Skip to comments.Three Kenyan men charged with Uganda bomb attacks
Posted on 08/01/2010 5:46:44 AM PDT by csvset
Three Kenyans have been charged with the murders of 76 people killed when bombs exploded as they watched the World Cup on TV in Kampala, Uganda.
Hussein Hassan Agad, 27, Mohamed Adan Abdow, 25, and Idris Magondu, 42, were also charged with terrorism and 10 counts of attempted murder.
They have yet to enter pleas and will remain in custody until their next court appearance on 27 August.
Al-Shabab, a Somali Islamist group, said it carried out the attacks.
Ugandan peacekeepers are in Somalia, helping the weak, UN-backed government against al-Shabab, which has links to al-Qaeda.
The African Union this week pledged to boost its peacekeeping force in Somalia by 4,000 troops, after a summit meeting in Kampala, which was overshadowed by the attack.
Only Uganda and Burundi have so far sent troops to the Somali capital, Mogadishu and al-Shabab had threatened to attack both countries.
The explosions on 11 July, which also injured about 70 people, ripped through a rugby club and an Ethiopian restaurant as football fans watched the last few minutes of the World Cup final.
An injured woman in hospital after Kampala bombing The blasts went off as people were watching the World Cup final, killing 76 and injuring 70.
The three men, all residents of Kenya, appeared on Friday in a Kampala magistrates court.
The charge sheet identified Hussein Hassan Agad as "a preacher of Islam", while Idris Magondu was identified as an employee of a trading company in Nairobi, Kenya.
The men were charged with 89 offences. They face 61 counts of murder for those killed at the Kyadondo Rugby Club and 15 counts for those killed at the restaurant.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Is Bill Ayers back in the consulting business?
Training a new batch of Kenyans.
obama’s first, second and third cousins.
They look like the next new Rap group!
His revolutionary Communist/Socialist, and fanatical Muslim mentors must be proud.
Q+A Contentious issues in Kenyas referendum
WHY ARE CHRISTIANS AGAINST KADHI COURTS?
Opposition to the Muslim kadhi courts has brought together Christian clergy and some politicians to oppose the proposed constitution.
The kadhi courts deal with matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance among Muslims.
The referendum has heightened differences between Kenyas Muslims and its Christian churches, which have criticised the draft constitution for including the kadhi courts, saying it would give power to religious courts in a secular nation.
The religious tensions coincide with security concerns in the region with authorities on high alert against Muslim insurgents in neighbouring Somalia.
Al Shabaab, a Somali rebel group which professes loyalty to al Qaeda, claimed responsibility for two bomb attacks in Uganda which increased concerns about Shabaabs ability to carry out more attacks in the region and beyond.
Kenyas constitution has provided for kadhi courts since 1963, with the courts serving the mainly coastal Muslim population, but the east African countrys secular High Court has jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters.
A kadhi court verdict can be appealed at the High Court.
The constitution proposes to widen the sphere of the kadhi courts beyond Coast Province, meaning their jurisdiction would expand across the nation and their scope would increase.
Kenyas population of about 40 million is about 45 percent Protestant, 33 percent Roman Catholic and 10 percent Muslim, the rest following indigenous faiths or other beliefs.
kadhi courts = sharia courts
Ten Reasons to Vote NO
7. THE DRAFT DOES NOT MAKE KENYANS EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW
If the draft is passed as it is, then there will be two classes of people in Kenya: Kenyans and Muslims.
This is because Muslims are exempted from the Bill of Rights by Article 24 (4).
All Kenyans should be equal before the law.
8. THE DRAFT ENTRENCHES KADHIS COURTS EVEN THOUGH THE HIGH COURT SAID THEY ARE UN-CONSTITUTIONAL
The landmark ruling by the High Court on 24th May 2010 said that inclusion of Kadhis Courts in the Constitution is discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional!
In disregard of this ruling, the draft in Articles 169 and 170 entrenches them.
The Kadhis Courts are an internal dispute resolution mechanism for Muslims, and therefore they should not be in the constitution.
The High Court also said that the government should not use tax payers money to maintain the Kadhis Courts or pay their salaries.
If the Kadhis Courts are not constitutional in the current constitution, why should they be put in the new constitution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.