Dec 8, 2017 | News
The South African government should reconsider its move to withdraw from the ICC, said the ICJ, the Southern Africa Litigation Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights, local, regional and international human rights advocacy organizations.
This will be the second attempt by South Africa to withdraw from the Rome Statute, after the first attempt in 2016 was declared unconstitutional by the High Court after being successfully challenged by several parties including the Southern Africa Litigation Centre.
This week Minister Michael Masutha announced the government’s intention to pursue withdrawal from the ICC in a speech at the Assembly of State Parties of the ICC in New York.
The Minister was critical of Pre-Trial Chamber ruling of the ICC, which found that South Africa was obliged to arrest and detain Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir.
He claimed that South Africa’s continued membership on the ICC would undermine “its ability to carry out its peace-making mission efforts in Africa” and “fulfill its role as mediator for peace”.
“The pursuit of justice and the pursuit of peace are complementary and mutually reinforcing objectives that South Africa will best achieve by remaining party to the Rome Statute of the ICC,” said Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Executive Director of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre.
“Protecting heads of state from justice compromises efforts at trying to establish peace. South Africa’s refusal to arrest Bashir is an affront to Darfur victims,” she added.
Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ’s Africa Director said: “The notion that South Africa needs to embrace impunity in order to help peace is irrational and at odds with experience around the world. Greater accountability, for instance through international mechanisms, assists the rule of law, development efforts and respect for human rights. It is vital that South Africa projects itself as a leader in anti-impunity efforts in the region.”
“Withdrawing from the ICC would destroy a pillar of African efforts to tackle impunity which would be an unfortunate move for South Africa and the international community,” he added.
Masutha did not outline how the withdrawal will take place in compliance with South African law, indicating only that he would “shortly serve on Parliament” notice of withdrawal.
The African National Congress (ANC), South Africa’s ruling party, has indicated that it will discuss the issue of withdrawal at its policy conference scheduled for later this month.
According to a High Court judgment handed down earlier this year, however, the executive has no legal authority to withdraw South Africa from the ICC.
The High Court held “South Africa can withdraw from the Rome Statute only on approval of parliament and after the repeal of the Implementation Act”.
If notice were given to Parliament, it would have to independently consider the merits of withdrawal.
Under South African law the public should then be given an opportunity to participate in this process, which would involve the repeal of the Implementation Act.
“There is the added danger of an impunity gap should South Africa pull out of the ICC without putting in place any other mechanisms to ensure accountability for international crimes. There are currently no other regional or international fora to prosecute serious crimes under international law,” said Jacob van Garderen, Director of Lawyers for Human Rights.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director, t:+27 716405926, e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Tim Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t:+27 828719905, e: timothy.hodgson@icj.org
Contact at Southern Africa Litigation Centre: Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh kaajalr@salc.org.za / +27 84514 8039
Contact at Lawyers for Human Rights: Jacob van Garderen, jacob@lhr.org.za / +27 828203960
Background
Burundi left the ICC on 27 October 2017. South Africa has declared its intention to be the second African country to leave.
Gambia, which a year ago, had also indicated its intention to withdraw, spoke at the Assembly of State Parties of its pride to remain with the ICC and of its re-commitment to the ICC.
The South African government appeared before the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court in April 2017 to defend its failure to cooperate with an ICC request to arrest and surrender President Omar al Bashir of Sudan when he attended an African Union Summit in June 2015.
The Pre-Trial Chamber issued its ruling on 6th July 2017 which confirmed that South Africa did in fact fail to cooperate with a request from the ICC in violation of its international law obligations. The Chamber did not, however, issue any sanction for this non-compliance.
Read also
ICJ Briefing submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services.
High Court judgment on withdrawal from the ICC.
ICC ruling on South Africa’s failure to arrest President Omar Al-Bashir.
Opening Statement of Minister of Justice Michael Masutha at Assembly of States Parties of the ICC.
Nov 24, 2017 | News
As Zimbabwe prepares to swear in Emmerson Mnangagwa following the resignation of long time Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, the ICJ today called on the incoming authorities to immediately act to restore the rule of law and ensure the full observance of human rights in the country.
“As the events of the past few days propel Zimbabwe away from decades of authoritarian rule replete with human rights violations, the incoming administration must side with the people of Zimbabwe and seize this unique opportunity to ground its governance in the rule of law,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ’s African Regional Programme.
The ICJ indicated that it is particularly concerned at the intrusion of armed forces in the political process and governance, which is prohibited by the Zimbabwean Constitution and contravenes core rule of law principles concerning the respective functions of the military and civilian authorities.
Emphasizing that the rule of law and respect for the national Constitution remain paramount even as Zimbabweans decide on their future, the ICJ called on the Zimbabwean National Army (ZNA) to refrain from any further activity that intrudes into functions of governances that are within the proper purview of civilian authorities.
“It amounts to setting a dangerous precedent for Zimbabwe and the region to allow or excuse such incursions at the whim of armed forces,” Tsunga added.
Under the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance adopted by African Union Member States, Zimbabwe is required to “institutionalize constitutional civilian control over the armed and security forces to ensure the consolidation of democracy and constitutional order”.
The ICJ further expressed concern at emerging reports of usurpation of police duties by the ZNA, which has allegedly carried out a series of arbitrary arrests and detention of civilians.
“Due process guarantees and fair trial rights are particularly vulnerable when armed forces decide to assume police functions,” Tsunga said.
Recalling that international law does not allow or encourage impunity for serious human rights violations that constitute crimes, such as torture and extra-judicial killings, the ICJ stressed the importance of ensuring accountability for human rights violations as Zimbabwe transits to into a new era of governance.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ-Director Africa Regional Programme, t: +27716405926, or +254 746 608 859 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Advisor, ICJ Africa Regional Programme, t: +234 8034927549 ; e: Solomon.ebobrah(a)icj.org
Nov 7, 2017 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today called for the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“African Commission”) to establish a special mechanism for the protection and promotion of the independence of judges and lawyers in Africa.
The ICJ made the call in a statement during the public session of the 61st Ordinary Session of the African Commission in Banjul.
The call comes amidst growing threats to the independence of justice in Africa.
In African Union (AU) Member states across the continent, judicial officers and legal practitioners have been targeted for violence and intimidation, or unjustified interference or sanctions.
Recent cases include Burundi, Botswana, Egypt, Lesotho, Libya, Kenya, Swaziland, Zambia, the DRC, Cameroon and Zimbabwe.
The frequency and seriousness of such incidents prompted the ICJ working with the Africa Judges and Jurists Forum to convene a round table meeting in Harare in 2016 to discuss practical steps that could be adopted to minimize the plight of jurists in distress.
The Harare meeting identified the need for a special mechanism for the protection and promotion of judicial independence in Africa, similar to the existing United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
“It is chilling when a judge is shot in Lubumbashi in the DRC, or a deputy chief justice’s security personnel and driver is shot in Nairobi, Kenya ahead of an important case, or the offices of the Law Association are besieged by militias in Lusaka, Zambia. These are real cases,” said Arnold Tsunga ICJ’s Africa Regional Director.
“An independent, impartial, competent and accountable judiciary and independent and free legal profession are pre-requisites for effective protection of human rights and entrenchment of the rule of law in Africa,” he added.
The ICJ noted that the African Commission have already set out an excellent framework of standards to guarantee independence of the judiciary and access to justice in Africa in the 2003 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa.
What is needed now is to put in place machinery for their implementation.
The Commission must now to take steps towards establishing a special mechanism for the protection and promotion of judicial independence, including the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and establishing a Working Group on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme, t: +27716405926, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Banjul- Independence Judges and Lawyers-Advocacy-2017-ENG (Statement in English, pdf)
Nov 2, 2017 | News
The ICJ notes that a number of threats and intimidating statements aimed at members of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, were made during the election campaign period in Kenya.
Now that the elections ordered by the Supreme Court after nullification of the initial elections in Kenya have been concluded, it is important for Kenyan authorities to reaffirm commitment to separation of powers and guarantee the security of judges and the independence of the judiciary in the country, the ICJ says.
On Monday, 30 October 2017, the Indepedent Electoral Boundaries Commission (IEBC) in Kenya declared President Uhuru Kenyatta as the winner of the October 26 repeat polls.
President Uhuru Kenyatta is widely reported to have been heavily critical of the Supreme Court for annulling the 8 August 2017 presidential election on a “technicality”.
It is also reported that he promised to “fix” the bench if re-elected.
The President is also reported to have said he would deal with Chief Justice Maraga, but did not however define the form of action he would take.
Similar sentiments have been attributed to Deputy President William Ruto. It’s unclear at this stage whether these statements should be dismissed as political rhetoric on the campaign trail or warrant further consideration.
However such utterances and threats on the judiciary by senior government officials may be inferred as an attempt to intimidate or unduly influence the bench.
“These threats coming from the highest authorities hinder the ability of the courts to perform their duties, which are indispensable for the rule of law and fair administration of justice in the country,” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme Director.
“Judges must be able to exercise their duties freely, independently and impartially, or else the rule of law in the country will be eroded, and with it, effective protection of the human rights of the Kenyan people,” he added.
The ICJ recalls that the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provide that judges must be able to perform their professional duties “without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason” and that governments have a responsibility to secure this guarantee.
Article 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights also imposes an obligation on Kenya to establish an independent judiciary.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme, t: +27716405926, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Oct 24, 2017 | News
Today the ICJ expressed its grave concern at the arrest and arbitrary detention of 13 Tanzanian human rights defenders and lawyers on charges that are incompatible with international legal obligations binding on Tanzania. The ICJ has called for their immediate release.
On 17 October 2017 13 human rights defenders, some of whom are lawyers, were arrested and detained in Tanzania after participating in a legal consultation aimed at considering legal challenges to the Tanzanian government’s ban on drop-in centres serving people at risk of HIV and a ban on the importation of water-based lubricants that are an essential HIV prevention tool.
Those 13 human rights defenders are all affiliated with the Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Southern Africa (ISLA) and Tanzanian organisation Community Health Services and Advocacy (CHESA).
Though they have not been charged, they appear to be under investigation for promoting homosexuality and in terms of section 154 of the Penal Code, which prohibits having ‘carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature’.
To date 12 of the 13 remain in custody. After initially being granted bail by the Tanzanian police services, their bail was revoked without specified reason on 20 October 2017 and the 13 continue to face the real threat of criminal prosecution.
Instead of releasing the detained on bail, on 24 October the Tanzanian police services approached a Tanzanian court seeking an order granting them permission to perform ‘medical tests’ in the form of ‘forced anal tests’.
The police sought to perform these tests on the nine men who remain in detention. These invasive and demeaning tests appear to have been aimed at obtaining evidence for their criminal prosecution for performing sexual acts with other men.
If carried out non-consensually such exams violate the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The 13 charged under archaic colonial-era criminal laws that prohibit ‘carnal knowledge against the order of nature’, and which criminalize consensual sexual conduct between consenting males a sentence of ‘imprisonment for life and … for a term of not less than thirty years’, in contravention of international standards.
The laws, which are inherently abusive under any circumstance, do not even appear to be in any way applicable the 13 persons who were meeting for purposes of HIV prevention and promoting the right to health and the right to life.
The ICJ is concerned that arrests have been undertaken in contravention of rights protected under the Tanzanian Constitution and international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, treaties to which Tanzania is party.
The protected rights include freedom of expression, the right to liberty, including freedom from arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the right to equal protection of the law; and the right to non-discrimination.
If they are carried out, any ‘forced anal tests’ would violate the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In addition, the ICJ has previously denounced such tests as evidentially and medically worthless.
Tanzanian authorities also appear to be attempting to use this prosecution to clamp down on the activities of civil society organizations.
The registration of CHESA has been suspended in what appears to be an attempt to halt its operations.
This amounts to a violation of the right to freedom of association, which is protected by the Tanzanian Constitution, the African Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The ICJ urges the authorities to drop the charges against these 13 human rights defenders. Pending revocation or dismissal of the charges, the 12 remaining detainees should in any event be immediately released.
The ICJ condemns the attempts of the Tanzanian police services to perform forced anal tests on male detainees, which constitute ill-treatment under international law, and urges the authorities to immediately desist from this course of action.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Director of the Africa Regional Programme, t: +27716405926, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Tanzania-Statement illegal detention-News-Web Stories-2017-ENG (full statement with additional information, in PDF)
Sep 27, 2017 | News
The ICJ has welcomed the recent decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) on a recent decision found the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) responsible for the massacre of 70 people in Kilwa in 2004.
In its decision, the Commission not only urges the DRC State to pay 2.5 million US dollars compensation to eight victims and their families but also urges the DRC to prosecute Anvil Mining’s personnel involved in the massacre.
The African Commission also acknowledged the involvement of mining company Anvil Mining, an Australian-Canadian company (later bought by the Chinese company MinMetals) operating a copper and silver mine in Dikulushi, located 50 kilometers from Kilwa, that would
have provided logistical support to soldiers who bombarded civilians.
This decision sheds light on the corporate legal responsibility for human rights abuses, particularly in the extractive
industry sector, and suggests legal avenues for action against Anvil for alleged abuses.
Universal-KilwaMassacre-News-2017-ENG (full pdf ENG)
