Bob Njagi and Nicholas Oyoo released after 30+ days in Uganda amid rising political tensions ahead of 2026 election

Kenyan human-rights activists Bob Njagi and Nicholas Oyoo returned to Kenya on Nov. 8–9 after being held in Uganda for over a month. They were arrested on Oct. 1, 2025, after attending a rally by opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi (Bobi Wine). As a result of diplomatic negotiations led by Musalia Mudavadi, the Kenyan government secured their release.

Meanwhile, Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni confirmed the arrests. He accused the activists of working with opposition forces to destabilise the government ahead of the January 2026 elections. “They came, they were working with Kyagulanyi’s group, and they are experts in riots,” he said.

Detention and Diplomatic Response

Authorities arrested Njagi and Oyoo in Kira Municipality, Wakiso District. Consequently, their phones went offline immediately, raising concern among Kenyan civil-society groups. Therefore, families and rights organizations demanded urgent clarification from Kampala authorities.

Kenya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described their release as the result of “open and constructive communication” with Ugandan officials. Dr Korir Sing’oei, Kenya’s Principal Secretary for Foreign Affairs, stated, “Bob Njagi and Nicholas Oyoo are free and on Kenyan territory.”

Upon arrival in Nairobi, the activists described harsh detention conditions. Njagi said, “We were in military detention by special forces. I didn’t eat for 14 days. We were tortured.” Oyoo added that the facility had poor sanitation and limited access to medical care.

Global Significance

• Cross-border political repression: The arrests show risks for foreign nationals in Uganda. They also raise broader concerns about civil liberties in East Africa.
• Election environment: With the 2026 election approaching, these events demonstrate how opposition and civil society spaces are shrinking. Furthermore, this signals a tightening political climate.
• Diplomatic stakes: The case tested Kenya-Uganda relations. In addition, donor countries and international organizations monitored the situation closely.

Analysis: Security vs. Civil Liberties

President Museveni framed the detention as a national-security measure. However, analysts argue that this blurs the line between peaceful activism and criminal activity.

Civil-society groups maintain that Njagi and Oyoo engaged in legitimate civic observation. Moreover, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) reported that military and civilian personnel forcibly took them, raising questions about accountability.

Risks and Regional Implications

The detention carries broader regional implications. Armed personnel reportedly arrested the activists in public, intimidating others. Meanwhile, Kenya’s intervention shows that diplomacy can protect citizens abroad. Observers also note that this incident may warn opposition-linked individuals ahead of Uganda’s 2026 polls.

Looking Ahead

Uganda and Kenya now face scrutiny over transparency and human rights. Consequently, observers demand clarity on the legal basis for the detention. Therefore, international actors will monitor how Uganda manages dissent, especially among foreign nationals. This incident highlights the urgent need for regional protocols to protect activists.

Conclusion

The release of Bob Njagi and Nicholas Oyoo underscores the delicate balance between national security, political control, and civil liberties. Their detention attracted regional and international attention, raising pressing questions about governance, election fairness, and cross-border human rights protections. As Uganda approaches a pivotal election year, the world is watching.

Rwanda sanctions 25 exiled critics, sparking global concern over misuse of anti-terror laws and transnational repression.

Rwanda Sanctions 25 Exiled Dissidents Amid Regional Tensions

Rwanda,which uses sports to re-brand its global image,,has escalated its crackdown on exiled critics, sanctioning 25 individuals accused of terrorism and financing armed groups. While Kigali frames the action as a national security measure, observers argue that it targets political opponents and could increase regional instability.

The Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) announced the sanctions on October 14, affecting former military officers, opposition figures, journalists, and diaspora activists across Africa, Europe, and North America. Notable figures include Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa, exiled in South Africa; Maj. Theogene Rudasingwa, residing in the United States; and Ignace Rusagara, spokesperson for the Rwanda National Congress (RNC). In addition, Robert Higiro, Frank Ntwali, and FDLR commanders Pacifique Ntawunguka and Sylvestre Sebahinzi were listed for alleged links to rebel activities in eastern Congo.

According to the FIC, these individuals fund, coordinate, or engage in actions against Rwanda. As a result, the sanctions include travel restrictions, asset freezes, and enhanced monitoring of financial transactions.

Regional Reactions

Across the region, the sanctions prompted concern. Kinshasa condemned Rwanda’s actions as “hostile overreach” that could destabilize peace efforts in eastern Congo, where the FDLR operates. Furthermore, a senior DRC official warned that extraterritorial measures could undermine the Luanda peace framework.

Meanwhile, the Kenyan government urged restraint, emphasizing dialogue over confrontation. “Kenya continues to advocate for peaceful coexistence and protection of human rights across the Great Lakes region,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on its official website. Consequently, Nairobi, which has hosted multiple peace talks between the DRC and Rwanda, faces increased pressure to mediate effectively.

Opposition Figures Speak Out

Exiled Rwandan politicians described the sanctions as politically motivated. The RNC rejected the measures as “legally baseless and a tool for intimidation.” In addition, Rusagara explained that the FIC has been weaponized to criminalize dissent abroad.

Dr. Rudasingwa, a former Kagame insider, reinforced the criticism. In a letter to U.S. authorities, he asserted: “I have never engaged in terrorism. This is repression disguised as counterterrorism.” Moreover, human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, warned that labeling critics as terrorists without judicial review sets a dangerous precedent.

Timing and Regional Strategy

The sanctions coincide with Rwanda’s efforts to leverage the Washington peace framework with the DRC. Kigali has conditioned troop withdrawals from eastern Congo on the neutralization of FDLR forces. Consequently, analysts argue that the government is using the anti-FDLR narrative to justify silencing opposition abroad.

A Brussels-based observer noted, “By portraying dissidents as security threats, Rwanda consolidates diplomatic gains while controlling critics overseas.” Furthermore, the timing aligns with U.S. diplomatic priorities in the region, signaling a calculated approach.

Implications for Exiles and International Partners

Several sanctioned individuals hold citizenship or residency in the U.S., Canada, Belgium, and France. Public disclosure of their addresses and phone numbers raises security concerns. As a result, human rights groups warn that sanctions could justify asset freezes, travel restrictions, or extradition requests in countries cooperating with Rwanda on counterterrorism.

Financial experts highlight that the sanctions exert pressure without formal arrests. “It is financial suffocation. Banks hesitate to process transactions, NGOs reconsider partnerships, and political organizing becomes riskier,” explained a Geneva-based diplomat. In addition, the restrictions serve as a warning to other opposition figures abroad.

Historical and Regional Context

Tensions between Rwanda and the DRC have roots in the 1994 genocide and subsequent conflicts. Kigali has faced repeated accusations of backing rebel groups, including M23, to safeguard strategic interests. By extending control into exile, the government increases mistrust between neighbors and risks undermining fragile peace initiatives.

Looking Ahead

The FIC sanctions indicate that Rwanda considers political dissent abroad a national security threat. For exiles, distance no longer guarantees safety. Meanwhile, the international community faces a delicate choice: balancing regional peace with human rights obligations. Analysts caution that suppressing dissent under the guise of counterterrorism risks eroding democracy while leaving regional stability fragile.

A regional expert concluded, “You cannot build lasting peace by criminalizing critics. Stability without accountability stores trouble for tomorrow.”

UN judges struggle to resolve Félicien Kabuga’s legal limbo as states refuse to host Rwanda genocide financier ruled unfit for trial.

UN Judges Struggle With Kabuga’s Future

The Hague, Netherlands — United Nations judges met this week to debate what to do with Félicien Kabuga, the man accused of financing the 1994 Rwanda genocide which marked its 30 years anniversary this April.

Nearly 90 years old and diagnosed with dementia, Kabuga was declared unfit for trial in 2023. Two years later, he remains stuck in legal limbo.

Kabuga was one of the last major fugitives linked to the genocide that killed an estimated 800,000 people. He evaded capture for decades before being arrested near Paris in May 2020. He was handed over to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) in The Hague, which inherited cases from the now-closed Rwanda tribunal.

His trial began but was halted after doctors concluded that his condition made meaningful participation impossible.

No Willing Host Country

Judges ordered an “expedited release,” but no state has agreed to host him. Rwanda has offered to take him back, yet Kabuga refuses to return. His defense lawyer, Emmanuel Altit, told the court that transfer to Kigali would be unsafe. “At best, he would be imprisoned,” Altit argued. “At worst, he would disappear.”

Rwanda’s government did not respond to a request for comment. Critics, including Human Rights Watch, accuse the country of suppressing dissent and mistreating political opponents. Courts in Germany and the Netherlands have already refused to extradite genocide suspects to Rwanda over concerns about fair trials.

A Pattern of Stalled Releases

Kabuga’s case highlights a recurring problem in international justice. Other tribunal defendants have been released or acquitted, only to find themselves stranded without legal status.

• Charles Blé Goudé, an Ivorian political leader, was acquitted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2019. He remained confined in Europe for three years before being allowed to return home in 2022.
• A former Central African Republic minister spent 43 days in a hotel after charges were dropped. He eventually secured asylum in an undisclosed country.
• Five Rwandan men transferred to Niger in 2021 remain under police supervision. Three others who arrived with them have since died.

“Courts cannot release people without cooperation from states,” said Lucy Gaynor, a researcher at the University of Amsterdam who studies international trials. “And states are refusing to cooperate.”

A Judge’s Frustration

Judge Iain Bonomy, who presided over Kabuga’s case, admitted that efforts to free him were blocked by “an unwillingness by certain European states” to accept him. The UN tribunal can rule but lacks the power to force a country to act.

That leaves Kabuga in a gray zone. He is neither acquitted nor convicted. He is unfit for trial but not free to live independently.

Lawyer Peter Robinson, who represents another Rwandan stuck in Niger, was blunt: “Realistically, we are out of options.”

Rwanda’s Shadow

The genocide still defines Rwanda’s international image. President Paul Kagame has been praised for economic growth and stability but criticized for silencing critics. Many former defendants fear that returning would expose them to new charges or harassment.

Kabuga shares that fear. He has consistently rejected Kigali’s offer to host him, saying his safety cannot be guaranteed.

International Justice at a Crossroads

Kabuga’s situation reflects a larger weakness in global criminal justice. International courts can issue judgments, but they rely on states to enforce them. When governments refuse, suspects end up in indefinite custody.

The IRMCT, which handles both Rwanda and former Yugoslavia cases, has faced this challenge repeatedly. It has been forced to fund housing and protection for men who no longer face trials or sentences.

“The courts can only do so much,” Gaynor noted. “The real issue is political will.”

What Comes Next?

For now, Kabuga will likely remain in The Hague under tribunal supervision. His health continues to decline, raising the prospect that he may die before a solution is found.

His case leaves the UN confronting an uncomfortable reality: a man accused of financing one of the 20th century’s worst atrocities may live out his final years not in prison or exile, but in quiet legal limbo.

The fate of Kabuga underscores both the reach and the limits of international justice. It is a reminder that even when courts deliver judgments, politics often decides how — or whether — justice is done.