Sep 2, 2019 | News
In a statement, the ICJ, along with various other local and international civil society organizations and affected communities demand redress for forced evictions following visit of African Commission member and ICJ Commissioner Jamesina King.
On 27-28 August 2019 members of local communities who have endured or are at imminent risk of forced evictions in Eswatini met in Manzini to continue their advocacy efforts against forced and mass evictions. These stakeholders called on the responsible government authorities in Eswatini to take immediate measures to address the practice of forced evictions in violation of the right to housing.
The Eswatini land governance system fails Swazi people. Most land is held by the King in “trust”, other Swazi people live on title-deed land without formal recognition. Swazi people do not enjoy security of tenure and are vulnerable to forced evictions. Under international human rights law, forced evictions may only happen as a last resort, in terms of a court order, once all other feasible alternatives have been exhausted and appropriate procedural protections are in place.
Some participants in the workshop had previously submitted a report that documents forced evictions in Eswatini and engaged with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) at its 63rd Ordinary Session in Banjul, Gambia in October 2018. As a follow-up, the community representatives invited ACHPR Commissioner Jamesina King to participate in their meeting in Manzini in August 2019.
“It is very obvious that the laws of Eswatini have to evolve to provide these communities with legal protection and to put an end to forced evictions,” Commissioner King told the communities. King also called for the government to declare a moratorium on forced evictions until laws have been enacted which provide sufficient protection for the right to adequate housing.
The meeting, which was facilitated and coordinated in partnership with the Foundation for Socio-Economic Justice, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and the Southern African Litigation Centre, was also attended by local civil society organizations, religious groups and concerned individuals. The participants also had the opportunity of engaging with the Eswatini Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration.
Participants included representatives from communities recently affected by evictions from affected communities, from Nokwane and the Malkerns. Representatives from communities facing imminent eviction in Mbondzela, Gege in the Shiselweni region, Vuvulane, Madonsa and Sigombeni also participated.
Participants demanded the following in conclusion of the engagement:
- A public, time bound commitment to a moratorium on forced and mass evictions.
- The enactment of legislation that explicitly prohibits forced and mass evictions in all circumstances and sets out safeguards that must be strictly followed before any eviction is carried out.
- The provision of reparations for those families who have already been subjected to forced evictions in the absence of sufficient legal protections.
“The ICJ sees the Minister of Justice Pholile Dlamini-Shakantu’s willingness to discuss forced evictions with Commissioner King as a welcome indication of the government’s openness to constructive input by the African Commission. It is hoped that the government takes heed of struggles of community members, and acts swiftly to put an end to forced evictions in Eswatini”, said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director.
Find the full statement, which is endorsed by the Foundation for Socio-Economic Justice, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and the Southern African Litigation Centre here;
Eswatini-Swazi Government to End Forced Evictions-News-Webstory-2019-ENG
For more information contact:
Tim Fish Hodgson timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org +27 82 871 9905
Aug 21, 2019 | News
The ICJ in collaboration with the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), today launched a broad base anti-corruption awareness campaign in Harare.
The campaign was introduced by the President of Zimbabwe H.E. Cde Emmerson D. Mnangagwa and is expect to effectively run for 15 months.
It will harness different forms of media to spread awareness on the negative impact corruption has on the rule of law, human rights and development.
The anti-corruption awareness campaign is part of a broader longstanding rule of law initiative by the ICJ in collaboration with with stakeholders in the justice sector, to strengthen the rule of law for the protection and promotion of human rights for all, including women and persons from marginalized or disadvantaged groups.
Corruption undermines the rule of law by impeding access to justice through diversions of public resources for private gain.
As such the ICJ, through the support of the EU, is working towards increased transparency and integrity in the justice delivery system in order to increase access to justice for all.
“Zimbabwe has no option but to fight corruption if it is to be a just, peaceful and successful developmental state,” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Regional Director.
“The reconstituted ZACC has demonstrated a strong desire to pursue its mandate with renewed commitment from other stakeholders in the justice delivery chain,” he added.
The campaign is not undertaken in isolation. It builds on other initiatives to combat corruption under this programme, which include the establishment of an anti-corruption court, training of personnel for the court and various research initiatives.
The campaign seeks to support the national efforts against corruption, and sensitize the public on the negative effects of corruption in society.
It will promote awareness on how to report corrupt practices, how to avoid corrupt practices and the impact of corruption on the public interest.
The campaign acknowledges that different sections of the population engage with media in varying manners. As such it utilises a wide array of approaches designed to build the optimism of the people of Zimbabwe to take an active role in efforts to combat corruption at every level of society.
The campaign launch was attended by justice sector actors, civil society representatives, business representatives and the diplomatic.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the Africa Regional Programme, International Commission of Jurists C: +263 77 728 3248, E: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Aug 14, 2019 | News
Today, ICJ Commissioner and former Constitutional Court Justice Justice Yvonne Mokgoro delivered the Keynote Address on Women’s Socio-Economic Rights at an event organized by ICJ and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.
The event, which marked Women’s Month in South Africa, was aimed at promoting the contributions of women human rights defenders and public interest lawyers in advancing women’s socio-economic rights in South Africa.
Justice Mokgoro, the first black women Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, called on human rights defenders, lawyers and judges to recommit to fighting the feminization of poverty in South Africa.
“The indignities suffered by women exposed to poverty in our country are graphic, trauma-inducing and all encompassing. The dire need of women in our patriarchal society must be addressed,” she said.
With reference to the South African Constitution, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Justice Mokgoro implored judges and lawyers in particular to “engender” the full range socio-economic rights by defining their content in a manner which takes into account the impact of human rights violations on women and girls.
The event featured a panel discussion , which included remarks by Tumelo Matlwa and Amelia Rawhani-Mosalakae, lawyers at CALS, who identified who a range of legal provisions and banking practices relating to matrimonial property have a disproportionate impact on women’s rights to property.
The presentation concluded that “poverty is a form of economic violence that has a disproportionate effect on women”.
Fatima Shabodien, Strategy Director at Raith Foundation, focused her presentation on sexual harassment faced predominantly by women in the public interest law sector in South Africa.
Quoting from Indian author Arundathi Roy, Shabodien observed that “there is no such thing as the voiceless only the deliberately silenced”.
Women, she added, “have not been silent in this sector they have been deliberately silenced”. She urged human rights defenders and public interest lawyers to take allegations of sexual harassment seriously.
Nonhle Mbuthuma, a community activist from the Amadiba Crisisis Committee described the difficulties of being a women human rights defender: “I am a human rights activist and it is a difficult task. You are called a lot of names for challenging the government.
All the names don’t scare me – my mother gave me only one name”, she said. Referring to a judgment of the High Court affirming her community’s right to free, prior and informed consent before the commencement of a mining development, she concluded: “I am very proud of the Constitution and judges who said we have the right to give consent to [whether] mining [can take place]. Not the government or big companies. The people.”
She emphasized that women were, and continue to be, at the forefront of the struggle for access to land in South Africa.
Aug 5, 2019 | News
The ICJ today raised concerns that the proposed Zambian Constitutional Amendment Bill 2019 may negatively impact the independence of the judiciary in Zambia.
The proposed amendments to provisions regarding disciplinary measures and processes against judges and the composition of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court are particularly concerning, according to a statement by a group of organisations including the ICJ.
“The ICJ implores the President of Zambia and the Zambian legislature to ensure the alignment of all constitutional amendments with international human rights standards on the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the separation of powers,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ’s Africa Director.
The joint statement calls upon the President of Zambia and the Zambian legislature to ensure that the proposed constitutional changes are in line with international human rights standards.
According to such standards, individual judges ‘may be dismissed only on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence, in accordance with fair procedures ensuring objectivity and impartiality set out in the constitution or the law’. Examples include ‘incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties’ and ‘physical or mental incapacity that prevents them from undertaking their judicial duties.’
Moreover, disciplinary proceedings regarding judicial officers must be held by an institution independent of the executive and the legislature to secure the independence of the judiciary.
Article 143 (a) of the Zambia Constitution currently provides that ‘a judge shall be removed from office on the following grounds: (a) a mental or physical disability that makes the judge incapable of performing judicial functions; (b) incompetence; (c) gross misconduct; or (d) bankruptcy.’
However, the Amendment Bill worryingly replaces subsection (a) and allows for removal when a judicial officer is ‘legally disqualified from performing judicial functions.’
Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not set out the circumstances or infractions that could lead to the ‘legal disqualification’ leaving the provision open to abuse and in violation of the principle of legal certainty and the rule of law.
“The amendment introduces unnecessary obscurity and vagueness to the Constitution, which, in turn, increases the risk of judges being removed on politically motivated grounds and threatens the rule of law,” Tsunga added.
Another worrying aspect of the proposed amendment is the suggested changes to Article 144 of the Constitution transferring the authority to determine whether judicial officers are removed from the Judicial Complaints Commission to a Tribunal Appointed by the President.
The amendment allows for the possibility of a Tribunal staffed by members of the executive and the legislature, further heightening concerns about threats to judicial independence.
“It is vital that the processes and procedures for the removal of judicial officers in Zambia are constrained in terms of tightly defined constitutional provisions, overseen by independent decision makers without improper influence by the executive and the legislature,” said Tsunga.
The full statement is available here.
The statement is signed by:
Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA)
Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA)
International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
Judges for Judges (J4J)
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)
Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)
Jul 12, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, highlighting the achievements and shortfalls of the 41st Ordinary Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 24 June – 12 July 2019.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), reads as follows:
By renewing the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), the Council has sent a clear message that violence and discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities cannot be tolerated. It reaffirmed that specific, sustained and systematic attention is needed to address these human rights violations and ensure that LGBT people can live a life of dignity. We welcome the Core Group’s commitment to engage in dialogue with all States, resulting in 50 original co-sponsors across all regions. However, we regret that some States have again attempted to prevent the Council from addressing discrimination and violence on the basis of SOGI.
The Council session also sent a clear message that Council membership comes with scrutiny by addressing the situations of Eritrea, the Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This shows the potential the Council has to leverage its membership to become more effective and responsive to rights holders and victims.
The Council did the right thing by extending its monitoring of the situation in Eritrea. The onus is on the Eritrean Government to cooperate with Council mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, in line with its membership obligations.
We welcome the first Council resolution on the Philippines as an important first step towards justice and accountability. We urge the Council to closely follow this situation and be ready to follow up with additional action, if the situation does not improve or deteriorates further. We deeply regret that such a resolution was necessary, due to the continuation of serious violations and repeated refusal of the Philippines – despite its membership of the Council– to cooperate with existing mechanisms.
We deplore that Council members, such as the Philippines and Eritrea, sought to use their seats in this Council to seek to shield themselves from scrutiny, and those States[1] who stand with the authorities and perpetrators who continue to commit grave violations with impunity, rather than with the victims.
We welcome the written statement by 22 States on China expressing collective concern over widespread surveillance, restrictions to freedoms of religion and movement, and large-scale arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We consider it as a first step towards sustained Council attention and in the absence of progress look to those governments that have signed this letter to follow up at the September session with a resolution calling for China to allow access to the region to independent human rights experts and to end country-wide the arbitrary detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs or political opinions.
We welcome the progress made in resolutions on the rights of women and girls: violence against women and girls in the world of work, on discrimination against women and girls and on the consequences of child, early and forced marriage. We particularly welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls under its new name and mandate to focus on the intersections of gender and age and their impact on girls. The Council showed that it was willing to stand up to the global backlash against the rights of women and girls by ensuring that these resolutions reflect the current international legal framework and to resist cultural relativism, despite several amendments put forward to try and weaken the strong content of these resolutions.
However, in the text on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, long standing consensus language from the Vienna Declaration for Programme of Action (VDPA) recognising that, at the same time, “the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights” has again been deliberately excluded disturbing the careful balance established and maintained for several decades on this issue.
We welcome the continuous engagement of the Council in addressing the threat posed by climate change to human rights, through its annual resolution and the panel discussion on women’s rights and climate change at this session. We call on the Council to continue to strengthen its work on this issue, given its increasing urgency for the protection of all human rights.
The Council has missed an opportunity on Sudan where it could have supported regional efforts and ensured that human rights are not sidelined in the process. We now look to African leadership to ensure that human rights are upheld in the transition. The Council should stand ready to act, including through setting up a full-fledged inquiry into all instances of violence against peaceful protesters and civilians across the country.
During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary executions, States heard loud and clear that the time to hold Saudi Arabia accountable is now for the extrajudicial killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We recall that women human rights defenders continue to be arbitrarily detained despite the calls by 36 States at the March session. We urge States to adopt a resolution at the September session to establish a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in the country.
We welcome the landmark report of the High Commissioner on the situation for human rights in Venezuela; in response to the grave findings in the report and the absence of any fundamental improvement of the situation in the meantime, we urge the Council to adopt a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism in September, to reinforce the ongoing efforts of the High Commissioner and other actors to address the situation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. This mandate is at the core of our work as civil society and we trust that the mandate will continue to protect and promote these fundamental freedoms towards a more open civic space.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus. We acknowledge some positive signs of re-engagement in dialogue by Belarus, and an attempted negotiation process with the EU on a potential Item 10 resolution. However, in the absence of systemic human rights reforms in Belarus, the mandate and resolution process remains an essential tool for Belarusian civil society. In addition, there are fears of a spike in violations around upcoming elections and we are pleased that the resolution highlights the need for Belarus to provide safeguards against such an increase.
We welcome the renewal of the quarterly reporting process on the human rights situation in Ukraine. However, we also urge States to think creatively about how best to use this regular mechanism on Ukraine to make better progress on the human rights situation.
The continued delay in the release of the UN database of businesses engaged with Israeli settlements established pursuant to Council resolution 31/36 in March 2016 is of deep concern. We join others including Tunisia speaking on behalf of 65 states and Peru speaking on behalf of 26 States in calling on the High Commissioner to urgently and fully fulfil this mandate as a matter of urgency and on all States to cooperate with all Council mandates, including this one, and without political interference.
Numerous States and stakeholders highlighted the importance of the OHCHR report on Kashmir; while its release only a few days ago meant it did not receive substantive consideration at the present session, we look forward to discussing it in depth at the September session.
Finally, we welcome the principled leadership shown by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, in pursuing accountability for individual victims of acts of intimidation and reprisals under General Debate Item 5, contrasting with other States which tend to make only general statements of concern, and call on States to raise all individual cases at the interactive dialogue on reprisals and intimidation in the September session.
(text in italics was not read out due to the limited time)
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Franciscans International
- Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
[1] States who voted against the resolution on Eritrea: Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, India, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Philippines and Pakistan.
States who voted against the resolution on the Philippines: Angola, Bahrain, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Hungary, Iraq, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Philippines.
