Month: December 2022

The Supreme Court ruled in November that the Scottish government cannot hold an independence referendum without the UK government’s consent.

Scottish government figures show £251,728.69 was spent on the court case.

The bulk of this outlay was on legal fees for the two-day hearing.

The Scottish government said the Supreme Court case had achieved its aim of bringing legal clarity on the issue of legal powers to hold a referendum.

But critics claim it was a waste of money.

Scottish Conservative constitution spokesman Donald Cameron said: “Taxpayers will be appalled that this significant sum of their money has been frittered away by the SNP.

“The fact legal experts said they were destined to lose makes it all the worse.

“It is a disgraceful waste of public money at a time when Scots are grappling with the cost-of-living crisis and our NHS is totally overwhelmed.”

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had set out plans to hold a referendum on 19 October next year.

The legal right to do this was tested by the Supreme Court and it ruled unanimously that she does not have the power to do so because the issue is reserved to Westminster.

The UK government has refused to grant formal consent for a referendum.

The bulk of the Scottish government’s costs in the case went on external counsel (£222,869.45).

Travel and subsistence for the case cost £19,711.25, while £8,049.99 was spent on “professional services”.

Filing fees for the Supreme Court were £350 and other costs for the court were £748.

During the Scottish budget last week, Deputy First Minister John Swinney announced £20m earmarked for a second referendum next year would instead go towards tackling fuel poverty.

A Scottish government spokeswoman said: “As the first minister has previously set out, there has long been debate over whether the Scottish Parliament has the powers to legislate to hold a referendum.

“The Lord Advocate’s reference of this question to the Supreme Court was intended to achieve legal clarity on this point, which it has done so.

“In light of majority support within the Scottish Parliament for an independence referendum, Scottish ministers remain ready to engage with the UK government at any point on delivering a referendum.”

Mr Castillo was removed from office earlier this month after he tried to dissolve Congress.

He is being investigated in Peru on charges of rebellion and conspiracy.

But Mexico has been supportive of the ousted president, and said early on that it was considering granting him asylum.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has called the removal of Mr Castillo undemocratic.

Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said on Tuesday the government was negotiating safe passage for the family of Mr Castillo, who were inside Mexico’s embassy in the Peruvian capital Lima.

His Peruvian counterpart, Ana Cecilia Gervasi, said safe passage had been granted.

But Mexico’s decision to grant asylum caused further anger in Peru, and Mexican Ambassador Pablo Monroy has now been declared “persona non grata” by the government.

Peru’s foreign ministry said in its social media accounts that it was expelling Mr Monroy because “of the repeated statements by that country’s highest authorities about the political situation in Peru”.

Peruvian opposition legislator Maria del Carmen Alva accused Mexico of “sheltering the corrupt”.

Mr Castillo, who is in custody in Peru, was removed from office after he tried to dissolve Congress.

Facing an impeachment vote, Mr Castillo had announced he was dissolving the opposition-controlled legislative body.

But Congress defied him, voted overwhelmingly to remove him from office, and his bodyguards stopped him from seeking refuge at the Mexican embassy in Lima.

Just hours later, Congress swore in his vice-president, 60-year-old Dina Boluarte, as the new president.

She has been pushing for early elections, and they edged closer on Tuesday as lawmakers voted in favour of the proposals.

This would bring elections forward to April 2024, two years ahead of elections currently scheduled for 2026.

There have been violent protests in which demonstrators have called for fresh general elections. Supporters of Mr Castillo have also taken to the streets to demand his release.

The higher education minister announced the regression on Tuesday, saying it would take immediate effect.

The ban further restricts women’s education – girls have already been excluded from secondary schools since the Taliban returned last year.

In Kabul, female students have told the BBC about their anguish.

“They destroyed the only bridge that could connect me with my future,” one Kabul University student said.

“How can I react? I believed that I could study and change my future or bring the light to my life but they destroyed it.”

Another student told the BBC she was a woman who had “lost everything”.

She had been studying Sharia Islamic law and argued the Taliban’s order contradicted “the rights that Islam and Allah have given us”.

“They have to go to other Islamic countries and see that their actions are not Islamic.” she told the BBC.

The United Nations and several countries have condemned the order, which takes Afghanistan back to the Taliban’s first period of rule when girls could not receive formal education.

The UN’s Special Rapporteur to Afghanistan said it was “a new low further violating the right to equal education and deepens the erasure of women from Afghan society.”

The US said such a move would “come with consequences for the Taliban”.

“The Taliban cannot expect to be a legitimate member of the international community until they respect the rights of all in Afghanistan,” said Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a statement.

“No country can thrive when half of its population is held back.”

Western countries have demanded all year that the Taliban improve female education if they wish to be formally recognised as Afghanistan’s government.

However in neighbouring Pakistan, the foreign minister said while he was “disappointed” by the Taliban’s decision, he still advocated engagement.

“I still think the easiest path to our goal – despite having a lot of setbacks when it comes to women’s education and other things – is through Kabul and through the interim government,” said Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

The Taliban had promised a softer rule after seizing power last year following the US’ withdrawal from the country. However the hardline Islamists have continued to roll back women’s rights and freedoms in the country.

The Taliban’s leader Hibatullah Akhundzada and his inner circle have been against modern education – particularly for girls and women.

There has been opposition to this stance from more moderate officials, and analysts say this issue has been a point of factional division all year.

Yet on Tuesday, the education ministry said its scholars had evaluated the university curriculum and environment, and attendance for girls would be suspended “until a suitable environment” was provided.

It added that it would soon provide such a setting and “citizens should not be worried”.

However in March, the Taliban had promised to re-open some high schools for girls but then cancelled the move on the day they were due to return.

The crackdown also follows a wave of new restrictions on women in recent months. In November, women were banned from parks, gyms and public baths in the capital.

A university lecturer and Afghan activist in the US said the Taliban had completed their isolation of women by suspending university for them.

“This was the last thing the Taliban could do. Afghanistan is not a country for women but instead a cage for women,” Humaira Qaderi told the BBC.

The Taliban had just three months ago allowed thousands of girls and women to sit university entrance exams in most provinces across the country.

But there were restrictions on the subjects they could apply for, with engineering, economics, veterinary science and agriculture blocked and journalism severely restricted.

Prior to Tuesday’s announcement, universities had already been operating under discriminatory rules for women since the Taliban takeover in 2021.

There were gender segregated entrances and classrooms, and female students could only be taught by women professors or old men.

However, women were still getting education. Unesco noted on Tuesday that from 2001 and 2018 – the period between Taliban rule – the rate of female attendance in higher education had increased 20 times.

Several women have told the BBC they gave up after the Taliban regained rule because of “too many difficulties”.

Analysis by Yogita Limaye, BBC South Asia correspondent

There has been speculation for over a month now that the Taliban government would ban university education for women.

One female student predicted it a few weeks ago. “One day we will wake up and they will say girls are banned from universities,” she had said.

And so, while many Afghans might have expected that sooner or later this decision would be taken, it still comes as a shock.

Last month women were barred from parks, gyms and swimming pools. In March this year, the Taliban government did not deliver on its commitment to open secondary schools for girls.

From conversations with Taliban leaders over the past year, it is evident that there is disagreement within the Taliban on the issue of girls’ education.

Off the record, some Taliban members have repeatedly said they are hopeful and working to try and ensure girls get an education.

Girls were allowed to sit for graduation exams for secondary schools two weeks ago, in 31 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces, even though they haven’t been allowed to be in school for more than a year.

That provided a glimmer of hope, which has now been extinguished.

Scotland Yard said they had opened the case following a complaint from Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, who had a confrontation with the MP in central London.

The Beckenham MP also told the campaigner to “get stuffed”.

Mr Stewart said he regretted the comments but insisted he was “not being racist in any way”.

Mr Alwadaei, the director of advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, challenged Mr Stewart on his connections with Bahrain outside an event to mark the National Day of Bahrain last Wednesday.

Footage of the incident outside the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House shows Mr Stewart responding: “Bahrain’s a great place. End of.”

He later added: “Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain.”

After being repeatedly asked if he had accepted any money from the Bahraini government, Mr Stewart said: “You’re taking money off my country, go away!”

Mr Stewart, a former Army officer who was stationed in Bahrain in the 1960s, later expressed contrition for his original remarks.

“The protesters persistently taunted me by saying I had taken money from Bahrain,” he said.

“That deeply offended me. I certainly have not and told them so repeatedly.

“I admit I fell for the taunts and should not have responded which I regret. My comments were meant to tell them they could protest safely in Bahrain… Bahrain gets a very unfair press and I feel that strongly.

“I am sorry if anyone thought I was being racist in any way. Honestly I was not. I wish now I had not been drawn by the taunts (a mistake) but I was and I repeat, I apologise for that. The last thing I meant to be was racist as I have so many good Bahraini friends.”

Mr Alwadaei fled Bahrain in 2011 after being arrested for taking part in anti-government protests and was able to claim political asylum in the UK in 2012.

Speaking following the incident with Mr Stewart. Mr Alwadaei said: “I still have the scars from where the authorities kicked me in the head, and if I went back to Bahrain I would face further torture and imprisonment. My family members are still suffering from reprisals.”

He added: “I don’t believe I would have been told to ‘go back’ to the country that violently tortured me if it weren’t for the colour of my skin. No-one should be subjected to racial abuse.”

Mr Alwadaei said he had also complained to the parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone and the Conservative party chairman Nadhim Zahawi.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: “We have an established code of conduct and formal processes where complaints can be made in confidence. This process is rightly confidential.”