Aug 21, 2020 | News
The order of the Magistrates’ Court of Zimbabwe barring lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa from continuing as defence legal counsel for journalist Hopewell Chin’ono is a violation of Chin’ono’s right to a fair trial and Mtetwa’s right to express her opinions freely, said the ICJ today.
“Hopewell Chin’ono is already facing persecution because of his reporting on alleged corruption and now his lawyer is prevented from defending him properly. The Magistrate Court’s decision violates Zimbabwe’s domestic, international and regional legal obligations regarding freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial,” said ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi.
Hopewell Chin’ono, a prominent Zimbabwean journalist, is currently in custody and is facing trial on charges of inciting public violence, related to his reporting on corruption.
He appointed Beatrice Mtetwa, a prominent Zimbabwean human rights lawyer to act as his defence legal counsel.
After Hopewell Chin’ono was denied bail, it is alleged that a Facebook page by the name “Beatrice Mtetwa and The Rule of Law” posted the following statements:
“Where is the outrage from the international community that Hopewell Chin’ono is being held as a political prisoner? His life is in serious peril. Raise awareness about his unlawful imprisonment. Do not let him to be forgotten. You or someone you love could be the next one abducted from your home and put in leg irons.”
On account of these alleged statements and at the instance of an application by the State, the Magistrates’ court barred Beatrice Mtetwa from continuing as defense legal counsel on grounds that she made statements which demonstrates that “she is no longer detached from the case to continue appearing in it” and has lost the “requisite objectivity of an officer of the court”.
The full judgment by the court can be accessed here.
Beatrice Mtetwa denied ownership of or control over the said Facebook page. Filmmaker Lorie Conway is listed as the only administrator of the said Facebook page. Despite this, the Magistrate’s Court ruled that Beatrice Mtetwa is aware of the page, approved its creation and therefore, these statements are attributable to her.
“Regardless of whether or not these statements can be attributed to Beatrice Mtetwa, the International Commission of Jurists is concerned about the chilling effect which the judgment has on the exercise of freedom of expression by lawyers, the accused persons’ right to legal representation and the right to fair trial. The judgment seems to suggest that if a lawyer makes public statements such as those allegedly attributed to Beatrice Mtetwa, the lawyer should be barred from continuing as legal counsel in the matter—and that is contrary to international standards regarding the role of lawyers,” Zarifi said.
This right is underscored in Principle 23 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers which states that:
“Lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly. In particular, they shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights…”
The right to legal representation is recognised in section 70(1)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. This guarantees an accused person the right to appoint a legal practitioner of their choice to act as their defence attorney. The same right is underscored in article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR and article 7(1) of the African Charter. The right to legal representation is an integral element of the right to fair trial as elaborately explained under the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa.
Contact
Shaazia Ebrahim (Media Officer) email: Shaazia.Ebrahim(a)icj.org
Aug 11, 2020 | News
The ICJ is concerned at reports that on 8 and 9 August, Lebanese security forces, including Internal Security Force (ISF) units, parliamentary police and the army, employed excessive and unlawful force against hundreds of protestors, resulting in the injury of more than 700 people and dozens of hospitalizations.
The ICJ called on the Lebanese authorities to protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression and refrain from using excessive and unlawful force against protestors demanding justice for the 4 August explosions in Beirut’s port district.
The explosions devastated the city’s infrastructure and resulted in the death, injury and internal displacement of large numbers of its inhabitants.
The ICJ stressed that credible allegations of excessive and unlawful use of force in the context of the protests must be promptly, thoroughly and impartially investigated and those responsible must be held to account.
According to information available to the ICJ, at least 14 journalists and media personnel covering the protests were among the wounded.
According to reports, a policeman also died after falling down an elevator shaft while being chased by protesters. While there were reports that some demonstrators threw rocks and firecrackers at security forces, reports also indicate that the security forces’ response was indiscriminate and, in some instances, excessive.
“Many protestors in Lebanon continue to be met with excessive and unlawful force by security agencies, telling the same grim story of how the Lebanese authorities habitually respond to unwelcome political expression and the grievances of the Lebanese public,” said Kate Vigneswaran, the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme Senior Legal Adviser.
“The people of Beirut have the right to peacefully express their outrage, at alleged official malfeasance that apparently contributed to last week’s tragic devastation, and to expect security forces will comply with the law,” she added.
Information from ICJ interviews with three protestors, and substantiated by reports by multiple media and news agencies, reveal that security forces fired large quantities of tear gas, in addition to rubber bullets, at protestors in several locations in central Beirut, including a gathering of at least 10,000 people including children at Martyr’s Square and those who occupied Parliamentary and ministerial buildings.
Reports also indicate that live ammunition was fired by security forces during the protests, namely birdshot.
A protestor interviewed by the ICJ stated that he was shot in the arm by a rubber bullet and in the leg by a pellet gun, the latter lodging shrapnel into various parts of his body.
Social media reports reveal that some protestors were shot in the face and eyes with rubber bullets. The ISF has denied using rubber bullets.
According to another protestor, government loyalists attacked her in the presence of ISF officers and the army as she filmed scenes outside the American University Hospital, threatening her with violence and by breaking her mobile phone.
Similar reports of security forces indiscriminately beating and harassing protesters have surfaced on social media platforms.
International law, governing the use of force by law enforcement officers, which is binding on Lebanon, mandates that force is only permissible as a last resort for the sole purpose of protecting life or preventing serious injury from an imminent threat, if strictly necessary and only to the extent necessary for the performance of their duty.
All use of force must be discriminate and proportionate to the threat of harm.
The ICJ has called for a prompt, transparent, independent and impartial investigation into the 4 August explosions by a special, independent mechanism, given the documented lack of independence in certain parts of the Lebanese judiciary, which was echoed by other human rights organizations and members of the international community.
Lebanon’s President dismissed the call as “a waste of time” and instead urged the Lebanese judiciary to act swiftly to probe the incident.
Prime Minister Hassan Diab announced his cabinet’s resignation on Monday following widespread calls for the political establishment to resign from their posts following the explosion. Nine members of Parliament, two government Ministers and the Lebanese Ambassador to Jordan had also resigned from their posts over the weekend.
“The explosions were devastating for the people of Beirut, resulting not only in the loss of life and massive injuries, but severe curtailment of their rights to housing and health and their other socio-economic rights,” said Vigneswaran.
“Based on the response of the Lebanese authorities thus far, and given their poor track record in pursuing and realizing accountability, it is clear that there is an urgent need for a proper accountability mechanism to investigate the explosions and respond to victims’ demands and calls for justice. A change in government is not enough,” she added.
Contact
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +31-62-489-4664; e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org
Download
Full story with additional information: Lebanon-Protests-News-Press releases-2020-ENG
Arabic version: Lebanon-Protests-News-Press releases-2020-ARA
Photo Credit: Aya Nehme
Aug 7, 2020 | Advocacy, Agendas, News
On 6-7 August the ICJ co-hosted a symposium on threats to judicial independence in East and Southern Africa.
The event was held with the collaboration of the Africa Judges and Jurists Forum, the Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists Kenya Section, Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, Southern Africa Development Community Lawyers Association, Malawi Law Society, Pan African Lawyers Association, East Africa Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association.
Recent actions taken to undermine judicial independence in East and Southern Africa include proposed constitutional amendments, executive interference with the functioning of the Judicial Service Commissions and verbal as well as physical threats against judges.
Participants in the symposium included judges, lawyers, academics and civil society representative. ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of Kenya Dr Willy Mutunga, and Professor Jill Ghai of Katiba Institute delivered the key note addresses.
Dr Willy Mutunga speaking to challenges of judicial independence in the political context of Kenya in his keynote address, said “I believe that the independence of the judiciary… is about the integrity of the judicial officers… Building peoples’ confidence in the judiciary and the judicial officers depends on the integrity of the institution and its judicial officers and staff.”
In her address, Professor Jill Ghai evaluated various ways in which independence of the judiciary is undermined, taking into account examples from various countries.
“We must not relent in letting the Executive know that we are watching whenever there are attempts to undermine the judiciary,” Ghai said in closing.
ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi that judicial independence was facing genuine threats, not just in Africa but throughout the world.
“The issue of judicial independence has been at the heart of the ICJ’s work for the last 70 years almost… We have been defending the rule of law and human rights. For both of those the independence of the judiciary is absolutely essential,” Zarifi said.
On the second day of the symposium, participants into four groups discussed the nature of challenges and weaknesses in the Executive-Judiciary relations, litigation as a strategy for protecting judicial independence, strategies for increasing social and political activism in defence of judicial independence, and the prospects and strategies for regional and international advocacy in the age of COVID-19 respectively.
In his closing remarks, outgoing ICJ Regional Director Arnold Tsunga flagged Malawi as a recent case study where the judiciary had demonstrated its independence when the Constitutional Court nullified the 2019 presidential election results, citing widespread irregularities.
Watch the proceedings of the symposium here:
Welcome and keynote address
Closing remarks
Contact:
Justice Mavedzenge (ICJ Legal Advisor) t: +27793889990 e: justice.mavedzenge(a)icj.org
Shaazia Ebrahim (ICJ Media Officer) t: +27716706719 e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org
Jul 31, 2020 | Advocacy, Open letters
The ICJ and the South African Human Rights Defenders Network (SAHRDN) have written to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, and the Chairperson of African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
They have detailed the continued intimidation and harassment of the residents of Happiness village by the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).
“We have written to the Special Rapporteurs because the SANDF is unrelenting in its abuse of the resident’s despite the best efforts of their legal representatives and repeated court orders,” said ICJ Legal Adviser in South Africa Tim Fish Hodgson.
“A community leader was placed under house arrest guarded by four soldiers for seven days. Another resident was subjected to a punishment by which was told to lie flat on the ground and ‘pray to his God’ for simply leaving his home. Others have been assaulted. The SANDF deliberately conducts military exercises near the residents’ homes late at night to scare and intimidate them. All this with utter disregard for the law and in direct violation of a number of court judgments and orders”, he added.
The residents, who were forcibly and violently evicted from Marievale military base beginning in 2017, have repeatedly been granted court orders by the High Court declaring such evictions unlawful and directing the SANDF to refrain from harassing, threatening and intimidating the residents and not to restrict their movement.
Despite this, and in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, further evictions and constant harassment and intimidation continues unabated and has intensified to a point that the residents describe the SANDF as having “laid siege” to their homes in Happiness Village which is adjacent to Marievale military base.
Soldiers now police checkpoints, preventing visitors from entering the area and even journalists have been prevented from entering Happiness Village. The residents’ legal representatives were only allowed to visit a single community representative under armed military guard.
As the letter reveals, the SANDF’s actions amount to violations of the residents’ right to adequate housing protection in terms of the South African Constitution, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The intimidation, harassment, humiliation and assault of the residents’ amount to violations of the residents’ rights to liberty and security of person and may also amount to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment in violation of the South African Constitution and international human rights law.
They seem to be geared at making the resident’s lives intolerable in order to secure evictions “through the backdoor”, which is explicitly prohibited in South African law.
The residents, represented by Lawyers for Human Rights, will once again be in urgent court on July 31 seeking an interdict to prevent further harassment, intimidation and restrictions on their movement by the SANDF. The legal representatives of the SANDF have indicated that they intend to oppose their application.
The ICJ has therefore implored the Special Rapporteurs to:
1. Call on the SANDF, the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and on the Ekurhuleni Municipality to desist from any further evictions, relocation, intimidation, harassment, humiliation, and assault of the Marievale community residents;
2. Call on the SANDF, the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and the Ekurhuleni Municipality to immediately lift and ensure the non-recurrence of restrictions on the movement on Happiness Village residents;
3. Call on the President of South Africa, as the Commander in Chief of the SANDF, to take appropriate action to ensure that the human rights violations that the residents of Marievale have suffered at the hands of the SANDF on a continuous basis since 2017 be investigated, and that appropriate action be taken to ensure access to justice and effective remedies for the residents; and
4. Call on the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans to ensure the accountability of the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans for the human rights violations to which the SANDF has subjected the residents on a continuous basis since 2017.
Read the full letter here.
SouthAfrica-SAHRDN-ICJ Letter to SRs on HRDs-Advocacy-open letters-2020-ENG
Contact:
Tim Fish Hodgson (ICJ Legal Adviser) t: +27828719905; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Jul 30, 2020 | Advocacy
The ICJ is concerned that in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan the COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken purportedly to contain it, have significantly curtailed access to justice. Restrictions have affected the operation of the courts and impeded lawyers’ ability to provide effective legal assistance to their clients.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic — whether under a state of emergency or not — States’ obligations under international human rights law to uphold the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial, and to ensure access to effective remedies for violations of human rights endure.
The right to a fair trial entails the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense, which, in turn, requires the opportunity to communicate with one’s lawyer effectively and in confidence.
In light of this, the ICJ calls on Central Asian States to ensure that, while COVID-19 restrictions are in place, access to a lawyer continues to be ensured, and that measures be put in place so that lawyers are able to communicate with their clients safely, effectively and confidentially, including in places of detention or during online hearings.
In addition, wherever and whenever the authorities put in place restrictions on physical meetings or travel with the stated purpose of containing the COVID-19 pandemic, the ICJ calls on Central Asian States to ensure that access to court is guaranteed through specific legal, administrative and practical measures.
ICJ research and discussions with lawyers have shown that across Central Asia, regulations adopted during COVID-19 relating to the administration of justice have suffered from vague language, inconsistencies and unclear guidance.
In practice, this had serious implications for the right to fair trial of defendants: in some cases defence lawyers were not allowed to meet their clients who were charged with serious crimes; in other instances lawyer-client meetings were very short, undermining the ability of lawyers to take proper instructions from their clients and to advise them accordingly; in other cases defence lawyers met their clients in circumstances where the confidentiality of their communication was compromised as a result of the virtual communication platforms they were forced to use.
The restriction measures relating to the administration of justice that the authorities have imposed have also had negative consequences for access to justice and effective remedies for victims of human rights violations; notably, access to legal assistance in domestic violence cases was impeded across the region.
In many court buildings social distancing requirements were not adjusted in such a way as to uphold the right to a public hearing. There has been a lack of sufficient guidance on how the right to a public hearing may be ensured online, including as to how the right to equality of arms and the right to legal representation would be protected.
Download
Central Asia-Statement COVID-19-Advocacy 2020-ENG (full article with additional information, in PDF)
