MANILA: The second suspect in the murder of Filipino worker Joanna Demafelis, whose body was found in a freezer in a Kuwait apartment, has been arrested in Syria, it was announced late Saturday night.
Mona Hassoun, wife of Nader Essam Assaf, a Lebanese who was Dermafelis’ employer, is now in the custody of authorities in Damascus, the Philippine foreign office has been told.
Hassoun’s arrest came a day after the announcement that Lebanese authorities already have custody of her husband.
Hassoun and Assaf were the principal suspects in the murder of 29-year-old Demafelis.
Citing a report from the Philippine Ambassador to Kuwait Renato Villa, Alan Cayetano of the Philippines foreign office said Hassoun was arrested with her husband in Syria where the two fled after leaving Kuwait last year.
Cayetano said Assaf was immediately turned over to Lebanese authorities.
The two were taken into custody after Kuwaiti authorities requested the assistance of Interpol in locating and arresting them.
With the arrest of the suspects, Cayetano assured that President Rodrigo Duterte’s instructions to vigorously pursue justice for Demafelis would be followed.
Kuwaiti authorities discovered the body of Demafelis, which showed signs of torture, stuffed in a freezer earlier this month. The apartment had been abandoned by her employers in 2016.
Demafelis’ death angered President Duterte, who ordered a ban on deployment of Filipino workers to Kuwait.
During his visit to the wake of Demafelis in Sara, Iloilo, last Thursday, Duterte assured her family that he would seek justice for the slain worker but would leave the matter to the Kuwaiti authorities for now.
Meanwhile, presidential spokesman Harry Roque said the president has ordered the National Bureau of Investigation to summon the local recruiters of the murdered Filipino.
Second suspect in Filipino maid’s murder is arrested in Syria
Second suspect in Filipino maid’s murder is arrested in Syria
London police using withdrawn powers to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies: Probe
- ‘Cumulative disruption’ cited to ban, reroute rallies but power granted by concept withdrawn by Court of Appeal in May
- Network for Police Monitoring: This demonstrates ‘ongoing crackdown on protest’ that has reached ‘alarming point’
LONDON: London’s Metropolitan Police have used powers that have been withdrawn to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies in the capital, legal experts have said.
The Guardian and Liberty Investigates obtained evidence that police officers had imposed restrictions on at least two protests based on the principle of “cumulative disruption.” But that power was withdrawn by the Court of Appeal in May, according to legal experts.
All references to cumulative disruption have been removed from relevant legislation, yet the Home Office and the Met continue to insist that police officers retain the power to consider the concept when suppressing protests.
On May 7, five days after the powers were withdrawn, the Met banned a Jewish pro-Palestine group from holding its weekly rally in north London, citing the cumulative impact on the neighborhood’s Jewish community.
Last month, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to change the route of its rally on three days’ notice, highlighting the cumulative impact on businesses during Black Friday weekend.
Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer, said: “There is no reference to cumulative disruption in the original (legislation). The regulations that introduced this concept were quashed in May 2025, so I fail to see how this can still be the approach taken by police. There is no legal basis for this whatsoever.”
The Met appeared “not to care” if it was acting within the law, the Network for Police Monitoring said, adding that the revelation surrounding “cumulative disruption” demonstrated an “ongoing crackdown on protest” that had reached an “alarming point” by police in London.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans in October to reintroduce the power to consider cumulative impact in toughened form.
But Nick Glynn, a retired senior officer from Leicestershire Police, said: “The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don’t need any more. If they are provided with them, they not only use them (but) as in this case, they stretch them.
“They go beyond what was intended. The right to protest is sacrosanct and more stifling of protest makes democracy worth less.”
Cumulative disruption was regularly considered and employed in regulations if protests met the threshold of causing “serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The Court of Appeal withdrew the power following a legal challenge by human rights group Liberty.
Ben Jamal, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s director, was reportedly told by Alison Heydari, the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, that her decision on imposing protest regulations “will be purely around the cumulative effect of your protests.”
She reportedly added that “this is not just about Saturday’s protest but it’s a combination of all the impacts of all the processions so far,” referencing “serious disruption” to the business community.
“You’ve used this route in November 2024, and you’ve used it a few times before then as well. So, there is an impact.”
The repeated disruption to PSC-hosted marches, the largest pro-Palestine events in London, was a “demobilizer,” Jamal said.
It also caused confusion about march starting points and led to protesters being harassed by police officers who accused them of violating protest conditions, he added.
A Met spokesperson told The Guardian: “The outcome of the judicial review does not prevent senior officers from considering the cumulative impact of protest on the life of communities.
“To determine the extent of disruption that may result from a particular protest, it is, of course, important to consider the circumstances in which that protest is to be held, including any existing disruption an affected community is already experiencing.
“We recognise the importance of the right to protest. We also recognise our responsibility to use our powers to ensure that protest does not result in serious disorder or serious disruption. We use those powers lawfully and will continue to do so.”
