Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
نفذت وزارة الداخلية ممثلة بالإدارة العامة للعمليات المركزية الاتحادية، وبمشاركة القيادات العامة للشرطة على مستوى الدولة، والقطاعات والإدارات المختصة والمعنية بالوزارة، تمرين طاولة الإستراتيجي "الحصن (15/2)" لعام (2026)، وذلك في نادي ضباط شرطة دبي، وتضمن التمرين محاكاة عدد من السيناريوهات الأمنية المرتبطة بالمخاطر والتهديدات المحتملة، بهدف اختبار الخطط والقدرات... show more
17,674 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
![Intelligence Agency Alleges “Pro-Russia” TikTok Accounts Are Interfering In Czech Elections Despite speculation, there is no evidence tying social media accounts to Russia by Cecílie Jílková alex gutentag and Michael Shellenberger Almost 1,000 accounts on TikTok are promoting pro-Russian narratives in support of “extremist” parties ahead of this week’s elections in the Czech Republic, according to a Czech intelligence agency and a group of analysts who identify as the “Center for Online Risk Research.” And some in the Czech news media are suggesting that Russia may be behind the accounts. “Secret services have discovered hundreds more pro-Russian accounts that want to influence the election,” reported Denik N, a Czech news publication, this morning. “They have millions of views.” But neither BIS nor the Center for Online Risk Research says they can link the Russian government to any of the accounts. “We don’t know,” said researcher Vendula Prokůpková to Public. “We don’t have the tools to find out.” The BIS declined to comment. A TikTok spokesperson told Public, “We have proactively implemented additional safety and security measures ahead of the elections in Czechia, including an in-app Election Center to provide access to authoritative information about the vote. We continue to aggressively counter deceptive behaviour, and we have already prevented and removed millions of fake likes and follow requests in Czechia since the start of August.” Notably, the Czech media and the Center are making similar arguments to those used by a Romanian court last year to nullify the presidential election, which legal scholars viewed as unconstitutional. The case may seem unimportant to Americans, given the relatively small size of the Czech Republic, which has 11 million people, and since the Romanian intelligence agencies made stronger claims about Russian interference than the Czech BIS or the Center for Online Risk Research have made. And the possibility remains that Russia, or Russia-linked bot networks, are indeed engaged in algorithm manipulation to help the Czech parties opposed to continuing arming of Ukraine. In Romania, intelligence officials accused the Russians of creating fake accounts and manipulating algorithms. But the information comes at a moment when Internet censorship is a sticking point between the Trump administration and the EU over a trade deal, and just days after the European Commission leaked plans that it could fine Meta’s Instagram and Facebook up to six percent of its global revenue if it doesn’t make it easier for users to flag posts for censorship. The Commission is currently investigating Facebook and Instagram for supposed failure to stop “disinformation” and “deceptive advertising” in advance of last year’s European Parliament elections. The EU has made no secret of its desire to censor social media worldwide, not just in Europe. Meanwhile, Americans are obligated under NATO to defend both Romania and the Czech Republic, and the NATO treaty requires its members to hold free and fair elections, which Romania did not do. Romania’s intelligence officials presented no evidence to support their claims, and subsequent analyses revealed that the Romanian ruling party had funded at least some of the allegedly pro-Russian TikTok accounts. Where the Romanian TikTok accounts supposedly promoted a right-wing populist, the Czech Center claims that the Czech language TikTok posts, back the “far-right SPD party, which ranks third in most polls with around 13% support, and the far-left Stacilo!,” according to Reuters, “which is gaining just over the 5% threshold needed to secure parliamentary seats.” Notes Reuters, “Both parties advocate for Czechia to leave NATO and the European Union.” Prokůpková said, despite its name, that “Center for Online Risk Research” is “not an organization. We are an initiative.” However, she also said, “My partner is the CTU,” referring to the Czech government’s Telecommunications Office. This office organized a meeting on August 29th due to the upcoming Czech elections, which was attended by the European Commission, Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok, and X. “The participants discussed their readiness to address potential systemic risks in connection with the parliamentary elections and respond to possible incidents,” a European Commission spokesperson told Public today. Prokůpková also said, “I proceed in accordance with the DSA,” the EU’s Digital Services Act, which entitles anyone to report false accounts or misinformation on social media to the Czech Telecommunications Office.”We are ordinary citizens and we use the R programming language,” she explained. One of the Center’s members is Josef Šlerka, who collaborated with “The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project,” which the US State Department created in 2008, and which the USAID funded. After President Trump cut off USAID funding, the European Commission began to financially support OCCRP. In January, Šlerka and the director of the Czech government’s Security Information Service (BIS), the equivalent of the FBI and DHS in the US, briefed Czech members of Parliament about the Romanian TikTok case as a potential model for the Czech Republic. Now, the BIS has sent a report on Czech-speaking pro-Russian TikTok accounts to the president, prime minister, and Czech Telecommunications Office. Earlier this year, a Czech Army group admitted to monitoring opposition figures. Leaked documents show the group monitored “the opinions and attitudes of these [opposition] individuals towards the activities of the Ministry of Defense, its leaders, senior representatives of the Czech army, and the war in Ukraine.” General Karel Řehka later defended the Army’s actions by alleging that it was just a military exercise in case of possible future interference in the elections. A few weeks ago, Romania’s Interior (security) Minister said the intelligence agencies of the Czech Republic and those in other nations admire what Romania did. “I believe that what happened in Romania last year is currently being studied by all intelligence agencies in the Western world,” said Cătălin Predoiu. “Conclusions are being drawn and countries are taking defensive measures, inspired by how Romania defended itself.” He went on to say that “my Czech colleague, who is a good friend of mine, approached me and said, ‘We also have elections in the fall, and we are watching very closely what has happened in your country.’” From left: Vít Rakušan, Czech Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, and Marian-Cătălin Predoiu, Romanian Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, at the Round Table (Justice and Home Affairs Council) on December 12, 2024. Source: Other groups are involved in the possible influence operation. A liberal website called Voxpot recently published a list of websites that repost content from Russian state platforms, but provided no information about any links to or financing from Russia. The Independent Journalism Foundation financed the Voxpot report. And Seznam, a news website that has advocated for EU government censorship of “misinformation,” finances the Foundation. Finally, GLOBSEC, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and CEDMO (Central European Digital Media Observatory), all of which appear to have links to the intelligence community, published a report warning of the alleged risks of Russian interference; however, it contained no evidence to support these claims. Major military contractors, including Lockheed Martin, KNDS, and Saab finance GLOBSEC, while the US, UK, EU, and other Western governments finance ISD and CEDMO. While the allegations focus on alleged pro-Russian support for the nationalist-populist SPD party and the radical Left-Wing coalition Stacilo!, party, the latest polls show that the ANO party, led by former Prime Minister and billionaire Andrej Babiš has over 33% support, which is 12 points more than the centre-right SPOLU (Together) coalition, which the current Prime Minister leads. Like the SPD and Stacilo!, Babiš is running directly against the EU’s agenda, including on migration, climate change, the Ukraine war, and censorship. His party rejected NATO’s new defence spending target and called for halting ammunition supplies to Ukraine. With the SPD and Stacilo! expected to win roughly 18% of the vote, and given their shared opposition to arming Ukraine, they could join in a coalition government with ANO to end further military support. “If the electoral contest were close, then even several tens of thousands of votes that voters cast for someone (or conversely decided not to cast) could determine whether, for example, the Czech ammunition initiative, crucial aid for defending Ukraine, will continue,“ confirms in today’s article the Czech liberal newspaper Deník N. Czech President Petr Pavel is a former NATO general and a strong supporter of supplying Ukraine in its war with Russia. Nothing happened after the Romanian court nullified its election. Romania remains a member of NATO and the EU. Indeed, the EU supported the judicial coup. The same could happen in the Czech Republic. Others think that’s unlikely. “I don’t think we are approaching what is known as the ‘Romanian scenario,’” wrote Lukáš Prchal, a journalist who has written on the TikTok scandal for Deník N, in an email to Public. Whatever the case, the fact remains that there is no evidence of Russian government interference in the Czech elections, and any effort to nullify it based on allegations about anonymous TikTok accounts would violate the Czech Republic’s constitution, the European Union’s constitution, and the NATO treaty. “There is an attempt here,” a source told Denik N, “but the potential and significance are not essential. It is an unsuccessful attempt.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1973452631139033346/amplify_video_thumb/1973450924258697216/img/R-E35fTqfWML2Zih.jpg)
![#ZimElection2023 ZAMBIA-LED SADC ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION OUT OF ORDER AS IT, AU AND COMMONWEALTH COUNTERPARTS RELEASE PRELIMINARY REPORTS ON ZIM ELECTION It is a good thing that three major international election observer missions have submitted their preliminary reports: The Commonwealth Election Observation Mission, the African Union (AU) Observation Mission and the Sadc Election Observation mission. The links to the three reports are indicated below: The Commonwealth Zim Election Observation Mission Report AU Zim Election Observation Mission Report Sadc Election Observation Preliminary Report Notably, and significantly so, the three preliminary reports echo an important sentiment expressed by CITE's Zenzele Ndebele (Zenzele) a few weeks ago on Newzroom Afrika – for which he was vilified and demonised by the usual quarters among self-proclaimed champions of democracy – that Zimbabwe’s 2023 harmonised general election “has been largely peaceful”, compared to previous editions characterised by widespread violence. A peaceful harmonised general election in Zimbabwe is no mean achievement. It is big ns, and a huge social and political relief. And to say the election has been largely peaceful is not to say there have been no skirmishes or worse, any loss of life even if it was of one person, as Ndebele pointed out to Newzroom Afrika on the attached video clip. Meanwhile, there are no matters arising from the preliminary reports by the Commonwealth and the AU election observers, pending the release of their final reports in two or so months. Otherwise, election observation mission reports are precisely that, namely, reports on what the relevant missions actually observed on the conduct of an election in question. But not so for the Sadc Election Mission Preliminary Statement on Zimbabwe’s 2023 harmonised general election. Led by former Zambian Vice President Nevers Mumba, appointed by Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema, who recently assumed the chairmanship of the Sadc Organ on Politics, Defence and Security. Unlike its African Union and Commonwealth counterparts, the Mumba Mission clearly, intentionally and scandalously wrote its report on the basis of what it heard, and not what it observed. Rather than making news about the election it ostensibly observed, the news is on the Sadc Election Observation for coming to Zimbabwe with an axe to grind, wielding it recklessly and shamelessly. It would be irresponsible to let the preliminary report of the Sadc Election Observation Mission go scot-free, unchallenged. The Mumba report is premised on this far reaching conclusion, which it is not competent to make: The Mission noted that some aspects of the Harmonised Elections, fell short of the requirements of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Electoral Act, and the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections. Writing under the rubric, “Constitutional and Legal Framework for the Elections,” Mumba and his colleagues make sweeping and opinionated statements and conclusions that are all based not on the direct observation of the election by the Mission but on hearsay with not a single thread of even desktop evidence. The sweeping statements and conclusions include an array of gratuitous comments based on hearsay about the voters roll; freedom of assembly in general and the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act (MOPA); freedom of expression in relation to the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act; the nomination of candidates; participation of women as candidates; alleged intimidation of voters; postal voting controversy; and coverage of the election by the state media. In the result, the main thrust of the report is pure and naked hearsay. In this connection, the report’s treatment of two key issues is telling: one is the delimitation of constituencies and the other is on the so-called Patriotic Act. Regarding the so-called Patriotic Act, the report makes the following conclusion based on untested hearsay submissions: The Mission noted that the Patriot Act is incompatible with the spirit of section 61(1) of the Constitution, and paragraph 4.1.2 of the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections which requires Member States to uphold, amongst others, the freedom of expression. This is utterly shocking. What jurisdiction, power and legal competence do Nevers Mumba and his colleagues in the Sadc Election Observation Mission on the Zimbabwean 2023 harmonised general election have to make such a judicial pronouncement? The pronouncement is manifest and gross interference with the rule of law in Zimbabwe under which such judicial findings are made by competent courts of law and, even worse, the pronouncement is an unacceptable violation of Zimbabwe’s sovereignty. Then there’s the report’s treatment of the delimitation of constituencies, about which it says: “The mission WAS INFORMED that the delimitation exercise that was conducted in 2022 by the ZEC was marred with controversy”. Without saying who informed it, the Sadc Observation Mission preliminary report makes the following scandalous statements and partisan conclusions on Zimbabwe’s delimitation exercise conducted by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission in 202, which it is not entitled to make – as it lacks the jurisdiction, authority and competence to do so – and which statements and conclusions demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that its preliminary report is heavily opinionated hearsay that smacks of a malicious and predetermined hatchet job: "(i) In its Delimitation Report of 2022, the ZEC rightly states that, “the Constitution recognisesthe impracticability of having equal number of voters in each constituency by allowing the Commission to depart from this requirement within a stipulated margin. In this case the Constitution in section 161(6) stipulates that …“no constituency may have more than 20% more or fewer registered voters than other such constituencies”. The constitution in section 161(6)a-f also lists factors that need to be considered when delimiting since they are important during the exercise.” However, the ZEC goes on to also state that, “Based on the provision of section 161(6) the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission then calculated the 20% deviation from the national average voter registration expected in each constituency which was 27 640. This yielded a deviation of 5,528 voters. Since the average number of registered voters was regarded as a stable benchmark against which delimitation of constituencies was conducted, the deviation figure was added to the national average to determine the maximum number of registered voters that a constituency delimited would contain i.e., 33 168.” (ii) The Mission noted that the use of the average number voters per constituency is not consistent with the provision of section 161(6) of the newConstitution that was adopted in 2013. The word “average” appears in section 61A(6) of the old Constitution of Zimbabwe under which it was permissible to calculate the minimum and maximum permissible number of voter per constituency by using the national average as the baseline. That word “average” does not exist in section 161(6) of the new Constitution which deals with the same subject matter. The difference between section 61A(6) and section 161(6) of the old and the new constitutions respectively is far from being merely technical. (iii) In the new Constitution, and in the context of section 161(6), the maximum deviation is 20% of the voters registered in the constituencies. The new Constitution uses actual constituency by constituency registered voter population, not the national average number of constituency voter population to calculate the permissible deviation from the requirement that constituencies must have an equal number of voters. Mathematically, the two methods produce very different results and affect the equality of the vote with respect to the elections to parliament. On the other hand, since the country votes as a single constituency in the presidential election, the difference in the methods has no particular impact on the equality of the vote in that election. It was therefore not unexpected that ZEC would receive substantial criticism on this aspect of its latest Delimitation Report. (iv) The Mission noted that the use of the average number of voters per constituency is not consistent with the provision of section 161(6) of the new Constitution that was adopted in 2013. The word “average” appears in section 61A(6) of the old Constitution of Zimbabwe under which it was permissible to calculate the minimum and maximum permissible number of voter per constituency by using the national average as the baseline. That word “average” does not exist in section 161(6) of the new Constitution which deals with the same subject matter. The difference between section 61A(6) and section 161(6) of the old and the new constitutions respectively is far from being merely technical. (v) In the new Constitution, and in the context of section 161(6), the maximum deviation is 20% of the voters registered in the constituencies. The new Constitution uses actual constituency by constituency registered voter population, not the national average number of constituency voter population to calculate the permissible deviation from the requirement that constituencies must have an equal number of voters. Mathematically, the two methods produce very different results and affect the equality of the vote with respect to the elections to parliament. On the other hand, since the country votes as a single constituency in the presidential election, the difference in the methods has no particular impact on the equality of the vote in that election. It was therefore not unexpected that ZEC would receive substantial criticism on this aspect of its latest Delimitation Report." There are three things to highlight about what Mumba and his team say regarding the delimitation of constituencies. Firstly, everything they say is very familiar to Zimbabweans because the delimitation issue was widely, hotly and robustly debated. More specifically, the words used in the Mumba narrative about the delimitation report are familiar words that were used during the debate. It is disappointing that the familiar words have found their way, verbatim, into the Sadc Election Observation preliminary report. This alone is sad, and the less said about it, the better for everyone concerned. Secondly, ZEC’s delimitation exercise was challenged at the High Court of Zimbabwe and in the country’s apex court, the Constitutional Court. The views that the Sadc Election Observation Mission regurgitates as its own, when in fact they’re not, were argued in Zimbabwe’s courts, but no pronouncement or finding of the kind that the Mumba team goes to town about was made by any court of the land. What makes this even more egregious is the following statement in the Sadc Election Observer Mission’s report: In view of their significance in the event of legal challenges in the context of the electoral process, some stakeholders expressed the view that the judiciary is compromised by the Government. A key justification for this perception was information received from these stakeholders that the judiciary recently received large financial and material incentives which the stakeholders viewed as an attempt by the Government to buy the loyalty and allegiance of the judiciary. So, the Sadc Election Observation Mission on the 2023 harmonised general election in Zimbabwe “received information from…stakeholders that the judiciary recently received large financial and material incentives which the stakeholders viewed as an attempt by the Government to buy the loyalty and allegiance of the judiciary”. Why is the Sadc Election Observation Mission disrespecting Zimbabwe’s judiciary in this manner? The is outrageous, and for it to find expression in this report is shameless and unacceptable. In the interest of fairness, the Sadc Mission must be required by Sadc to share this information with everyone, particularly the Government of Zimbabwe which represents the Zimbabwean State, a member of Sadc. As already pointed out, the Sadc Observer Mission has no jurisdiction or competence to make any judicial pronouncements on Zimbabwean elections, not least because it is not a judicial inquiry; it is just and only an observation mission. This needs to be rectified by the Mission in its final report. That’s why it has been both important and necessary to engage the preliminary report at this stage. Thirdly, and last but not least, it is important to recall the Mission’s conclusion that is making news everywhere in order to show that it is politically opportunistic, and arguably is self-evident malice aforethought. The Sadc Election Observation Mission’s preliminary report has this running thread that ties everything in the report together, and which is effectively the essence of the report’s conclusion: The Mission noted that some aspects of the Harmonised Elections, fell short of the requirements of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Electoral Act, and the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections. Is this conclusion in any way linked to or an outcome of the observations that the preliminary report lists as the observations that were actually made by the Sadc Mission? The best way to unpack the question is by looking at the full list of the observations that the Mission says it made, and they are the following: "3. OBSERVATIONS ON ELECTION DAYS (23-24 AUGUST 2023) On the Election Days, the SADC Electoral Observation Mission observed the voting process in 10 Provinces of the Republic of Zimbabwe. The deployed observer teams covered 172 polling stations in their respective areas. The political contestants have continued to call for peace during this election period and after. The SEOM observed the following critical aspects at the 172 polling stations that we visited: (a) The environment at the polling stations was relatively calm and peaceful. (b) A number of voters expressed concern due to a lack of, or late arrival of ballot papers and poor administration at some polling stations. However, voters remained patient to exercise their constitutional right to vote. (c) Professional and attentive police presence enhanced the overall peace and secure environment in all the polling stations observed. (d) 64% of the voting stations observed opened on time, 36% did not open on time for the 07:00am stipulated opening time. Some polling stations opened more than 12 hours after the stipulated time. The reason provided by ZEC for this unprecedented development was the unavailability of ballot papers, particularly for the local authority elections, and also due to previous litigation. This challenge was, however specific to Harare and Bulawayo Provinces. Due to the delays, some voters left without casting their votes, while others opted to remain in the lengthy queues throughout the day and night. By 06:00am on 24 August 2023, some voters in these two provinces had still not voted. Consequently, these delays also had a knock-on effect as they dissuaded voters from voting in the first place. Against this observation we further note as follows: i. Section 52(1) of the Electoral Act provides that for any election, the ZEC shall ensure that every constituency elections officer is provided with polling booths or voting compartments and ballot boxes, and shall provide papers, including ballot papers. ii. Prior to election day, ZEC had assured our Mission and other stakeholders, that all necessary voting materials, including ballot papers, were available and ready for use before election day. This communication was made in the context of section 52A(2) of the Electoral Act which requires ZEC to provide information on the number of ballot papers and publication of details regarding them. On the basis of these two considerations, the subsequent information from ZEC that they did not have adequate ballot papers has the unfortunate effect of creating doubts about the credibility of this electoral process. (e) The voters roll was unavailable at 1% of the polling stations observed, and was therefore not displayed outside the polling stations for the convenience of the voters and verification by party/candidates agents. (f) During the voting period, and at 26% of the polling stations observed, not all voters who turned out could vote. The reasons advanced for this included: i. Voters were identified, but the names were not found on the voters’ roll; ii. It was not possible to establish the voter’s identity; iii. Voters were at the wrong polling station; and iv. Voters did not have a national identity card or passport, or due to the absence of an official witness confirming an elector’s identity. (g) 8% of the polling stations observed were not accessible to voters living with disabilities. (h) At 50% of the polling stations, voters living with disabilities, the elderly, and pregnant women were not given priority to vote. (i) In 3% of polling stations observed, indelible ink was not checked on the voters before allowing them to cast their vote. (j) At 97% of the polling stations observed, voting was free from irregularities. (k) Voting proceeded in an orderly manner at 95% of the polling stations observed. (l) Ballot boxes did not remain locked and/or sealed at 2% of the polling stations. (m) As a result of the excessive delays in the opening of polling stations in Harare and Bulawayo provinces, at least 36% of the voting stations observed did not close at the scheduled closing time of 1900hrs, while some had not even opened by that time. It was announced that voting would be extended to proceed into 24 August 2023 to compensate for the late opening. (n) In previous stakeholder consultations, a shadowy organisation referred to as Forever Associates Zimbabwe was accused of conducting a country-wide exercise of electoral intimidation. Our observers confirmed the existence of this group as its officials or agents were easily identifiable at some polling stations as they were dressed in regalia emblazoned with the FAZ name and were accredited local observers. These, and other unidentified persons who were not polling officials were also observed taking down the names of voters before they cast their votes. In some areas, voters were intimidated by actions of these individuals. (o) The Mission observed the closing and vote counting processes. A proper analysis of these two processes shall be provided as part of the final SEOM Report." CONCLUSION Three points to conclude: Firstly, it is notable that the actual observations made by the Sadc Election Observation Mission are given as a skeletal laundry list with little if any analysis. Yet the observations are at the core of how the actual polling or election was conducted on polling day. Secondly, there’s no connection between the preliminary report’s running theme that “the Mission noted that some aspects of the Harmonised Elections, fell short of the requirements of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Electoral Act, and the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections”. Surely, to sustain the theme, it has to be connected with the actual observations made by the Mission. But the preliminary report makes no connection, not least because the connection is contrived, based on hearsay and therefore has no factual foundation. Thirdly, one of the observations that proves malice in the preliminary report is the following [number “m” on the laundry list of observations]: As a result of the excessive delays in the opening of polling stations in Harare and Bulawayo provinces, at least 36% of the voting stations observed did not close at the scheduled closing time of 1900hrs, while some had not even opened by that time. It was announced that voting would be extended to proceed into 24 August 2023 to compensate for the late opening. It is an unfortunate falsehood that there is any polling station that had not opened by 1900hrs on polling day, 23 August 2023. It’s a shame that such a falsehood found itself in a report of this stature and implication. Otherwise, if the report was based on good faith, the name and location of polling stations that had not opened by 1900hrs on polling day should have been specified for purposes of verification and rectification. Fourthly, right upfront the preliminary report says: The Mission was informed that a further proclamation was issued rendering 24 August 2023 as a polling day in view of the delays experienced at certain polling stations. Furthermore, President Mnangagwa also proclaimed 2 October 2023 for the run-off election to the office of president if such a poll becomes necessary. Two points about this. One is that the mind boggles at why the Mission had to be “informed” about this, and why the Mission did not get a copy of the proclamation for itself. Was this out of laziness or what? The other point is why does the preliminary report fail to see and understand that “the further proclamation” was the specific solution to the litany of what the Mission lists in its preliminary report as its observations regarding the delayed opening of polling stations on polling day and the shortage of ballot papers and related issues? An impression, a false one at that, is created to the effect that the litany of observations of problems that beset polling stations that opened late or opened without some or all ballot papers for the three elections were left unattended to. If truth be told, the Sadc Election Observation Mission’s preliminary report leaves a distinct and disturbing impression that the Mission had a sinister and a not so hidden mission against the people of Zimbabwe and the Republic of Zimbabwe, abi nitio. That’s unfortunate because the impression is palpable!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1695221640085319951/ext_tw_video_thumb/1695221134877224960/pu/img/n9BHbNRA3hxjG-tI.jpg)
![The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014084863523991988/amplify_video_thumb/2014081102336438272/img/PO6AC1MzPmGnWRpm.jpg)