Jul 31, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The ICJ, together with the Global Initiative on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) and the Right to Education Initiative (RTE), held webinars on 24 and 31 July.
The discussions explored The Guiding Principles on the Human Rights Obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education (Abidjan Principles) and their application in the context of COVID-19.
The webinars focused respectively on public education and private education.
Participants included judges and representatives of civil society organizations from Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and Sierra Leone.
“The aim of the conversation in these webinars is to better understand the problems facing civil society and judiciaries in the four countries in ensuring the protection of the right to education in the context of Covid-19 and the increased privatization of education,” said ICJ Commissioner Justice Jamesina King of Sierra Leone.
The Abidjan Principles, based in large measures on existing international law and standards, were developed by leading international experts and adopted in 2019.
They clarify and set out elements of State obligations to uphold the right to education and related standards in both public and private educational settings.
Participants were able to deepen their understanding of the Abidjan Principles as well as the increased pressure placed on education systems across Africa as a result of COVID-19.
“COVID-19 has dramatically exacerbated already well-known issues in the realization of the right to education” and the “divide in quality of access to education between public and private sectors,” added Justice King.
“Private actors in particular… have been reported to have capitalized on the pandemic to extend their business in the education sectors.”
Participants raised concerns about the use of public funds to support private actors in education, an issue which is addressed by the Abidjan Principles.
Ashina Mtsumi from the GI-ESCR, summarized the Abidjan Principles and emphasized that “States’ first priority should be public education, as there is no obligation for states to fund private actors in education.”
A theme emerging from the discussions was the important role of the State in regulating private actors in education in the context of the global pandemic. Judges discussed the role of the judiciaries in their respective countries in ensuring the protection of the right to education.
“Can courts force private institutions to continue [operating] or even reduce school fees as an incidence of the right to education?,” Justice Joel Ngugi of Kenya asked.
Justice Ngugi also highlighted the need for governments to ensure that schools are safe for all learners in the context of COVID-19.
Judge Lydia Mugambe said that while in Uganda the pandemic had seen some private schools continuing with online learning, learners in public schools had had to depend on State provision of learning through newspapers and news stations which had not been sufficient. In the COVID-19 context, States must ensure that they continue to “require private instructional educational institutions to meet the minimum standards set by the State”, as indicated by the Abidjan Principles.
“The real problem is that our infrastructure is bad, the education system is bad and we have had a constitutional right to education since 1994 and I am embarrassed to say that the Covid-19 crisis has not exacerbated the problems, but has exposed the problems and have left no place to hide for years and years of government negligence,” said former Justice of the Constitutional Court in South Africa Zak Yacoob.
Representative from civil society organizations from all four countries emphasized the increasing risks introduced to the right to education as a result of privatization of education in Africa.
Watch the first webinar here.
Contact:
Khanyo Farisè (ICJ Legal Adviser) e: Nokukhanya.Farise(a)icj.org
Tim Fish Hodgson (ICJ Legal Adviser) t: +27828719905; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Jun 17, 2020 | Feature articles, News
While reports suggest a decrease in crime during lockdown due to restricted movement, violence against women, including gender-based violence (GBV), continues unabated, and has likely worsened throughout Africa, replicating global trends in this regard.
Africa has a serious GBV crisis, which domestic legislative frameworks and accountability mechanisms have failed to fully address.
Various factors contribute to the increasing incidence of GBV in Africa. These factors are facilitated by the failure of States to adequately discharge their obligations to protect persons from gender based violence, through legal reform and administrative actions.
The issues manifest in gender insensitive actors and institutions that administer justice, impunity for abuses, and limited capacity of justice actors to properly handle cases due to lack of training and resources.
There are also challenges in issuance of restraining and protection orders. All these problems are reinforced by a widespread lack of willingness to recognize, understand and engage with women’s rights by State actors.
In Africa, more than one in three women (36.6%) report having experienced physical, and/or sexual partner violence or sexual violence by a non-partner. Studies have also found that the highest prevalence of child sexual abuse is in Africa.
This GBV crisis in Africa has been worsened by the coronavirus pandemic, which has contributed to a surge in GBV. The pattern of rape, sexual violence, and killing of women continues to spread across the continent, even during this health crisis.
On 27 May, the news of the rape and killing of a 22-year-old student while she studied in an empty church in Nigeria sparked outrage and protests in many parts of the country.
In South Africa, the body of 28-year-old woman Tshegofatso Pule was found on 8 June. She had been stabbed and hanging from a tree; she was eight-months pregnant at the time.
There have been several reports of femicide since some COVID-19 restrictions were lifted in South Africa. In Zimbabwe, increasingly there have been reports of rape and other sexual violence being used as political weapons to suppress political opposition in Zimbabwe.
Recently, there have been reports that three leaders of the MDC-A party were abducted and subjected to torture which included sexual violence after staging a flash demonstration against failure of the government to address livelihood issues during the Covid-19 lockdown.
While the demonstrations were led by both men and women, allegations focused on sexual violence against women by State agents have been made on numerous occasion especially following protests against the government. In both instances the response by the State authorities has been to challenge the allegations before conducting a thorough investigation.
In the recent case of the MDC-A leaders, officials have not only refuted the allegations but also charged the victims for breaching Covid-19 regulations and recently arrested them for allegedly ‘faking abduction’ and lying about torture..
Global Standards
All States must protect against gender based violence, whether by State or private actors, pursuant to their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Prevention of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Most African countries are parties to these international treaties.
In addition, States of the African Union are bound to respect a range of international law and standards which prohibit gender based discrimination and sexual violence, most notable are the African Charter, and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women (the Maputo Protocol) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol provides that “every woman shall be entitled to respect for her life and the integrity and security of her person. All forms of exploitation, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.
States parties shall take appropriate and effective measures to enact and enforce laws to prohibit all forms of violence against women, including unwanted or forced sex whether the violence takes place in private or in public.” Article 16 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child includes sexual abuse of children as a form of torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
As explained by the CEDAW Committee, all States, including African States, have a due diligence obligation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish rape and other GBV.
It is noteworthy that, 17 years into its existence, not all African countries have ratified or signed the Maputo Protocol, with only 42 out of 55 AU member states having ratified the convention. Of the few countries which have comprehensive domestic legal frameworks to eliminate all forms of violence against women, they too often face challenges in implementation.
States have the primary responsibility to take effective measures to eradicate GBV. States have an obligation to take the necessary action at all levels to ensure the elimination of harmful gender norms and stereotypes, as well as to ensure the elimination of GBV.
African countries need to urgently respond to the scourge of GBV in the region. The ICJ intends to publish a series of legal briefs on the “State of Rape Law” as provided in various jurisdictions in Africa, in order to highlight the challenges in criminal justice systems in relation to addressing the crime of rape and to provide concrete recommendations for reform.
Jun 9, 2020 | News
As of 9 June, at least ten prominent lawyers have been arrested and criminally charged in Zimbabwe.
Among them, Advocate Thabani Mpofu (photo), Advocate Choice Damiso, Mr Tapiwa Makanza and Mr Joshua Chirambwe have been arrested and charged with the crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice.
These lawyers are alleged to have falsified information in the papers filed in a legal matter in which they were representing a citizen, who was challenging the legality of President Mnangagwa’s decision to appoint Mr Kumbirai Hodzi as the Prosecutor General.
Mr Dumisani Dube was arrested on similar charges but his charges arise from a different case.
Mr Patrick Tererai was charged with disorderly conduct after he demanded access to his client who had been detained at a police station.
The ICJ notes that the criminal charges laid against all the six lawyers are linked to the performance of their duties as legal practitioners.
The ICJ reminds the Government of Zimbabwe of its domestic and international obligations pertaining to the right to fair trial and protection of the independence of lawyers, as underscored in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa
These elaborate standards relevant to the right to a fair trial including under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Of particular significance is Principle 16 of the UN Basic Principles which states that “Governments shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference;…. and [lawyers] shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.”
In addition, Principle 20 provides that “Lawyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative authority.” Similar provisions are included in Part I of the African Principles and Guidelines.
A lawyer would not generally be immune from criminal proceedings where allegations of perjury or intentionally providing false information to a court were well-founded.
In relation to this recent group of cases, the Law Society of Zimbabwe has expressed the concern that the arrests appear calculated to hinder the members of the profession from undertaking their professional duties.
In this context, the ICJ calls upon the Government of Zimbabwe to ensure that the right to fair trial for these lawyers is fully respected and that the criminal charges brought against these lawyers are not abused to subvert the independence of the legal profession.
“The arrest of ten lawyers within one week on criminal allegations arising from the performance of their duties as legal practitioners is a cause of concern. The state must ensure that these cases are handled fairly and that the criminal justice system is not abused to harass and intimidate lawyers who represent clients who are perceived as political opposition to the sitting government,” said ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga.
Of late, Advocate Thabani Mpofu has represented opposition leader Mr Nelson Chamisa in a series of cases. These include the presidential election petition and the cases in which Mr Chamisa’s rise to the leadership of the opposition party has been challenged.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Regional Programme, t: +263 77 728 3248, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Jun 4, 2020 | News
The ICJ today urged the country’s authorities to take immediate measures to fully reconstitute the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) after its operations were effectively suspended following the expiry of the terms of office of four of its Commissioners on 7 May 2020.
One Commissioner had already resigned in 2018 meaning that the ZHRC no longer has the constitutionally required quorum for it to make certain decisions that are fundamental to the protection of human rights in Zimbabwe.
“The inability by the ZHRC to fully execute its constitutional mandate has serious implications on the ability of individuals -in particular victims of human rights violations -to access justice,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Programme.
“The role of ZHRC, as Zimbabwe’s national human rights institution is critical in providing an avenue for redress to victims of human rights violations and the general public,” he added.
Zimbabwe has been witnessing an escalation of human rights violations requiring investigation by a fully functioning and effective Commission.
This spate of human rights violations has had a disproportionate impact on the poor and economically vulnerable in the context of the Covid-19 lockdown measures.
There have been an increase in targeting of human rights defenders, civil society leaders and political opposition, which have included acts of enforced disappearance and torture and other ill-treatment.
The ICJ underlined that while redress for such violations required strong and independent judiciary as a guarantor of human rights, the role of fully functional ZHRC was critical to complement that of the judiciary.
The ICJ called upon the authorities in Zimbabwe, and in particular the Parliamentary Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, to act expeditiously to ensure that the vacant positions are filled without any further delay to enable the ZHRC effectively perform and discharge its constitutional mandate.
The ICJ said that failure by the responsible authorities to act expeditiously to fill the vacant positions violated the core values and principles the Constitution of Zimbabwe, in particular section 324 of the Constitution which provides that “all constitutional obligations must be performed diligently and without delay”.
In addition, the President to fill in any vacant position within three months of death or resignation of a Commissioner. The position of Commissioner Khombe became vacant on the 30 October 2018, and has not been filled to date.
Additional Information
The ZHRC is established as an independent institution under Chapter 12 of the Zimbabwe constitution with the general objective to “support and entrench human rights and democracy; to promote constitutionalism; to promote transparency and accountability in public institutions; to secure the observance of democratic values and principles by the State and all institutions and agencies of government, and government-controlled entities; and to ensure that injustices are remedied.”
On 26 May the Chairperson of the ZHRC, Dr. E.H Mugwadi, wrote a letter notifying “partners and stakeholders” of the retirement of four Commissioners, namely Dr Ellen Sithole (former Deputy Chairperson), Dr Joseph Kurebwa, Kwanele M. Jirira and Japhet Ndabeni-Ncube with effect from 7 May. The Chairperson noted that the retirement had left the Commission lacking the quorum to fulfil its constitutional obligations, particularly with respect to make policy resolutions and the adoption of monitoring and investigation reports. The Commission had also been unable to adopt Commission reports its activities.
International standards for effective and credible National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are contained in the United Nations Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles), which provide that NHRIs must be adequately resourced with sufficient institutional capacity to perform and discharge their responsibilities.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, t: +263 777 283 249; e-mail: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Blessing Gorejena, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +263 772 151 989, e-mail: Blessing.Gorejena(a)icj.org
Jun 2, 2020 | Advocacy, News
At a webinar hosted on 26 May, the ICJ heard from women human rights defenders (WHRDs) from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East discussed the adverse impact on women of lockdowns and other measures imposed by governments around the world as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reports from around the world indicate a rise in the number of cases of domestic violence and new challenges faced by women victims in accessing justice.
“Support or assistance for women experiencing domestic violence was not classified as an essential service that may continue when the country went on lockdown,” said Nonhlanhla Dlamini who is the Director of Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA) in Eswatini. Still, SWAGAA and other NGOs in Eswatini persisted in their work to lobby the government to classify their work as an essential service. The government later provided authorization to allow SWAGAA’s staff to move more freely in order to assist women experiencing gender-based violence during the lockdown.
Theresia Iswarini, Commissioner of Indonesia’s National Commission on Violence Against Women (KOMNAS Perempuan), observed that because of the limited movement during the lockdown, NGOs are having a hard time reaching women experiencing domestic violence who do not have phones or any devices to access the internet.
NGOs also face the challenge of placing these women in safehouses because they need to first present a certificate that they are COVID-free before they are accepted in the safehouse and such certificates are almost impossible to secure during the pandemic.
The WHRDs assisting women experiencing gender-based violence often also need psychosocial support, as “they also have to deal with the additional burdens of overseeing the homeschooling of their children and caring for family members who may have also fallen ill.”
In Sri Lanka, Mariam Dawood who is the Legal Adviser from Women in Need (WIN), noted that “women in Sri Lanka have always faced this problem and [of being] ignored when they report gender-based violence to police authorities.”
She also shared that while courts had started to operate on a limited basis in the country, women in maintenance cases risk being exposed to infection because they have to appear in court at least every month to get an order from the judge to compel their spouses to pay alimony or child support.
These orders were not automatically renewable and must be obtained by women every month from the court.
ICJ Commissioner and Member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Nahla Haidar asked participants to think about how civil society could mobilize other stakeholders in pandemics to give an ethical call on how behaviors can change at home.
“Who is responsible? We have been trying to speak to faith leaders, especially women faith leaders [in the MENA region]. I am wondering how these channels can be used, as well as within traditional leadership channels in Africa,” Haidar said.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Emerlynne Gil, noted that many of the issues raised showed that even during the pandemic, governments reproduced patriarchal approaches to public polices which effectively saw women as subordinate to men.
“This inequality underlines many of the actions taken by governments around the world to curb the pandemic,” said Emerlynne Gil. She added: “This means that it is all the more important for groups like the ICJ to continue its work eliminating gender stereotypes and discriminatory practices in the work of justice actors around the world.”
During the webinar, the ICJ launched an animation calling on States to adopt gender-sensitive responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Watch the animation here:
The webinar was live streamed on ICJ Asia’s facebook. Watch the livestream here:
May 1, 2020 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today condemned the recent decisions of the governments of the Republic of Benin and Côte d’Ivoire to withdraw their respective declarations that gave individuals and nongovernmental organizations the right to directly bring cases of human rights violations against those States, before the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights.
The ICJ called on the authorities of both States to reconsider and rescind these decisions.
Coming after a similar withdrawal by Tanzania in November 2019, these withdrawal decisions serve to deprive the inhabitants of these countries access to a judicial remedy at the regional level for human rights violations, and undermine the effective of the African regional human rights system.
The ICJ stressed that withdrawal decisions serve to undermine Aspiration 3 of the African Union’s AGENDA 2063, by which the AU aims at “[a]n Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law.”
Both States have offered vague and unsubstantiated rationales for their decisions, but their actions follow their dissatisfaction with the outcomes of particular cases against them. Responses of this kind are effectively an attack on the independence of the Court and can serve to undermine the integrity of the Court itself.
The ICJ recalls that in February 2020, the Executive Council of the African Union called on African States to accede to the Protocol Establishing the African Court and to make the declaration required under article 34(6) of the Protocol. These decisions of the governments of Benin and Côte d’Ivoire to withdraw their article 34(6) declarations fly in the face of this call by the Executive Council of the African Union and greatly threaten the progress that has been made towards protection of human rights in Africa.
Background
Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights requires that State Parties to the Protocol make a separate declaration in order to allow direct access to individuals and non-governmental organizations to bring cases against them before the African Human Rights Court. Benin which deposited its declaration on 8 February 2016 announced its withdrawal of the declaration on 23 April 2020. Benin claimed that its decision is based ‘dysfunctions and slip-ups’ it has increasingly observed in the work of the African Human Rights Court, allegedly resulting in the Court’s increasing departure from its mandate and core area of competence. Benin cited the earlier withdrawals of Rwanda and Tanzania as further justification for its decision.
Côte d’Ivoire, which deposited its declaration on 23 July 2013 and announced its withdrawal on 29 April 2020, says that its decision was based on what it considers to be ‘the serious and intolerable actions that the African Court has allowed itself’ and which ‘not only undermines the sovereignty of the state of Côte d’Ivoire … but are also likely to cause serious disruption to the internal legal order of states’.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, C: +27716405926, or +254 746 608 859 E: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Advisor, ICJ Africa, C: +234 8034927549; E: Solomon.ebobrah@icj.org
Full text, in PDF: Ivory-Coast-Statement-Advocacy-ENG-2020
