It’s hard to find an eyewitness or reliable third party who can vouch for what took place between people behind closed doors. It takes time and trust to develop sources who can substantiate incidents of sexual misconduct, assault or abuse.

Swalwell apparently did an excellent job deceiving those around him, including some congressional and campaign staffers who’d known him for years and worked closely with the seven-term lawmaker, day in, day out. They were shocked by the statements of his alleged victims; the words “double life” have come up many times.

If Swalwell managed to hoodwink those closest to him, it’s easy to see why journalists had a hard time wrangling the firsthand accounts and other facts they needed to make their findings public.

When it comes to reporting on scandal, there is often the question of timing.

In 2003, The Times was widely criticized for publishing an account of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s misconduct — touching women in a sexual manner without their consent — just days before California’s gubernatorial recall election. Despite the report, which Schwarzenegger did not contest, voters kicked Gray Davis out and replaced him with the Hollywood super-duper star.

In 1992, the Washington Post and Portland Oregonian were widely criticized for their failure to publish accounts of Sen. Bob Packwood’s misconduct — unwanted sexual advances and touching women without their consent — until weeks after he was elected to his fifth term. Packwood resigned in 1995 after the Senate Ethics Commission voted unanimously to expel him.

The allegations against Swalwell were revealed well before the June 2 primary. Not soon enough for those asking how he managed to get away for so long with his predatory behavior. But plenty of time to inform California voters before they weighed in on his candidacy.

Public attention will soon shift. But for Swalwell, the legal and other ramifications are just beginning.

Magistrate hands the opposition figure five-year term, that his lawyers say will be appealed.

South African opposition politician Julius Malema has been sentenced to prison time for firing a rifle in ⁠the air at a party rally.

Malema, the leader of the far-left opposition Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), was handed a five-year sentence on Thursday by Magistrate Twanet Olivier.

Malema, who is one of South Africa’s most prominent politicians, was convicted last year of charges, including unlawful possession of a ⁠firearm and discharging a weapon in a public place over the 2018 incident at a stadium in the Eastern Cape province.

The 45-year-old leader of the fourth-biggest party in parliament had pleaded not guilty, arguing the gun was a toy.

“It wasn’t … an impulsive act,” the magistrate said. “It was the event of the evening.”

Malema’s defence said the shots were only intended to be celebratory.

His lawyers applied for leave to appeal the magistrate’s decision within ⁠minutes of it being ⁠read out in a court in KuGompo City, formerly East London, on Thursday.

Outside the court, hundreds of Malema’s red-clad EFF supporters gathered for the sentencing in the politically charged case.

The EFF – a small but vocal party – says the case is an attempt to silence its outspoken leader, who is known for fiery speeches.

Party supporters have threatened protests should their leader be jailed.

The magistrate stressed it “is not a political party who has been convicted here … it is a person, an individual.”

The maximum time was a 15-year prison sentence. If confirmed after all appeals, the five-year sentence would bar Malema from serving as a lawmaker.

That would be a major setback to the EFF, which has strong support among young South Africans frustrated by the racial inequality that has persisted since the end of white minority rule in 1994.