Ghana Steps Down From UN Human Rights Council - Will Anyone Notice?

Friday the 17^th of June marked the end of the seventeenth session of the UN Human Rights Council - the last session of Ghana's five-year membership. When the Council reconvenes this September, will anyone notice Ghana's absence? Not likely.

Considered to be a leading African voice in the promotion of human rights, Ghana was elected to the Council with high expectations. Unfortunately, as its tenure at the Council ends, Ghana has neither lived up to its reputation nor the expectations. Ghana's record at the Council in the latter half of its term has been characterised by sporadic participation, occasionally negative voting practices and, most disappointingly to human rights advocates, a complete failure to be a leader at the Council.

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) recently released the third report in its Easier Said Than Done series. The report compared pre-election pledges made by Commonwealth countries at the Human Rights Council, with each country's actual performance at the UN and domestic levels. The report found that, despite written commitments from Ghana in 2008 that, if re-elected, it would participate actively in the work of the Council, from mid-2008 until mid-2010 Ghana was neither an active participant, nor a positive player.

Over the two-year period reviewed in the report, Ghana rarely participated during Council debates. Whereas its regional neighbour, Nigeria, made frequent interventions on a wide variety of subjects - Ghana's representatives only raised their voices occasionally. For example, during the 12th session, which lasted three weeks, Ghana made a few brief statements of little consequence on international solidarity and migrant rights and congratulated two countries, Comoros and Chad, on their human rights performance. Ghana's lack of participation continued in the period following the 12th session, but spiked somewhat in the 16th session when its representatives became slightly more active.

Despite not regularly being involved in the Council's debates and discussions, Ghana did participate in one of the substantive parts of the Council's work - the voting on resolutions. Ghana's voting record was regrettable. Resolutions at the Council are divided into two categories - those that focus on human rights situations in specific countries and those that focus more broadly on a thematic issue. While there is often disagreement between countries at the Council over the value of particular thematic resolutions, country-specific resolutions are certainly the most controversial. Certain countries vote against nearly every critical country-specific resolution while voting in favour of weak resolutions that deflect attention from their own poor human rights situations and those of allies. In effect, these countries work against the Council's mandate, because resolutions that increase international scrutiny upon rights-abusing regimes are one of the Council's most important tools.

Disappointingly, Ghana occasionally joined these countries in voting in favour of uncritical resolutions on the Democratic Republic of Congo in March 2009 and Sri Lanka in May 2009. Ghana also voted to keep the Sri Lanka resolution weak, by opposing amendments which called for investigations into human rights violations perpetrated during the most recent Sri Lankan war. Ghana further chose to abstain from voting in 2009 on an important resolution to extend the mandate of the Council's expert on Sudan. While many African countries are shy to vote in favour of applying international pressure on other African countries, Mauritius and Zambia, both African Commonwealth countries, voted in favour of keeping international scrutiny on Sudan, while Ghana abstained, reversing its previous positive vote in 2007. Ghana likewise abstained from voting on the landmark 16th session resolution which will put more international scrutiny on Iran, while Ghana's regional neighbour, Senegal, and a fellow Commonwealth African country, Zambia, voted in favour.

Zachary Abugov, CHRI Programme Officer, Delhi Office

This is an edited article from the original. The original has been published by a number of news carriers including all AllAfrica.com See http://allafrica.com/stories/201106230656.html

African Commonwealth Human Rights Weekly Update (18/06 - 24/06/2011)

Lesotho

Saturday 18/06: Tackling Tobacco in Lesotho

The Commonwealth made available its report “Taking up the challenge of non-communicable diseases in the commonwealth: 17 good-practice Case Studies”.

The report gives an insight into successful health initiatives undertaken by Commonwealth governments. One of the seventeen case studies was The Lesotho Network on Anti-Smoking.

In 2008 it was found that 11.8 per cent of boys and 7.5 per cent of girls aged 13–15 in Lesotho use tobacco and that 36.9 per cent of children live in a house where family members smoke in their presence.

The smoking and health programme, which costs US$50,000 a year, is aimed at reducing the numbers of smokers aged between 12 and 18. The programme involves 52 secondary and high schools. Each school is visited by a member of the Network and a teacher at each school is trained in anti-tobacco activities such as counselling. In addition over 2,000 ‘peer educators’ have been trained about tobacco issues.

Rwanda

Friday 24/06: Verdict due on Genocide Charge

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is due to give its verdict on the case of Mrs Nyiramasuhuko, the first Rwandan woman charged with genocide. Mrs Nyiramasuhuko was Rwanda's minister for Family and Women's Development at the time of the genocide.

The prosecution accuses her of taking part in the government decision to create militias whose mission was to wipe out the Tutsi population as fast as possible. She is also accused of organising the kidnap and rape of Tutsi women and girls with her son, Arsene Shalom Ntahobali, who was in his early 20s at the time.

The verdict is expected on the afternoon of Friday 24/06/2011.

South Africa

Wednesday 22/06: Michelle Obama urges African women to be at the forefront of change.

As part of her official visit to South Africa and Botswana Mrs Obama delivered a keynote speech to 70 young African women leaders about the need for women to be agents of change in Africa. The speech was given in the Regina Mundi church in Soweto, which was at the heart of the anti apartheid movement.

Mrs Obama said the successful fight against apartheid should inspire young people today and stated...

"You can be the generation that ends HIV/Aids in our time, the generation that fights not just the disease, but the stigma of the disease"

"You can be the generation that holds your leaders accountable for open, honest government at every level, government that stamps out corruption."

Swaziland

Wednesday 22/06: Mswati asks SA for a bail out.

King Mswati, Swaziland’s autocratic king, has been forced to turn to South Africa for funding as his government is facing a crippling deficit. The country was badly affected by the global financial crisis and the closure of the SAPPI Paper Pulp mill in Bhunya. As a result civil servants salaries have been slashed and plans for the King’s Silver Jubilee have reportedly been shelved.

Many activists in South Africa and Swaziland are opposed to a bail out because of the country’s poor democratic credentials.

Lucky Lukhele the spokesperson of the Swaziland Solidarity Network said, “Swaziland must be given a clean slate from which to begin, both politically and economically. The country’s citizens could not ask for more than that. The world should allow king’s Mswati’s reign to prove to be the dead end that it is, so that a new political dispensation can emerge from its ashes.”

Denying Ghana’s Disabled their Rights. The Disability Act: 5 years on

June 2011 saw the publication of the first-ever World report on disability. The WHO report reveals that of the one billion people in the world who have a disability, approximately 150 million encounter significant adversities in their daily lives.

In Ghana, an estimated 2.5 million people live with a disability, making them the country’s largest minority. People with disabilities face severe social stigma, creating a culture of entrenched discrimination.  Ostracised from society, many live under the misguided belief that their lives are not worthy of respect. This should not be the case in a country that five years ago this week passed a law designed to address this inequality.

June 23rd marks the fifth anniversary since the passing of the Persons with Disability Act in Ghana. It should be a time for celebration and reflection upon the great strides that have been made in improving the lives of Ghana’s disabled. However the great strides expected have instead turned out to be a few faltering steps. Rather than celebrate, we lament this inexcusable failure of the government to fulfil the commitment it has made to its most vulnerable citizens.

The Act confers a host of legal rights upon people with disabilities in Ghana. It guarantees access to public places, free general and specialist medical care, education, employment and transportation. The Act also regulates the commitments and other responsibilities of public and private service providers. However five years on, implementation has been at best poor, and in many areas non-existent. Despite the government’s legal obligation to provide free education and establish special schools for disabled children, many children with disabilities are still excluded from any form of education. Earlier this year, a visit by the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to 233 schools revealed that no disability facilities were provided, denying disabled children access to any form of education.  The healthcare system is unequipped to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities and the state of mental healthcare is pitiful. Commitments made to employment creation have been ignored and where persons with disabilities do gain employment they continue to face many constraints.

Despite repeated calls from civil society to formulate a comprehensive disability policy in Ghana, no such framework exists. There can be no excuses for this. The Act provided for the establishment of the National Council on Persons with Disability to formulate policies and strategies for broad implementation.  However it has taken three years for the government to establish the Council and almost five years for guidelines for the disbursement and management of the now 3% share of the District Assembly Common Fund assigned to persons with disabilities to be produced. A recent study by SEND Ghana found that out of the districts that are aware of the existence of the 3% DACF, only a third of people with disabilities in these district know how to access it.

Implementation of legislation takes time but the delay we see in Ghana’s disability law is excessive. Disabled people continue to have their rights abused on a daily basis, as a direct result of the government’s failure to uphold the very rights they themselves have conferred upon this already vulnerable group. Running parallel to the delay in implementation is the continued deferral of government to ratify the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which sets an international standard recognising the equal worth and dignity of all persons living with a disability. Despite being on the first countries to sign the Convention on it’s opening day, it was only four years later, in December 2010 that the government indicated its commitment to ratification. Six months later, no further progress has been made.

People with disabilities have the right to live independently in a society that actively encourages their participation in all areas of life.  If Ghana wants to preserve its reputation as a respected country it must protect and uphold human rights for all of its citizens.  On the fifth anniversary of its passing, we call on the NCPD to take urgent action to ensure that the legal obligations enshrined in the Persons with Disability Act are met. We urge the government to ratify the CRPD and send a message to the world that they are serious about the human rights of all people with disabilities.

Alison Picton, CHRI Africa

LGBT Situation in Kenya

Last week The UN passed a resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions. It requests that the High Commissioner should establish a committee to document discriminatory laws and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Commission will be active in all regions of the world, including Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda who all actively voted against its formation. The Commission will report on how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In addition the UN will convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council which will pick over the commission’s findings and suggest follow on recommendations to the High Commissioner.

In the meantime here is CHRI’s assessment of the LGBT situation in Kenya.

Kenya

Law that Criminalises Homosexuality Penal Code of the Laws of Kenya, Rev. 2009[1] Under section 162 it is an offence to have carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature or of an animal; or to permit a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature.  Whoever commits this felony is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, or in the case that said carnal knowledge was without the consent of the person, or with consent obtained by force, intimidation or false representations, imprisonment for twenty one years. Under section 163 it is an offence to attempt to commit any of the offences specified in section 162, whoever commits this felony is liable to imprisonment for seven years. Under section 165 it is an offence for any male, whether in public or private, to commit any act of gross indecency with another male person, or to procure or attempt to procure another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him.  This felony is liable to imprisonment for five years. Under the Sexual Offences Act of 2006, section 3 criminalises rape by a woman or man who intentionally and unlawfully commits an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs; and the person does not consent to this penetration, or the consent is obtained by force or intimidation.  Whoever is guilty of this felony is liable to imprisonment from ten years to life.

Practical Consequences of the law In February 2010 police crashed a ‘gay wedding’ and arrested five men.[2] GALCK – Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya is a group which seeks to promote recognition, acceptance and defend the interests and rights of LGBTI organizations and their members including their health rights. http://galck.org/

Constitutional Clause on Equality or Right to Privacy Constitution of Kenya, 2010[3] Article 27 guarantees equality before the law, where equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.  It also guarantees the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.  Neither the State nor a person shall discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth. Article 24. expands upon limitations to the rights and freedoms of the constitution and affirms that right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; the importance of the purpose of the limitation; the nature and extent of the limitation; and the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others. Article 28 guarantees the innate and inherent dignity of every person and the right to have that dignity respected. Article 31 guarantees to every person the right to privacy including having their family or private affairs unnecessarily revealed or the privacy of their communications infringed.

A Step Forward for Nigeria, a Standstill for Ghana

Sad to say, but Ghana will have to take a backseat to Nigeria on progressive legislation. Late last month marked a significant date on the Nigerian democratic calendar. After collaborative efforts on behalf of the Media Rights Agenda, Open Society Justice Initiative, Right to Know Movement, Nigeria, and OSIWA, Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan passed the Freedom of Information Bill into law.

This road to freedom of information was not an easy one. In 1999 the FOI Bill was presented to Nigeria’s fourth National Assembly; however there was little development for several years. In 2003 the bill was again presented to Nigeria’s fifth National Assembly, and by 2007 was signed by both Chambers. This seeming progression, however, revealed itself to be a chimera when President Olusegun Obasanjo rejected the bill, stating that it would be a threat to national security. Nevertheless, after over eleven years of steadfast persistence, on 28 May 2011, Nigeria marked itself as the sixteenth member of the Commonwealth, and the seventh country of Africa, to have passed a law granting a right to information.

So what does this development mean for the country of Nigeria? By granting a right to information, people have the right to access, and public institutions must proactively disclose, government-held public records and information that was hitherto considered confidential, and therefore kept away from public scrutiny. People can access information from departments of the government, corporations, and companies in which government has a controlling interest.

                                              President Goodluck Jonathan who passed Nigeria's FOI Bill
With this law, private companies utilizing public funds, providing public services or performing public functions are open to public scrutiny. Right to information grants insight into goals and decisions of the government, allowing for more informed decisions by the public; thus reinforcing a true democratic society. This means that traditionally closed governments and reluctant bureaucrats will have to fundamentally change their ways of working. Openness and not secrecy will have to reign. Bringing this change about is the greatest challenge now before the nation.

The Bill also provides protection to whistleblowers, ensuring immunity of any person disclosing malfeasance by their employers. This is particularly important as a great many powerful people, in long term, cozy relationships with each other, will find their questionable benefits under threat from disclosure.

Coming after so long, it is almost churlish to point out some of the law’s infirmities, but a glaring one is the absence of an Information Commission. The Information Commission works to oversee the implementation of the law and adjudicate cases of complaints and appeals when people do not receive information or are aggrieved by the decisions of the public institutions. Instead, the law requires someone who has been refused information to go to high court or the Federal Court. This expensive, time-consuming process is by no means possible for the majority of people.

Even as Nigeria has enacted a freedom of information law, Ghana still lags behind. After six long years Ghana’s first Bill, drafted in 2003, was finally approved by the Cabinet – thus allowing it to be presented before Parliament. However, despite the seeming progression, Parliament claimed it had never received the Bill. As of 2009 a startling sense of déjà vu was sensed as the bill was once again approved by Ghana’s Cabinet and presented to Parliament for consideration, this time successfully.

For the moment Ghana’s FOI bill lies stagnant in Parliament, and Ghanaian citizens are far from placid. On 28 January 2010 Accra was flooded with approximately 500 people, all demonstrating a united desire to see the FOI bill passed by Parliament. Headed by Mr. Seth Ablorsu, an executive member of the Trade Union Congress, and Nana Oye Lithur, a Human Rights activist, the demonstrators identified themselves as “Coalition on the Right to Information”.

As it stands, Ghana’s draft Bill contains many critical deficits that could render superficial citizen’s right to know. For instance, the staggering list of items restricted from public enquiry (as many as 53) severely limits information available for scrutiny. For example, according to section 5 (1), “Information is exempt if it is for submission or has been submitted to the Office of the President or the Vice-President”. The Bill goes on to exclude information pertaining to the Cabinet or Armed Forces. By restricting access to presidential deliberations, Ghanaians are unable to make informed decisions about their political leaders. Moreover, without enforced transparency it makes it difficult to unveil potential political corruption.

The unduly long time-period within which information can be made available is another matter of concern. After a request is made asking for a particular bit of information, the information officer can take up to 21 days simply to decide whether the information may be released – something that could be achieved in one day. Moreover, after the decision as to how much information can be released, it can take an additional fourteen days to deliver it.

The Ghanaian Bill also suffers the same deficiency as the Nigerian one in not having an Information Commission.

All in all, Ghana seems to be two steps behind Nigeria when it comes to a right to information. The sluggish manner in which Parliament seems to be processing the FOI Bill is a matter of unrest for many Ghanaians. If it is going to catch up, Parliament will need to let go of its lethargy, consult openly with, and listen to, a wide public, and significantly improve the pending law. The solidarity and support of various organizations as well as public demonstrations is an important step in achieving a right to know. Ghanaians are creating a loud message for their desire for human rights, and it is high time for Parliament to step up, listen and learn from their neighbours.

Chanté Blais, Canadian intern for the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in Delhi.

Aricle also published in The Chronicle, Friday 10th of June 2011. See http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=210593&comment=0#com

African Commonwealth Human Rights Weekly Update (11/06 - 17/06/2011)

Kenya

10/06/2011 – Humanitarian emergency as world’s biggest refugee camp runs out of room

Dadaab, a sprawling refugee camp in Kenya, has run out of space, Medicines Sans Frontiers has declared. Situated in the barren desert of Kenya’s north-eastern province, the camp’s population is expected to reach 450,000 by the end of the year.

Three years ago, the UN declared that the camp had no more room for new arrivals, but conflict and the worst drought in years have forced 44,000 Somalis to seek admittance into Dadaab since the beginning of this year.

The refugees – most of whom are women and children – arrive with no money, no food, no water and no shelter. 60% report illness on arrival, having walked through the desert for days. They are left without food or shelter in dry heat of 50C and are said to be vulnerable to attack by animals.

‘More refugees are on their way,’ Nenna Arnold, an MSF nurse, said. ‘We are already at bursting point, but the figures keep growing. This situation is a humanitarian emergency.’

Nigeria

17/06/2011 – Radical Islamist sect claims responsibility for suicide bombing

A radical Islamist sect has claimed responsibility for Nigeria's first suicide bombing, saying the attack that killed two at Abuja's police headquarters was aimed at Nigeria’s police chief.

The group, Boko Haram, stated ‘We are responsible for the bomb attack on the police headquarters in Abuja which was to prove a point to all those who doubt our capability.’

The group had threatened ‘fiercer’ attacks the day before the bombings, declaring their anger at a police declaration that its days were ‘numbered.’

Thursday’s powerful explosion ripped through the car park inside the police headquarters compound, killing a police officer and the bomber, wounding several others and destroying dozens of cars, according to police. The death toll is still to be confirmed.

The event was the first suicide bombing in Nigeria, a country of 150 million people facing a growing threat from Islamic militants. Levels of insecurity are already high in the country only weeks after President Goodwill Jonathan's election late April for his first full term.

Boko Haram, whose name means ‘Western education is sin’, launched an uprising in 2009 which was brutally repressed by the military, leaving hundreds dead. The group advocate for the creation of an Islamic state, and have been blamed for shootings of police and community leaders, bomb blasts and raids on churches, police stations and a prison.

Rwanda

16/06/2011 – Rwandan Parliament admitted to CPA

The Rwandan Parliament were officially admitted as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s 19^th member. Rwanda is hosting the 42^nd African CPA annual conference under the theme ‘Consolidation Growth and Development.’

Sessions will include issues of food security and sustainable livelihood, and the role of Parliament in mitigating the impact of genetically modified crops on poverty and food security. The agenda also covers the role of Parliaments in promoting democracy and good governance.

Uganda

16/06/2011 - Uganda's former vice president charged with fraud

Former vice-president Gilbert Bukenya has been charged with fraud.

He is accused of being responsible for the fraudulent procurement of luxury cars, which provided the transport for several heads of state during the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Kampala.

Mr Bukenya chaired the cabinet team in charge of preparations for the event but denies that he benefited from the $3.9m deal.

The former vice president was sacked in May, as part of a reshuffle in the wake of February's elections.

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.

---