News Trending

Polish security finds cabinet meeting room bugged

By 65 0

Special services in Poland uncovered and removed listening devices in a room where cabinet ministers were scheduled to convene. The regular cabinet meeting, typically held in Warsaw, was relocated to Katowice due to the attendance of several ministers, including Prime Minister Donald Tusk, at an economic conference there.

The increased spying activity in Poland is attributed to its role as a hub for military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion in 2022. The State Protection Service, in collaboration with the Internal Security Agency, detected and dismantled the eavesdropping devices during a routine security sweep of the room. The Internal Security Agency is currently investigating the matter further.

Despite the discovery, the cabinet meeting proceeded as planned in the building. A spokesperson for the Silesia regional authorities suggested that the device may have been part of the room’s old communication system.

In a separate development, a Polish judge sought asylum in Belarus, citing concerns over Poland’s policies towards Belarus and Russia. The judge’s actions have raised suspicions of espionage, particularly as he was due to preside over cases involving security clearance for NATO-related information.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski condemned the judge’s actions, referring to him as a traitor. Prime Minister Tusk has called for a meeting of the Secret Services College to discuss potential Russian and Belarusian influence in Polish politics. He emphasized concerns about the judge’s long-standing relationship with Belarusian authorities and its implications for national security.

This incident comes after the previous year’s arrest of several members of an alleged Russian spy network in Poland, accused of planning sabotage near the Ukrainian border.

Picture Courtesy: Google/images are subject to copyright

News Trending

EU approves major overhaul of migration rules

By 88 0

After years of negotiations, the European Parliament has approved a significant reform aimed at tightening the EU’s migration and asylum regulations. The EU Asylum and Migration Pact, which has been in development since 2015, is set to become effective in two years’ time. Its objectives include expediting the asylum process, enhancing the repatriation of irregular migrants to their home countries, and establishing a system of shared responsibility among EU member states for asylum seekers.

Last year, there was a notable increase in illegal border crossings within the EU, prompting the need for such reforms. The pact, though met with some opposition from certain member states, is expected to gain full approval by the end of April through majority voting.

Under the proposed rules, EU countries will be obligated to either accept a quota of migrants from frontline countries like Italy, Greece, and Spain, or provide additional financial aid or resources. Additionally, the pact emphasizes swift processing of asylum claims, particularly those deemed to have low chances of approval, and aims to reach decisions within a maximum of 12 weeks. Forcible returns of rejected asylum seekers to their home countries would also need to occur within the same timeframe.

The pact introduces stricter pre-entry screening procedures within seven days of arrival, including biometric data collection for migrants aged six and above. It also establishes mechanisms to address sudden influxes of migrants.

The pact received support from the two main political groups in the European Parliament, although it faced opposition from some left-wing and far-right factions, as well as NGOs. Critics argue that the agreement may lead to increased suffering for asylum seekers, particularly those with low chances of acceptance, who might undergo processing on border islands or in detention facilities with limited access to fair procedures.

Despite its imperfections, many MEPs saw the pact as a workable compromise, acknowledging its significance in addressing the challenges of migration within the EU. However, concerns remain regarding the potential consequences of expedited processes and increased detention.

Picture Courtesy: Google/images are subject to copyright

News Trending

Ousman Sonko: Gambian ex-minister goes on trial in Switzerland for murder

By 127 0


A former interior minister from The Gambia, Ousman Sonko, is facing trial in Switzerland on charges of crimes against humanity. Sonko fled to Switzerland in 2016, just before the fall of Gambian President Yahya Jammeh’s repressive regime. He is accused of involvement in killings, rape, and torture, with evidence presented by NGOs leading to his arrest. Sonko’s defense argues that he was not responsible, claiming the National Intelligence Agency was behind the alleged crimes and was not under his authority.

Switzerland is utilizing universal jurisdiction to prosecute the case, allowing countries to try individuals for crimes committed elsewhere. Sonko is the highest-ranking government official in Europe to be prosecuted under this principle. The trial is seen as a potential warning to repressive governments, emphasizing that they can be held accountable even outside their borders. The extensive charges against Sonko include ordering killings, torture, and rape against political opponents, potentially constituting crimes against humanity under Swiss law.

Swiss investigators gathered evidence in The Gambia, interviewing numerous victims and witnesses. The trial marks only the second instance of Switzerland using universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity. Human rights groups believe it serves as a precedent for accountability. Sonko, who was a key figure in Jammeh’s regime, fled to Switzerland and claimed asylum, leading to his arrest after Trial International provided details of his alleged abuses. The trial is expected to last a month, with a verdict scheduled for March. Other countries are also pursuing cases against members of Jammeh’s regime, contributing to efforts for accountability in the face of widespread abuses during his rule.

Picture Courtesy: Google/images are subject to copyright

News Trending

Legal Challenge by Expelled Migrants in Europe Against EU’s Frontex Ends in Defeat

By 172 0

The European Union’s highest court has rejected a case against the European border agency Frontex, which was brought by a Syrian refugee family forcibly sent from Greece to Turkey in 2016. The family’s lawyers argued that Frontex should be held responsible for the deportation of refugees without the opportunity to apply for asylum, which is considered illegal under international law.

However, the European Court of Justice dismissed their challenge, stating that Frontex lacks the authority to assess the merits of return decisions or asylum applications, and therefore cannot be held liable for any harm caused.

The Syrian family, consisting of a husband, wife, and four young children, arrived in Greece in 2016 as part of the European migrant crisis. They registered their intention to seek international protection on the Greek island of Leros but were subsequently transported to the island of Kos. After just eleven days in Greece, the family alleges that they were flown to Turkey by Frontex and Greek authorities without being given the opportunity to apply for asylum or receiving an expulsion decision. The family claimed that they were misled into believing they were being taken to Athens when they boarded the plane. During the flight, the parents were reportedly separated from their children, who were between one and six years old at the time, and they were not allowed to communicate with anyone during the journey.

The family was released in Turkey but lacked access to housing, water, or sanitation. They later fled to northern Iraq. In 2021, they brought their case to the European Court of Justice, supported by human rights lawyers and the Dutch Council for Refugees.

Following the court’s ruling, the family expressed their disappointment, emphasizing that Frontex should be held accountable for their unjust treatment. Their lawyers indicated that they intended to appeal the decision.

Legal experts argued that individuals should not be deported to another country without a proper assessment of their need for asylum, which they claim did not occur in this case.

The Dutch Council for Refugees and the law firm representing the family stated that the ruling raised questions about how Frontex should ensure respect for fundamental rights in its activities, as mandated by its role.

Frontex responded by requiring EU member states to confirm that individuals were given the opportunity to seek international protection and that their applications were processed in accordance with EU laws.

The European Parliament had previously noted that human rights organizations, media, and civil society groups regularly reported cases of pushbacks or collective expulsions at the EU’s borders, often involving excessive force by EU member state authorities. Frontex had faced accusations of failing to protect individuals in these situations.

Picture Courtesy: Google/images are subject to copyright