Photo via TNH

HRW called on the Malian government to “seek assistance from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights” for the effort to “protect civilians and hold those responsible for abuses to account.”

Witnesses to the attack on the road to the the city of Kayes said assailants opened fire on the front of the 40-truck convoy, followed by a shift towards the middle and back. A military escort accompanied the convoy, and soldiers advised drivers not to panic or stop. Some drivers abandoned their trucks and fled; however, attackers captured many fleeing drivers, later executing 10 and releasing others. Attackers burned multiple trucks, creating large clouds of smoke.

Bodies were abandoned by the side of the road and found on Feb. 11 “with their hands tied behind their backs and their throats slit.” One surviving truck driver said, “No one dared recovering them out of fear of another attack.”

Mali’s truck driver union staged a nationwide strike in response to the attack, demanding recovery of victims’ bodies to ensure their families can have proper funerals.

The group believed responsible for the attack was Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin(JNIM), which has described itself as the official branch of al-Qaeda in Mali. The group has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks against Malian security forces, the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission for the country (MINUSMA), and others.

The trucks had been transporting fuel to a region that hosts several military bases. Whether attackers knew the fuel was slated for military use would partially determine whether the attack on the trucks constituted oppositional military action under the laws of war. HRW explained, however, that the treatment of the drivers was criminal in any case, stating:

The legality of the attack on the fuel convoy would depend on whether the attackers took all feasible steps to verify that the fuel was intended for armed forces use. Whether the attack on the trucks was lawful or not, the cruel treatment and execution of the truck drivers was clearly unlawful.

HRW stated that the acts violated customary laws of war and Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Under the former, attacking forces are required to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and any intentional attack on civilians is strictly prohibited. The latter states that this principle applies to “conflicts not of an international character,” such as that in Mali.

From JURIST, March 10. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Map: PCL

Instead of banning political parties and jailing people for expressing their opinions, the authorities in Burkina Faso need to open up space for civil society, including humanitarian actors, respect the exercise of freedom of association and expression, and lift bans on the activities of political parties, in accordance with their international obligations and commitments.

The rights chief further urged the government to repeal its restrictive laws, allow unimpeded humanitarian assistance to those in need, and unconditionally release those arbitrarily detained. Türk’s office stated that the authorities’ actions have “sharply constricted civil society’s activity in the country, inconsistent with international human rights law.”

Burkina Faso’s military-led government dissolved all political parties on Jan. 29 and repealed the laws governing their operation. This followed a government review finding that “the proliferation of political parties has led to abuses, fueled divisions among citizens and weakened the social fabric.”

In September 2022, Captain Ibrahim Traoré took control of the country after staging a successful coup. While Traoré immediately suspended all independent political activities, and cancelled promised elections in September 2023, the new government decree goes further by dismantling the legal framework supporting multiparty democracy altogether.

Human Rights Watch stated Feb. 4 that in multiple West African countries, including Burkina Faso, military juntas have consolidated power by postponing democratic transitions, banning political opposition, and expelling international bodies. The rights group urged these countries to comply with their obligations and protect human rights.

From JURIST, Feb. 6. Used with permission.

Map: Perry-Castañeda Library

This new breakaway bloc has deepening ties to Russia, which maintains paramilitary forces in the AES countries under the rubric of the Wagner Group or Africa Corps. These forces are increasingly accused of atrocities, with Malian refugees in Mauritania reporting rapes, beheadings and mutilation of civilians at the hands of Russian mercenaries. The Africa Report online publication recently said it had “infiltrated” the Wagner-linked Telegram channel, finding 322 videos and 647 photographs of atrocities, including severed heads and gouged-out eyes, and posts “laced with racism.” (AfricaNews, BBC News, LAT, The Telegraph)

Alarmingly, these atrocity reports come just as the AES has collectively withdrawn from the International Criminal Court.

Photo: Présidence de la République du Mali

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to support us at one of our three tiers via Patreon: Become a Basic Supporter for just $1 per weekly podcast ($5 per month), or a Special Supporter for $2 per podcast ($10 per month), or a Major Rant Enabler for $5 per podcast ($25 per month). We now have 61 paid subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 62!

Photo: AFRICOM via Long War Journal

Trump wrote on Truth Social: “Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!”

Trump’s post did not specify where the military action took place, though the Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) later stated that strikes took place in “Soboto State” —an obvious misspelling of Sokoto state, in northwestern Nigeria. AFRICOM did not specify how many strikes took place, nor did it provide any early damage assessment, other than saying that the operation killed “multiple terrorists.”

The strikes consisted of Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a US Navy ship. Nigeria has confirmed the bombings, stating that they were conducted in partnership between the two countries. Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar told the BBC it was a “joint operation” coordinated with his government, but added that the strikes had “nothing to do with a particular religion.” Tuggar stated that planning for the operation had been in motion for “quite some time,” alluding to the possibility of future such strikes.

A resident in Jabo town shared with AFP that locals were surprised by the air-strikes, noting they had not known of any militant activity in the area within the past two years. The resident added that “this area has never been a Lakurawa enclave,” using the name for the local ISIS affiliate. Others in neighboring districts stated that two of the strikes targeted Warriya and Alkassim villages, both known to house militant camps. (LWJ, Jurist)

Map: Google

Touray emphasized that the declaration is not symbolic, but a call for collective action to restore confidence in governance and protect citizens from deepening insecurity. ECOWAS leaders stressed the urgent need to safeguard democracy and the rule of law, warning that unchecked coups could unravel decades of regional integration efforts. The bloc reaffirmed its “zero tolerance” policy for unconstitutional changes of government, pledging stronger sanctions and coordinated security measures.

Since 2020, several military coups d’etat have taken place in West Africa, including Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau. A coup attempt was launched Dec. 6 in Benin, but was thwarted by Nigerian military intervention. A regional crisis is driven by armed insurgencies, economic hardship, and weak institutions, creating viable ground for military rule. Analysts warn that the erosion of constitutional governance undermines the credibility of democratic institutions and threatens long-term stability.

The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, to which each ECOWAS member state is a party, contains multiple articles addressing rights violations which may arise from a coup d’etat. Article 1 obliges governments to recognize and uphold the rights and freedoms contained in the charter. Article 13 guarantees a citizens’ right to “participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives.”

From JURIST, Dec. 11. Used with permission.

See our last report on the coups d’etat in West Africa.

Map: World Sites Atlas

The presidential election, pitting incumbent Umaro Sissoko Embaló against his main rival Fernando Dias, took place on Nov. 23. Three days later, both Embaló and Dias declared victory before the release of official results. The military then announced that it had taken “total control” of the country in the name of a “High Military Command for the Restoration of Order,” just a day before the National Elections Commission was scheduled to release the official results.

Embaló was arrested at his presidential office ahead of the military announcement. On Nov. 27, Maj-Gen. Horta Nta Na Man was sworn in as transitional president for a one-year term after the military formally removed Embaló from his position. The ousted Embaló later arrived in Senegal, with Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko calling the military coup a “sham.”

This latest military takeover reflects a pattern of instability in Guinea-Bissau since the country gained independence from Portugal in 1974. It follows a long string of coups and coup attempts, most recently in 2023.

Guinea-Bissau also ranks first among African countries in the cocaine trade. Experts have argued that “the deep-rooted involvement of Guinea-Bissau’s political-military elite in this illicit market has been a critical factor driving Guinea-Bissau’s repeated cycles of political turmoil.” In his inaugural speech, transitional president Nta Na Man justified the military takeover as necessary to thwart a plot by “narco-traffickers” to destabilize the country.

From JURIST, Nov. 29. Used with permission.

Note: Government efforts to crack down on the narco trade are believed to have prompted previous coups d’etat in Guinea-Bissau.

See our last reports on the coups d’etat and consolidating dictatorships in West Africa.

Map: PCL

Trump stated on social media: “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing.'” He pledged that any US strike would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.”

The comments follow Trump’s declaration the previous day designating Nigeria as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) for religious-freedom violations, citing what he described as an “existential threat” to Christianity. US Sen. Ted Cruz has similarly pushed Congress to adopt the designation, alleging that “[r]eligious persecution and violence against Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria is endemic.”

Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu rejected the claims, arguing that they misrepresent the country’s religious landscape and constitutional protections.

“Religious freedom and tolerance have been a core tenet of our collective identity and shall always remain so,” Tinubu said. “Nigeria opposes religious persecution and does not encourage it.”

Trump’s threat marks a dramatic departure from traditional US diplomatic strategy in West Africa, and raises immediate questions about the legality of unilateral American military action.

Under Article II of the US Constitution, presidents have the authority to order military operations, but large-scale offensive action typically requires congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which mandates congressional notification and limits unauthorized deployments. Humanitarian intervention alone is not an independent statutory basis for presidential war powers. Absent a national-security justification or congressional authorization, large-scale strikes would likely exceed executive authority.

International law further constrains such action. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against sovereign states absent Security Council approval or self-defense grounds. Nigeria has not attacked the United States and has not consented to intervention. A unilateral “guns-a-blazing” operation would therefore face formidable legal obstacles and diplomatic backlash.

The threat to halt aid sits on firmer legal footing. The executive branch maintains broad authority under the Foreign Assistance Act to suspend or condition foreign assistance for human-rights concerns, including religious-freedom violations. Yet doing so would signal a significant policy shift, given Nigeria’s role as a regional counter-terrorism partner and Africa’s most populous country.

Nigeria was first placed on the CPC list in 2020 over what the US State Department described as “systematic…violations of religious freedom,” although the designation did not single out attacks on Christians. President Joe Biden’s administration lifted the designation in 2023.

From JURIST, Nov. 2. Used with permission.

Note: Jihadist groups have indeed targeted Christians in Nigeria’s Plateau and Borno states, although these areas have also seen repeated atrocities and mass abductions by the same groups against fellow Muslims. The Northwest region, where there are few Christians, has been heavily impacted. These conflicts are often rooted in land disputes between mostly Muslim herders and mostly Christian farmers, and it contested to what degree communities are targeted for their religion. (NewsHour)

Map: PCL

Any restriction on public protests must be lawful, necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory. Instead of banning them, authorities should respect and facilitate peaceful assemblies and ensure public order policing is aimed at enabling assemblies to take place as intended and grounded in de-escalation and the protection of participants

Amnesty further reported that security forces used tear gas to disperse the demonstrators in Abidjan, in addition to conducting mass arrests without bringing any official charges. Sivieude called for authorities to either release all the detainees or publish information on the charges against them.

The Ivorian government’s ban on peaceful assemblies is part of a broader set of measures announced by the National Security Council earlier this month. These measures include taking all necessary actions to maintain security during the election period, such as prohibiting meetings and public assemblies to challenge the government decisions.

Sivieude said that these “blanket bans” on public assemblies are disproportionate and violate Côte d’Ivoire’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). Sivieude emphasized that peaceful protest is a right, not a privilege. He added that it is a  particularly important right during the electoral campaign.

Côte d’Ivoire is scheduled to hold presidential elections on Oct. 25. The Electoral Commission announced the final list of five candidates on Oct. 8, following the rejection of two opposition candidates. One day after the National Security Council’s decision to ban public demonstrations, the Prefect of Abidjan prohibited a peaceful rally planned by opposition parties for Oct. 4. In response, opposition parties organized a new rally on Oct. 11, which was dispersed by security forces using tear gas, resulting in hundreds of arrests. Later that evening, security forces surrounded the residence of opposition leader Pascal Affi N’Guessan for a period before departing.

Côte d’voire has previously faced criticism for suppressing protests and public assemblies. In April, Amnesty International condemned the arrest of Ivorian unionist Ghislain Duggary Assy and urged the government to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights to strike and to hold peaceful assemblies.

From JURIST, Oct. 16. Used with permission.

See our last report on the global wave of “Gen Z” protests

Image: David Peterson/Pixabay