Apr 2, 2020 | News
The ICJ welcomes the decision by the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe to invalidate the enactment of Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 1) of 2017 in Gonese and Anor v Parliament of Zimbabwe and 4 Ors. The judgment restores important Constitutional guarantees for the independence of the judiciary in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe adopted a new Constitution in 2013 and one of the progressive elements of this Constitution was its provisions regulating the appointment of judicial leaders such as the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and Judge President of the High Court. These judicial leaders perform important administrative functions with a huge impact on access to justice for the public.
For example, the Chief Justice is the head of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and therefore, presides over processes to select and recommend candidates for judicial appointment.
The Judge President is responsible for case allocation in the High Court and therefore, selects judges to sit on cases. It is important that the procedures for appointing these judicial leaders be transparent and independent of executive control in order to maintain the independence and impartiality of judges as well as promote public confidence in the judiciary.
The 2013 Constitution ensured this by prescribing procedures which accorded the executive a constrained role in the selection and appointment of these judicial leaders.
For example, the process of selecting these office bearers was to be led by an independent Judicial Service Commission (JSC) which would publicly advertise the vacancies, shortlist candidates, conduct interviews that are open to the public and recommend candidates for appointment by the President. The President was required to appoint only from the shortlist submitted by the JSC.
In 2017, the then-President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe signed into law a constitutional amendment bill which sought to change these provisions and give the President the authority to select and appoint these judicial leaders without conducting public interviews and without being constrained or restricted to the shortlist provided by the JSC.
The enactment of this constitutional amendment bill was challenged in the Constitutional Court on grounds that the amendment had been adopted and enacted into law without following due process.
In its judgment, the Constitutional Court concluded that, “It is declared that the passing of Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 1) of 2017 by the Senate on 01 August 2017 was inconsistent with the provisions of s 328(5) of the Constitution, to the extent that the affirmative votes did not reach the minimum threshold of two-thirds of the membership of the House. Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 1) of 2017 is declared invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. The declaration of invalidity shall have effect from the date of this order but is suspended for a period of one hundred and eighty days, subject to the provisions of paragraph 1(b).”
The Court directed the Senate to conduct a vote in accordance with the procedure for amending the Constitution prescribed by s 328(5) of the Constitution within one hundred and eighty days of the order given. Failure to do so will render the declaration of invalidity of Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 1) of 2017 final, said the Court.
Commenting on this judgment, ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga said: “This is a positive judgment which underscores the vital principle of legality, particularly that changes to the Constitution must be processed and enacted in strict accordance with the laid out procedures. Respect for the Constitution, and ensuring the independence of the judiciary, are fundamental elements of the rule of law; both are advanced by this judgment.”
The decision by the Constitutional Court comes at a time when the Parliament of Zimbabwe has gazetted further proposed changes to the Constitution, which amongst other things seek to give the executive a stronger role in the selection and appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court.
These proposed changes would undermine judicial independence and undercut public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Further, these proposed changes are contrary to international and African standards. For instance, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary enjoin member states to ensure that “Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives.”
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa further provide that, “The process for appointments to judicial bodies shall be transparent and accountable and the establishment of an independent body for this purpose is encouraged.” The ICJ therefore, calls upon the government of Zimbabwe to reconsider its decision to proceed with these proposed changes to the Constitution.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, t: +26377728 3248; e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Mar 30, 2020 | News
The ICJ is calling on the Turkish Parliament to extend the planned provision of alternatives to detention in response to the COVID-19 crisis to all those imprisoned for non-violent crimes who do not pose a current threat to members of the public, regardless of the nature of the offences for which they have been charged.
In particular, alternatives to detention should apply to all those detainees who are particularly at risk at losing their life or suffering severe health effects from COVID-19.
Measures to protect the right to life, the right to health and other human rights must apply equally and without discrimination in line with Turkey’s international legal obligations.
The government have announced the tabling of a draft law to reduce the prison population that has been under discussion in recent months. The process has been accelerated with the purported aim of addressing the serious health risk that an outbreak of COVID-19 contagion would pose to the prison population. However, the draft law has not been adapted to address the health crisis and contains several shortcomings.
The new measures would grant alternatives to detention, including house arrest or early parole to an estimated one-third of the prison population.
This welcome move is however limited by the exclusion of those convicted or under trial for terrorism offences or offences against the State.
“In Turkey, terrorism offences and offences against the State have long been abused to arrest, try and jail human rights defenders, lawyers, judges and political opponents,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme. “The rights to life and health of these groups are now at particular risk.”
The ICJ considers that it is also essential that all detainees who are members of a group whose life or health may be at risk because of COVID-19 have either access to alternatives to detention, if they do not pose a current threat to public safety, or, otherwise, to detention conditions that may preserve them as far as possible from such risk.
“The State has a non-derogable obligation to protect the right to life of all its prison population, without discrimination of any sort,” Massimo Frigo added.
Mar 26, 2020 | News
Following the decision to postpone a referendum on amendments to the Russian Constitution, the ICJ calls on the authorities of the Russian Federation to refrain from adoption of the amendments or revise those amendments which are likely to have a detrimental effect on the rule of law and human rights protection.
“Amongst the wide range of amendments proposed, are some that would restrict the implementation of international human rights law, and in particular the decisions of international human rights courts, in the Russian Federation,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the Europe and Central Asia Programme of the ICJ.
“Other amendments would damage the independence of the Russian judiciary through changes to judicial appointments and dismissal procedures.”
The ICJ draws attention to these issues in a briefing paper on certain amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, published today.
“We urge the Russian authorities to use the opportunity presented by the postponement of the referendum, to reconsider amendments that would damage the ability of the justice system to provide an effective remedy to people whose human rights have been violated,” added Pillay.
Background
On 15 January 2020 the President of the Russian Federation announced a decision to introduce more than forty amendments to the Constitution adopted in 1993. They are to be adopted through an extraordinary procedure which includes public vote, organised specifically for these amendments.
The amendments touch upon a range of issues not necessarily connected with each other. They among other things erode the role of international law and tribunals as well as weaken the independence of the national judiciary.
On 25 March, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin announced that a planned referendum on the constitutional amendments would be postponed due to COVID-19.
This ICJ briefing paper analyses how these amendments may run contrary to international commitments of the Russian Federation and further impede the judicial independence. The briefing paper addresses three particular changes proposed to the 1993 Constitution:
- The role of international law and of decisions of international courts or other mechanisms (Article 125 of the Constitution)
- Appointment of judges (Article 83 of the Constitution)
- Procedures of appointment and removal for judges (Articles 83, 102 and 128 of the Constitution).
Full Briefing Paper (in PDF): Russia-constitution changes-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2020-ENG
Mar 24, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
In light of the global COVID-19 pandemic outbreak—qualified as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization (WHO)—the ICJ, together with 39 other organizations, today expressed grave concern over the situation of detainees and prisoners across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and called on governments in the MENA region to:
- Make known to the public their country-specific, and if relevant, facility-specific policies and guidelines in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in detention centers, prisons, and police stations.
- Share their emergency preparedness plans and provide specific training to relevant staff and authorities to ensure sufficient and sustained access to healthcare and hygiene provision.
- Conduct a thorough review of the prison population and in turn, reduce their prison populations by ordering the immediate release of:
-
- “Low-risk” detainees and prisoners, including those convicted or held in pretrial detention (remand) for nonviolent offences; administrative detainees; and those whose continued detention is not justified;
- Detainees and prisoners particularly vulnerable to the virus, including the elderly, and individuals with serious underlying conditions including lung disease, heart disease, diabetes, and autoimmune diseases.
- Allow individuals serving probation and probationary measures to fulfill their probation and probationary measures in their homes.
- Guarantee that individuals who remain in detention:
-
- Have their right to health effectively upheld by being granted full access to medical care as required;
- Access COVID-19 testing and treatment on a standard equal to that governing the general population;
- Are provided with means of communication and opportunities to access the outside world when in-person visits are suspended;
- Continue to enjoy their right to due process, including but not limited to the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, and their right not to experience delays that would render their detention arbitrary.
Full English language joint statement (in PDF): MENA-Covid-19-Prisons-Advocacy-2020-ENG
Full Arabic language joint statement (in PDF): MENA-Covid-19-Prisons-Advocacy-2020-ARA
Mar 23, 2020 | News
The ICJ called today on the Parliament of Hungary not to approve a Government bill that would extend indefinitely the emergency powers of the executive to counter the Covid-19 pandemic.
The proposed legislation would enable executive rule by decree, without parliamentary approval, and would impose harsh restrictions on freedom of expression.
“States of emergency, whatever the reason to invoke them, must never be allowed to become permanent,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Emergency measures that restrict human rights must be constantly reassessed to ensure that they remain necessary and proportionate. And even where measures are temporarily necessary, they should be subject to a “sunset clause” that ensure that it can be reviewed and will lapse if no longer justified ”.
The Hungarian emergency legislation includes offences of publishing false or distorted facts that interfere with protection of the public or cause public alarm – offences which have the potential to significantly and unduly restrict freedom of expression.
International human rights law requires that any interference with freedom of expression must be in sufficiently clear terms to be adequately prescribed by law and must be necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim that it serves.
“This legislation is particularly worrying in a context where the Hungarian government has systematically undermined the rule of law and protection of human rights, including freedom of the media and civil society, and the independence of the judiciary in recent years,” Róisín Pillay added.
“The emergency powers are therefore particularly open to arbitrary or abusive application, without effective scrutiny by parliament or an independent judiciary.”
Background
The Bill on Protection against the Coronavirus (Bill T/9790) in the form of tabled by the Government will extend the state of danger that it had ordered by government decree from 11 March 2020.
The ICJ understands that the Bill will allow the government to rule by decree without Parliamentary scrutiny. The legislation would make it a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, to publish false or distorted facts that interfere with protection of the public or that alarm or agitate the public, or to interfere with a quarantine or isolation order.
Under international treaties to which Hungary is a party, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States may take emergency measures to derogate from their international human rights law obligations in times of crisis, only the extent strictly necessary to protect the life of the nation. Derogating measures may only limit the scope of certain rights to the extent strictly necessary to meet a threat to the life of the nation, but they do not entirely suspend the applicability of any right in its entirety.
This necessity must be continually re-assessed so that the derogating measures apply for the shortest time possible. Certain human rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture or ill-treatment, and the essential elements of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy can never be restricted even in a state of emergency.
