African Commonwealth Human Rights Weekly Update (18/06 - 01/07/2011)

The Gambia

Wednesday 29/06: Bloggers demand to know the fate of Chief Manneh

A number of foreign bloggers including those at Gambian Affairs are demanding to know about the fate of the Chief Manneh, a Daily Observer journalist who was last seen nearly five years ago on the 6 July 2006. Manneh was picked up by plain clothes Gambian security personnel from his office.

Journalists are regularly beaten, harassed and arrested for publishing articles that are critical of President Jammeh. Earlier in June Dr Amadou Scattered Janneh, a former Minister of Information and Communication, was charged with treason for allegedly distributing anti-Jammeh materials which demanded an end to the authoritarian rule of the president.

The case of Manneh has received much international attention. Senator Richard Durbin brought it to the attention of the US Senate in July 2008 whilst Amnesty International considers Manneh to be a prisoner of conscience and have been calling for his immediate release.

An ECOWAS court in 2008 ruled that Manneh should be released and that the Gambian authorities compensate him $100,000. Over three years on Gambia has yet to comply with these demands.

Nigeria

Wednesday 29/06: Night curfew in Abuja after Boko Haram Attacks

Nigeria’s capital is under a curfew in the wake of attacks by the bombings carried out by the Boko Haram. The city's administration said that parks and gardens that admit children should close at six p.m. whilst night clubs, beer halls, snooker clubs and cinemas should close by 10 p.m. The city also banned parking of vehicles on roads where most government offices are located.

Boko Haram is an organisation aims to establish an Islamic government in Nigeria. In the last few weeks it has carried out a number of bombings in northern Nigeria including a deadly an attack on the national police station in Abuja.

Commenting on The Boko Haram, General Ihejirika said, "Several unpatriotic Nigerians are aiding and abetting Boko Haram. That is why they thrive. Their aim is to intimidate people into exposing them. That is why they operate the way they do". (source AllAfrica.com)

Swaziland

Tuesday 28/06: No Bail out yet for Swaziland

South Africa denied reports on that it had approved a $1.2 billion bailout loan for Swaziland. CHRI has long being following events in the country and sent an official statement to the Commonwealth Secretariat in May about the country’s handling of protests.

Commenting on the speculated bailout the South African Treasury said: “While the South African government is in receipt of a loan request from Swaziland, as confirmed last week, no loan has been agreed to or granted to Swaziland” (Source Reuters)  

LGBT Situation in The Gambia

As part of our weekly look at the LGBT situation in African here is the situation in The Gambia.

The Gambia, ironically home of The African Union’s Court on People and Human’s Rights, has one of the worst human rights records in West Africa. President Jammeh has been criticised for electoral malpractice, ordering arbitrary arrests and hounding journalists.

As a popular holiday destination there has also been growing conflicts between the country’s Muslim society and the conduct of European holiday makers. In June 2009 two Spanish men were arrested for allegedly “making homosexual proposals” to a taxi driver. (Amnesty International)

Gambia

Law that Criminalises Homosexuality The Criminal Code of 1965, Revised Laws 1990, as amended in 2005[1] Article 144 criminalises ‘unnatural offences’ which are described as any person who has or permits another to have of him or her ‘carnal knowledge of a person against the order of nature’, or with an animal.  Carnal knowledge includes knowledge of the person, or inserting any object or thing through the mouth, vulva or anus for the purpose of stimulating sex, as well as any other homosexual act.  Whoever commits this felony is liable to up to 14 years in prison. The amendment of 2005 expands the definition of unnatural carnal knowledge to also include women. Section 147 criminalises any female who whether in public or in private commits any act of gross indecency, or procures or attempts to procure a female for that purpose.  Whoever is guilty of this felony is liable to five years imprisonment. In the amendment of 2005 section 147adds the crime of female indecency, where presumably before it only applied to males.

Practical Consequences of the law President Jammeh is reported to have given gays and lesbians 24 hours to leave the country while speaking in the town of Tallinding on May 15, 2008, during a presidential “Dialogue with the People” tour. According to the Gambian newspaper, The Daily Observer, Jammeh was quoted as saying, “We are in a Muslim dominated country and I will not and shall never accept such individuals [homosexuals] in this country.” During the speech he also vowed to “cut off the head” of any homosexual caught.[2] Gambia has a high Muslim population. This could well be a reason for the reluctance amongst the public to view homosexuality as being anything other than a crime. 1,084,000 follow the religion of Islam, constituting 90% of the overall population.

Constitutional Clause on Equality or Right to Privacy Constitution of the Republic of the Gambia, 1997, Reprinted 2002[3] Fundamental Freedoms are guaranteed under Article 17 wherein it is decreed that all fundamental rights and freedoms are enforceable in the Courts in accordance with the constitution.  Subsection (2) affirms the entitlement of every person in the Gambia to the fundamental human rights and freedoms contained in the chapter, whatever his race, colour, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest. This right can be limited for public interest reasons. Privacy is protected under Article 23 wherein it is affirmed that no person shall be subject to interference with the privacy of his or her home, correspondence or communications save as is in accordance with law and, in the interest of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of health or morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This right can however, be limited for public safety reasons. The right to protection from discrimination is guaranteed under Article33, where the expression “discrimination” means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, colour, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

---

‘Keeping their promises – human rights in the AU’

Today marks the annual commemoration of the founding of the African Union.

 

Amongst the objectives of the AU's leading institutions is a commitment to promoting and protecting human rights in accordance with the African Charter and other relevant human rights instruments. And this Africa Day sees cause for celebration with Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Lesotho and the Seychelles having recently ratified all eight of the main human rights conventions. We are seeing increased attention and commitment to improving disability rights across the continent. Great strides are being made to reduce maternal mortality. On the surface it would seem that the commitment of the AU and its members to human rights is to be applauded. However, running parallel to the human rights rhetoric of the AU is an entrenched failure to hold the governments of its members accountable for failures to uphold promises made under this human rights agenda.

On a day that commemorates the founding of a union, we look to the values that we share. The clear answer to the question of what the members of the AU have in common is poverty. Therefore the need for the fundamental rights enshrined in the UDHR is paramount. Access to education, work, healthcare, the right to vote, and religious freedom are basic rights that are often guaranteed in theory, but not evidenced in practice. We need only look next door to our West African neighbours to see examples. Severe repression of journalists and demonstrations continues in The Gambia, a country that paradoxically provides the base for the AU’s key human rights body – the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Extra-judicial killings continue in Cameroon. Even on our own doorstep forced evictions continue to occur. And what response do we see to these abuses? Accountability rests neither with law enforcement agencies, local or central authorities, nor with the government. An example of the most grave human rights abuses in recent times, the murder of over one thousand Kenyans in post-election violence in 2007/2008, saw not the Kenyan government step in to hold the perpetrators accountable, nor the AU, but the international community through the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

The AU declares its commitment to international justice to ensure the accountability for gross violations of human rights. But this quest for accountability frequently acquiesces to the notion of ‘regional solidarity’ and the multifarious political agendas that exist between its members. The initial response of the AU and its members to the issuance of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity provides a disquieting example. Several members chose to ignore the warrant and some actively invited Bashir to visit their countries. The AU itself sought suspension of the proceedings against Bashir from the UN Security Council and stated that they would not co-operate in with the ICC in his arrest. This response contradicted the commitments made by the AU to uphold human rights and constituted an absolute failure to respect and protects the rights of the victims of these crimes and their families.

Accountability for these human rights abuses needs to be based on legal commitments that AU member governments have made to meet these obligations. Mechanisms must exist by which these governments can be held to account, and when they are found to have failed to respect the rights if their citizens, remedies must be available. There is a real opportunity here for the AU to lead by example. However, as long as this politicisation is tolerated in the context of human rights abuses, it will continue to act as an obstacle to pursuing the rights agenda that the AU itself espouses.

Challenging politicisation in the context of the AU’s commitment to accountability for human rights abuses is of utmost importance. This is because the rights enshrined in the UDHR and associated treaties have global applicability. They are common to all people respective of cultural or economic differences. It is a poor excuse to hide behind the idea of cultural relativism when it comes to rights such as access to education or healthcare. And it is important to note that these rights are not stand-alone. Take the example of last year’s ruling in the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja on the right to education. The judgment stated that Nigerians have a legally enforceable right to education, dismissing the government’s assertion that education is ‘a mere directive policy of the government and not a legal entitlement of the citizens’. This was a laudable statement. However, this right cannot be realised in a country where a child’s right to secure home is not respected and children cannot travel to school safely. The AU needs to work with its members to shift towards a reality where all rights are respected collectively, rather than parceled off on a piecemeal basis.

Any union is only successful if it respects the values that bind it together. What good is it for a man to sit on a committee against domestic violence and then go home and beat his wife? The power in a union is a commitment to shared values, and practicing what you preach. 

On Africa Unity day we call for the AU to practice what they preach and use this union for good. We petition them to connect better across the physical and political borders of its members and act in solidarity to fulfil the human rights commitment it has made to Africans across the continent.

Alison Picton, Human Rights Advocacy, CHRI Africa

Also published on modern ghana - click here

Anti Terror Laws: Democratic Oppression?

   

Saturday the 21^st of May marked the annual world Anti- Terrorism Day. The Day is designed to spread the message of global peace, deter vulnerable youth from following cult practices, commemorate the victims of terrorism and honour the sacrifices made by soldiers who have battled against it.

 

Tackling terrorism, an act “meant to inflict dramatic and deadly injury on civilians and to create an atmosphere of fear for political or ideological purposes”, has been a global priority since the 9/11 attacks in New York. Weeks after 9/11 the UN passed resolution 1373 which committed all countries to combating international terrorism. This has been followed by the imposition of various national anti terror laws.

 

This year’s Anti - Terrorism day was particularly significant as it was the first since Osama Bin Laden’s death. As the recent bombings in Morocco, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, terrorist violence is far from over. However Bin Ladens’s death presents an opportunity for the world to consider its response to global terror. It is time to revisit the debate of whether the cost of surrendering civil liberties in anti terror laws is a price worth paying.

 

In Africa in particular anti terror laws often repress rather than protect citizens. Terror legislation gives special dispensation for governments to bypass their constitutional and international obligations when national security is judged to be under threat. These laws concentrate great power which can be open to misuse. Governments have the potential to use anti terror laws to maintain themselves in power and silence democratic opposition. This threatens fundamental rights to free speech, privacy and a fair trial.

We see a clear example of this in Uganda where, a blanket ban against all forms of public assemblies and demonstrations has been in place since February, on grounds of ensuring “public security”. President Museveni declared a national emergency when the main opposition leader Kizza Besigye disputed the results of the February general election and called upon his followers to protest against the government. Subsequently the country has been rocked by unrest as peaceful protests have been met with brutal zero tolerance policing. Besigye remains under house arrest for attempting to hold a new wave “walk to work” protests.

  

Elsewhere in the continent anti terror laws allow power to accumulate in the hands of government. Nigeria passed an Anti Terror Law in March 2011, giving security forces far reaching powers to intercept communications and search property without a warrant. The law also allows judges to detain suspects for 30 days if they feel it is in the interests of “public safety”. Tanzania’s 2002 Prevention of Terrorism Act gives immigration officers the power, without warrant, to arrest any person suspected to have been involved in international terrorism. The low, or in many cases, non-existent levels of evidence required in order to satisfy these legal tests not only runs the risk of abusing people’s rights to privacy and freedom from arbitrary arrest, but can be seen to authorize such abuses. The use of anti terror legislation in this way could not be further from the purpose in which it was designed, and makes a mockery of the commitments made by these two states to protect human rights.

Another way we see governments using anti terror legislation as a tool for repression is in the limitations it imposes on freedom of expression. Journalists frequently face the possibility having their messages suppressed by governments enacting these laws. In The Gambia journalists regularly find themselves faced with surveillance, police charges, arbitrary arrests and even death threats if they criticise Jammeh’s regime. Similarly in Zimbabwe six foreign journalists reporting on the country’s 2001 political unrest were arrested on terrorism charges.

Anti terror laws are necessary but it is important that they are used responsibly. African governments must not be allowed to abandon their constitutional obligations and hide under the cloak of national security. Society must continue to hold governments to account and ensure that anti terror legislation is used to protect rather than pose a threat to democracy.

Henry Wilkinson, CHRI Africa. www.chriafrica.blogspot.com

Published in The Accra Times, Wednesday May 25th 2011 p.7. also published in The Ghanian Times, Tuesday 31st of May 2011 p.11

What are Human Rights and what is CHRI?

Welcome to the brand new blog for the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) in Africa. We hope you enjoy reading and discussing our posts as much as we enjoy writing them!

So what are Human Rights, what is CHRI, and what is the purpose of this blog?

Human Rights are set out in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The thirty articles of the UDHR establish the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of people. These rights include the right to life, food and shelter, freedom of expression, the right to not be arrested and detained without being charged and the right to privacy.

CHRI is an independent non-governmental organisation created to ensure the practical realisation of these basic rights in the countries of the Commonwealth. We have been operating since 1987 and have three offices in Delhi, London and Accra.

The Africa office was opened in Accra in 2001 and is at forefront of the fight to uphold basic human freedoms in the region. We work in three main areas of human rights: Human Rights Advocacy; Access to justice and The Right to Information.

The Advocacy programme is involved in bringing to light breaches of human rights in the African members of the Commonwealth and applying pressure for change. One of the biggest feats of the CHRI advocacy team was its involvement and investigation into the case of the extra-judicial disappearances and killings of approximately 50 Africans that took place in the Gambia in 2005. We are currently looking at elections in the region. For example The Gambia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ghana and Sierra Leone all have presidential elections in 2011/2012 and we hope to ensure that people are allowed “to frame the society in which he or she lives”. This right is set out in the Commonwealth’s Harare Declaration.

The Access to Justice Programme has been involved in monitoring the accessibility of justice to Ghanaians and other Africans nationals in terms of accessibility to the judicial system, especially the right to fair trials. CHRI has also endeavoured to ensure the availability of courts and the provision of legal aid to guarantee the right to fair trial. As part of this programme CHRI have held police workshops and set up Justice Centres.

The CHRI Right to Information Programme is the secretariat of the Coalition on the Right to Information. CHRI understands that the right to information is fundamental to the process of democracy and is working tirelessly to achieve the passing of the Right to Information Bill which would help to create a more transparent and accountable government in Ghana and beyond.

So what is the purpose of this blog? This blog aims to provide an up-to-date civil society perspective of what is going on in the African members of the Commonwealth. It will be a forum for discussion on human rights and the pressing issues for Africans today. We want and need your involvement and comments to help make the Commonwealth a place where human freedoms are adhered to in letter and in spirit.