African Commonwealth Human Rights Weekly Update (21/05 - 27/05/2011)

Botswana

Tuesday 24/05: Commonwealth Anti Corruption Conference:  Botswana played a host to a four day Commonwealth meeting on ways to combat corruption. In the opening speech Botswana’s President Seretse Khama Ian Khama stated that corruption is draining precious resources that could otherwise be used in public services like health and education.

Healthcare and education are known as “positive human rights”. Negative rights govern what the state cannot do to an individual (e.g arrest without charge), whilst positive rights require the state to assist citizens in achieving their rights (e.g providing a school so people can fulfill their right to education).

The rights of citizens to medical care and schooling is contained in Articles 12 and 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Malawi

Monday 23/05: Malawi prepares for life without British Aid: Following the diplomatic row triggered last month by the government’s expulsion of the British ambassador, Fergus Cochrane-Dyet, the UK Department for International Development stated that aid to Malawi would be frozen while relations between the two countries are reviewed.

The aid freeze looks set to have a worrying impact on an economy that receives 40% of its annual budget from the donor community (20% of this aid comes from the UK).  Currently two-thirds of Malawi’s population live on less than $2 a day.

Mauritius

Monday 23/05: Chagossians Await the outcome of London conference: More than 150 exiled Chagos islanders gathered in London to campaign for their return to the Indian Ocean archipelago.

The islanders were forcibly evicted 40 years ago to make way for a US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The base has come under criticism from the legal charity Reprieve which report that the base is being used for the detention of terrorism suspects.

Over the past decade, the islanders have embarked on a legal struggle for the right to return home. Three years ago, the House of Lords overturned the original high court decision that the islanders could return. The matter is now before the European Court of Human Rights.

The discussion has been complicated further following the British government's decision to declare the islands a marine protected area with a total fishing ban. A balance needs to be struck between the rights of the islanders and efforts at conservation.

Nigeria

Thursday 25/05: Commonwealth Observer report on Nigerian elections: Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma announced the release of the Commonwealth report on the April 2011 elections in Nigeria.

Mr Sharma commended the Nigerian authorities for conducting credible presidential and parliamentary elections. However, significant concerns were raised about the loss of lives before and during the electoral process.

Swaziland

Friday 27/05: Bushfire Boycott Gathers Pace: The Swaziland Solidarity Network announce that Caiphus Semenya, will not only boycott the forthcoming “Bushfire Festival” but will not be playing in Swaziland until the “country becomes democratic”. For more info on click on the link here.

“Deep House DJ”, “Black Coffee” and “Professor” have all also pulled out of performing.

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