Multimillionaire pastor Shepherd Bushiri, who has a warrant out for his arrest, disappeared from South Africa and reappeared in his home country Malawi in mid-November, sparking an international conflict between the two countries. Bushiri has been charged with fraud and money laundering charges along with his wife, Mary, and two co-defendants for allegedly conducting a fraudulent investment scheme that earned them $6.6 million USD. Bushiri’s trial is scheduled for May 2021.

Shepherd Bushiri

Shepherd Bushiri is a wealthy pastor from Malawi who claims to have cured people from HIV, changed the fortunes of impoverished people, and walked on air. None of these claims have any scientific basis. He is the leader of the Enlightened Christian Gathering, which was founded in Pretoria, South Africa, and now has several branches in other African countries.

Bushiri and his wife released a statement on November 14, 2020 announcing their appearance in South Africa.

“There have been clear and evident attempts to have myself, my wife and my family killed and despite our several attempts to report to authorities, there has never been State protection,” the statement reads. “Our coming to Malawi, hence, is a tactical withdrawal from the Republic of South Africa solely meant to preserve our lives.”

Bushiri enumerated a list of demands in his statement, which included assurance that his and his wife’s bail would not be revoked and demanding that the officers involved in his arrent recuse themselves from the case.

A Diplomatic Challenge

According to a regional extradition treaty signed by both South Africa and Malawi, any decision regarding the extradition of Bushiri would need to be made by the Malawian Ministry of Justice and then approved by President Lazarus Chakwera. Chakwera was elected to his position in June 2020. The treaty requires that any individual extradited receive a fair trial, which Bushiri claims is not guaranteed for him in South Africa.

Some have speculated that a member of President Chackwera’s entourage helped Bushiri escape when Chackwera was in South Africa in early November. Malawian and South African officials have denied the claim, but suspicions around Bushiri’s escape are fueling tensions between the two countries.

Malawian authorities confirmed the receipt of an extradition request from South Africa, which South Africa said was available for delivery on November 26, 2020.

New Charges

The receipt of the extradition request comes after new charges were leveled against Bushiri and his wife. Prosecutors seeking to extradite Bushiri informed  the Malawi Government of further charges, including rape of minors as young as 16 and violating the Suppression of Witchcraft Act in South Africa. The Act provides for the suppression of witchcraft and similar practices. Bushiri’s wife is also wanted in connection with eight accusations of rape by young women. The women allege that Bushiri groomed them with favors like money and attention and then threatened them afterwards.

In response, Bushiri claimed that the allegations were baseless and insisted that they were part of an extortion scheme within the Hawks, South Africa’s Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation.

Bushiri’s lawyer, Wapona Kita, declined to comment on the extradition order or the additional charges leveled against his client.

On October 23, 2020, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned a Russian government research laboratory that created the Triton malware. The lab in question is the Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics in Moscow. It is supported by the State Research Center of the Russian Federation FGUP Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics (TsNIIKhM), a state-controlled research institution responsible for building customized tools that enabled the attack. The Triton malware is a dangerous and malicious malware designed  specifically to target and manipulate industrial safety systems. The cyber activity surrounding the Triton malware has been described by those in the cybersecurity industry as “the most dangerous threat activity publicly known.”

Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said, “The Russian Government continues to engage in dangerous cyber activities aimed at the United States and our allies. This Administration will continue to aggressively defend the critical infrastructure of the United States from anyone attempting to disrupt it.”

Triton Malware

The first record of Triton malware’s use dates back to August 2017, when a petrochemical facility in Saudi Arabia, Petro Rabigh, was targeted by the malware. Tens of millions of dollars were lost as a result of the cyberattack. John Hultquist, senior director of intelligence analysis at the cybersecurity company Mandiant, claimed that the malware was found almost by accident. Mandiant was among the firms called in to investigate the incident. Experts remain uncertain of why Russia targetted this Saudi plant.

When the attack occurred at Petro Rabigh, the hackers triggered a safety system, causing the plant to shut down while experts conducted a cyber investigation. The Triton malware was intended to disable safety systems in the plant that are designed to prevent conditions that could lead to a potentially fatal leak or explosion. There was a coding error in the malware that prevented dozens of people from being killed, experts said.

Triton malware has reportedly been detected scanning and probing U.S. facilities. Russia has a long history of cyberattacks in foreign countries, including the NotPetya attack in 2017 that affected Ukraine, Denmark, and several others.

The Sanctions

According to an article by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, TsNIIKhM is being designated pursuant to Section 224 of CAATSA for knowingly engaging in significant activities undermining cybersecurity of any person, democratic institution, or government on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation.

The new sanctions designate that all property and interests in TcNIIKhM that come into contact with any U.S. persons are blocked. Additionally, any non-U.S. person that engages in transactions with the institution may incur sanctions.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and co-founder of industrial cybersecurity firm Dragos, said in an email statement, “An OFAC sanction by the U.S. Treasury is significant and compelling; not only will it impact this research institution in Russia, but anyone working with them will have their ability to be successful on the international stage severely hampered.” Dragos was another company that, like Mandiant, identified the malware in the Saudi plant in 2017.

While OFAC’s sanctions may be a step in the right direction, Triton malware’s existence still poses a tremendous threat to cybersecurity in the U.S. and elsewhere.

On October 1, 2020, attorneys at Hilliard Shadowen LLP and Hilliard Martinez Gonzales LLP filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to hold the United States accountable for the cross-border killings of multiple Mexican citizens. The Petitioners are family members of six victims killed by U.S. Border Patrol agents. The victims include a 16-year-old who was shot in the back 10 times, Guillermo Arevalo who was picnicking with his wife and daughters along the Rio Grande, and four others. The death of 15-year-old Sergio Hernandez sparked a Supreme Court case.

Counsel for the Petitioners, Nicholas Shadowen, said: “These tragic cases are yet another series of police killings in America that have gone largely unnoticed and wholly unredressed. The United States must be held accountable; there must be police reform in this country; and it must happen now.”

The consequential lawsuit comes at a complicated time in U.S.-Mexico relations. U.S. President Donald Trump has been increasing border security and militarizing the border since his election in 2016.

The Petition

The petition alleges that U.S. border patrol agents engaged in systematic extrajudicial killings of Mexican citizens along the U.S.-Mexico border. It also alleges that the U.S. violated international law by refusing to allow the families of the victims to obtain judicial review in U.S. courts, citing sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Sergio Hernandez, which refused permission for his family to get judicial review by suing the border patrol agent who killed Hernandez, is the latest example of this refusal.

Another counsel for the Petitioners, Robert Hilliard, said “When the law of the land is that a U.S. law enforcement officer, while on U.S. soil, may shoot and kill an unarmed, unthreatening child, unchecked by the U.S. civil justice system, the arch of the moral universe snaps, no longer able to bend towards justice. The courage of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting words resonate: ‘I resist the conclusion that ‘nothing’ is the answer required in this case.’ We call on this Commission to declare and find a violation of international law. What matters is the life wrongly taken, and the immensity of death.”

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is the human rights arm of the Organization of American States (OAS). IACHR was created in 1959 “to promote and protect human rights in the American hemisphere.” As a member of OAS, the U.S. has committed to uphold its obligations to the organization, which include abiding by the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, a declaration that prohibits the arbitrary taking of life. However, non-compliance by a state deprives the system of its effectiveness. The United States is a repeat non-compliance state, meaning that the Inter-American human rights system has not been able to enforce its decisions.

“Rocking Policy”

The Border Patrol maintains a “Rocking Policy,” which permits agents to shoot to kill even in the absence of imminent threat. The policy was established to allow Border Patrol agents to shoot and kill Mexicans “who allegedly threw rocks at them, regardless of whether [it] posed an imminent risk of death or serious injury to the agents or anyone else, and regardless of whether other, nonlethal means were available to avert any such risk” according to a lawsuit filed by Arevalo’s wife.

The “Rocking Policy” that the CBP has raises questions about the degree to which deadly force is warranted by a BP agent when the greatest threat to the agent is rocks being thrown at them or at the border fence.

The recent petition and Supreme Court case will likely complicate the debate about human rights on the U.S.-Mexico border. Advocates for immigration rights, as well as children’s welfare, may come to cite this petition as proof of dangerous and abusive U.S. policy.

The German car manufacturer Volkswagen announced on September 23, 2020 that it had signed a deal with prosecutors to compensate Brazilian workers who were affected by the company’s partnership with Brazil’s former military dictatorship.

Employees who worked for VW when the Brazilian Military Regime governed the country took the company to court in 2015 over alleged collaboration between the regime and the company’s Brazilian security office, resulting in persecution of those suspected to be regime opponents. The collaboration included making political arrests on factory property and spying on VW workers.

The Deal

VW agreed to pay out 36 million reais ($6.4 million USD) in compensation to the workers and their families, as well as to various human rights-related efforts in the country. VK has also pledged to support various projects in Brazil related to the incident, such as a memorial dedicated to the victims of the regime.

“We regret the violations that occurred in the past,” VW executive Hiltrud Werner told reporters. “For Volkswagen, it is important to deal responsibly with this negative chapter in Brazil’s history and promote transparency.”

The class action lawsuit represents roughly 6o people. The compensation payments were agreed upon by the company and state, federal, and labor law prosecutions in Brazil.

Critics of the Deal

Sebastiao Neto, a representative of the victims, criticized the deal by saying that VW had only talked to the judiciary and not to the affected workers themselves. He also states that the deal was too little too late for those worst affected by the partnership between the carmaker and the military dictatorship, including Lucio Bellentani.

Bellentani was a member of a communist party cell at VW’s factory in Sao Paulo. He recounted a day in 1972 when a police officer put a machine gun to his back while he was working and then took him to the personnel office where he was tortured.

“They started to beat me, they gave me slaps, kicks and punches, wanting me to tell them names of people who were political and union militants inside the factory,” he said in a 2018 video interview. “I said I didn’t know anyone.”

Bellentani was taken to Sao Paulo’s Department of Political and Social Order the same year, where he was shocked with electricity, beaten, and had teeth forcibly removed with pliers. He died in 2019 before the Brazilian government could settle the case against VW.

Despite criticism that the deal doesn’t adequately compensate the surviving workers and their families for the suffering they endured at the hands of the VW-military dictatorship collaboration, some argue that it was the only deal possible under Brazil’s current president Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is a defender of military rule known for his far-right policies. Geovaldo Santos, one of the VW employees who was persecuted by his employers after taking part in a strike in 1980, defended the agreement. “It was the only deal that was possible with the government we have,” he said.

History is Made

Christopher Kopper, a historian from the University of Bielefeld, was commissioned by Volkswagen to look into the case.

Kopper said the settlement would be historic. “It would be the first time that a German company accepts responsibility for human rights violations against its own workers for events that happened after the end of National Socialism,” he told German broadcasting companies NDR, SWR and SZ.

The significance of the settlement will be felt in both Brazil and Germany as a result.

On September 9, 2020, the law firm Cohen Milstein filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Anne Sacoolas, a United States citizen and wife of U.S. diplomat Jonathan Sacoolas, for her part in the wrongful death of Harry Dunn. The suit also names Jonathan Sacoolas as a defendant for vicarious liability for the conduct, actions, errors, or omissions committed by his wife.

The suit was filed on behalf of Harry Dunn’s family, including his parents Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn, and his twin brother Niall. The lawsuit claims wrongful death of Dunn and seeks financial damages. According to the plaintiffs, Sacoolas’ unsafe driving led to a head on vehicular collision with Harry Dunn in 2019. The collision caused catastrophic injuries, including several fractures. The suit states that Ms. Sacoolas’ subsequent failure to call for an ambulance led to additional pain and suffering on the part of Harry Dunn, ultimately leading to his death.

Case Background

On August 27, 2019, Anne Sacoolas was driving her SUV on the wrong side of the road near Croughton, Northamptonshire, England when she hit 19-year-old Harry Dunn on his motorcycle. The SUV that Sacoolas was driving was owned by her husband Jonathan Sacoolas, who was working for the U.S. government at a Royal Air Force base in Croughton at the time.

Dunn had several open fractures on his extremities and internal bleeding. Although Sacoolas had her cellphone on her, she did not call an ambulance after the accident. Instead, a passerby approached the scene of the accident and called emergency services. When paramedics arrived, Dunn was conscious, breathing, and able to speak with them. He was able to tell the them that Sacoolas had been driving on the wrong side of the road and that she hit him with her SUV. Dunn died shortly after arriving at the hospital as a result of his injuries.

According to the complaint Cohen Milstein filed on behalf of the Dunn family, Sacoolas confessed that the accident was her fault and promised to cooperate with local authorities. However, she returned to the Unites States with her husband around September 15, 2019 without informing local authorities of her departure. She asserted diplomatic immunity as the reason for her return.

The British Crown Prosecution Service charged Sacoolas with causing Dunn’s death by dangerous driving, but she has refused to return to the United Kingdom for a trial. When the United Kingdom requested that she be extradited to Britain, the United States refused to comply.

Tim Dunn and Charlotte Charles accepted an invitation by President Trump to meet him at the White House on October 15, 2019. The parents refused to meet Ms. Sacoolas, who was waiting in another room, instead repeating their wish to meet with her in the UK. Charles said she “initially” thought the meeting was being held to sweep her son’s death under the rug.

The United States and the United Kingdom

The governments of the United States and the United Kingdom have been in contact with one another to discuss the handling of the case. As a result of the Dunn family’s lobbying, the loophole that allowed family members of Americans serving at the RAF base to claim diplomatic immunity was closed in July 2020. Closing the loophole ensures that if a similar accident were to occur again, a spouse of a diplomat at the base would not be immune from British prosecution.

“Since the tragic accident occurred, the United States has been closely engaged with the UK government, and we have been transparent about our positions on legal and diplomatic matters concerning this accident,” a State Department spokesperson said Wednesday. “The United States Government again expresses its profound condolences and sympathy to the Dunn family for the loss of their son.”

Radd Seiger, an adviser to the Dunn family, said the British foreign secretary will file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the lawsuit brought by Cohen Milstein on behalf of the Dunn family, a move Seiger called “extraordinary.”

Julie Ross, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the plaintiffs in such cases could argue that a Virginia court has jurisdiction because the defendant resides there. However, Ross noted that several preliminary issues would need to be decided before the case went forward. One possible complication is that Sacoolas’s attorney could argue for dismissal due to forum non conveniens. Forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case when another court, or forum, is better suited to hear the case. Sacoolas’s lawyer could argue for the case filed in Virginia to be thrown out, because the evidence and witnesses are in Britain.

Ross stated, “A lot of it depends on how much evidence is really needed to prove a wrongful-death case and how difficult or easy it is to take that evidence in the U.S. rather than pursue the case in the U.K..”

The filing of a civil suit in Virginia and charges by the Crown Prosecutor show that, even though the U.S. has asserted diplomatic immunity, the case will not go away.

On September 7, 2020, Saudi Arabia’s public prosecutor announced that eight people related to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi had been issued prison sentences between seven and 20 years. The decision is “final,” according to a statement carried by the Saudi state-run news agency. The trial was closed to the public and the media.

The eight defendants, who were not named in the statement released by the Saudi state-run agency, were believed to be members of a 15-man hit squad that killed and dismembered Khashoggi in October 2018. The group reportedly traveled to Turkey from Saudi Arabia in 2018 before committing the murder inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

Khashoggi was killed when he went to the consulate in Istanbul to obtain papers that would allow him to marry his Turkish fiancée. He was a vocal critic of Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman as well as a journalist for The Washington Post. Mohammad bin Salman is widely suspected of ordering the killing.

The Case

The new decision, delivered after Khashoggi’s sons announced they had forgiven their father’s killers, reverses the previous ruling that sentenced five of the eight defendants to death. The Saudi justice system allows families of victims in some capital cases to grant clemency to convicted killers. Both the December ruling and the latest ruling did not find any senior officials responsible for the murder of Khashoggi.

Two senior Saudi officials — Saud al-Qahtani, a powerful royal media adviser, and Ahmed al-Assiri, a former deputy head of intelligence — were exonerated by the Saudi court late last year, even after Saudi prosecutors said the two men played central roles in the plot that led to Khashoggi’s death.

Notably, the latest ruling does not answer key questions about Khashoggi’s murder, such as who ordered him to be killed and the whereabouts of his remains.

The United Nations

Human rights groups have criticized the court for its lack of transparency. Agnès Callamard, a U.N. human rights expert who conducted an investigation into the killing, wrote on Twitter after the sentences were announced, “These verdicts carry no legal or moral legitimacy. They came at the end of a process which was neither fair, nor just, or transparent.”.

U.N. spokesman Rupert Colville, noting that the United Nations opposes the death penalty, told a Geneva briefing: “This is a case where there has not been proper transparency in the justice process, those responsible should be prosecuted and given sentences commensurate with the crime.” Although the latest decision reverses the death penalty sentences that were delivered for five of the eight defendants, the UN and other human rights groups are still skeptical about how the courts reached their latest conclusion.

In the forty-first session of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in 2019, the council condemned the killing of Khashoggi as a serious international crime and recommended that the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the Security Council, or the UN Secretary General open an international investigation into Khashoggi’s death. The council also urged Turkey and Saudi Arabia to open an investigation into Khashoggi’s death and cooperate with each other and with the UN to ensure a fair and transparent trial.

Turkey

On October 8, 2018, one day after the Saudi government confirmed that Khashoggi died inside the consulate, Turkey announced that it would continue its own investigation into his death. The investigation resulted in a trial, in which 20 Saudi citizens are accused of involvement in the murder of Khashoggi. However, none of the accused were in attendance on July 3, 2020 when proceedings commenced, because Saudi Arabia declined to extradite them. The next hearing will be on November 24, 2020.

Human rights organizations praised Turkey’s opening of a trial as a step towards advancing justice in Khashoggi’s death. The trial is also understood to be the result of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s commitment to pursuing those responsible and even implicating the Saudi Crown Prince if necessary.

Jun Wei Yeo, also known as Dickson Yeo, pled guilty to one count of acting within the United States as an illegal agent of a foreign power without notifying the Attorney General, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951. The announcement of Yeo’s plea was made on July 24, 2020 by John C. Demers, Assistant Attorney General; Michael R. Sherwin, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; Timothy R. Slater, Assistant Director in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Washington Field Office; and Alan E. Kohler, Jr., Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.

FBI Washington Field Office Assistant Director in Charge Timothy R. Slater said, “The tactics Mr. Yeo used to target cleared individuals on professional networking social media sites are just one facet of the full court press China employs on a daily basis to obtain non-public U.S. government information. The FBI urges citizens, especially those holding security clearances, to be cautious when being approached by individuals on social media sites with implausible career opportunities. We are committed to holding those accountable who attempt to work for Chinese intelligence and other adversaries to the detriment of our national security.”

Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s National Security Division John C. Demers in a statement said, “The Chinese Government uses an array of duplicity to obtain sensitive information from unsuspecting Americans. Yeo was central to one such scheme, using career networking sites and a fake consulting firm to lure Americans who might be of interest to the Chinese government. This is yet another example of the Chinese government’s exploitation of the openness of American society.” .

Yeo submitted his plea via videoconference in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan. The plea announcement comes five weeks after an indictment of Yeo was unsealed, accusing him of acting illegally as an agent of an unspecified foreign government. According to 18 U.S.C. § 951, he is facing up to ten years in prison. He will be sentenced on October 9, 2020.

Yeo admitted to establishing a fake consultancy that used the same name on LinkedIn as a prominent U.S. consulting firm that specializes in government and public relations; a professional networking application, publishing job roles under that company name; and sending resumes of interest that he received from U.S. military and government officials with high security clearances to Chinese intelligence operatives. He paid these officials to write reports and solicited them for non-public information, never informing them that the information they provided was intended for the Chinese government.

Yeo began working with Chinese intelligence officers as early as 2015. He initially targeted other Asian countries but later focused on the United States.

Yeo’s conviction raises concerns that citizens of Singapore, which has an ethnic Chinese majority, could be regarded with increased suspicion by the U.S. government. Although analysts believe the spying case is unlikely to have a major impact on Singapore’s ties with the U.S. or China, most agree that the island’s efforts to maintain a diplomatic balance between the two countries will add to the rapid deterioration of U.S.-China relations in the lead up to the U.S. Presidential election in November.

On July 13, 2020, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Detroit and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan announced the seizure of an internet domain located at https://lafoauto.com/ pursuant to an international arms trafficking investigation into gun silencers from China. HSI Detroit led the investigation with assistance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Visitors to the site will now see a seizure notice bearing law enforcement shields.

HSI determined that more than 350 silencers were seized by law enforcement. The silencers were smuggled from China into the United States and disguised as automotive parts. The website advertised the silencers as automotive components, but the images on the website clearly resembled firearm components.

“This website, operated from China, blatantly disregarded our customs laws, smuggled illegal silencers into our country, and placed the American public at risk,” Vance Callender, the Homeland Security special agent in charge for Michigan and Ohio, stated. “By shutting this website down, we keep illegal silencers off the streets and protect our communities from harm.”

HSI’s practice of seizing websites involved in illicit activity is relatively new and helps suppress illegal commerce from entering the United States. Using a Court order, HSI redirected the suspect website to one controlled by HSI, which posts a banner with a public service announcement warning against consumer purchase of illegal goods. The seizure of https://lafoauto.com/ is the first instance in which a website wholly dedicated to illegal arms deals has been seized by the agency.

Silencers, also known as suppressors, reduce the sound and muzzle flash from gunshots. Purchasing a silencer without a proper license is illegal in many states. Silencers were regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). Before purchasing a silencer, the NFA requires buyers to submit identification materials and answers background questions, as well as pay a $200 tax to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). An amendment to the NFA in 1986 regulates parts intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer. The activities of https://lafoauto.com/ fall under this amendment. It will be interesting to see if the HCI’s success in this case leads to future investigations and seizures of websites illegally trafficking arms or other goods in the U.S.