Apr 6, 2020 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
The briefing paper is published today in the context of significant uncertainty and distress experienced by migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers, stateless people and other non-citizens in South Africa as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures that the authorities have taken with the stated aim of responding to it.
“All people residing in South Africa have the right to work and in earn a living in the country under international human rights law. The Government of South Africa should guard against laws, policies and public statements that discriminate against non-citizens especially during the public health emergency caused by COVID-19. Lockdown regulations and directions must be conceived and implemented in a way that fully enables all migrant workers performing essential services, including informal traders, waste reclaimers and shop owners to operate on an equal basis with South African citizens,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ’s Africa Director.
The ICJ has previously condemned discriminatory statements made about non-citizen owners of “spaza shops” made by Minister Khumbudzo Ntshavheni in the context of COVID-19, and called on President Ramaphosa to publically repudiate these statements.
The briefing paper, which was produced in consultation with domestic, South African human rights organizations: the Socio-Economic Rights Institute and Lawyers for Human Rights, sets out the following clear principles of international human rights law regarding non-citizens’ right to work in South Africa:
- Everyone, regardless of citizenship status, has the right to work in South Africa under, among others, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights;
- This right to work, which is binding on South Africa, adds to the government’s constitutional obligations in terms of rights at work or the “right to fair labour practices”;
- The right to work protects both formal and informal workers, including non-citizens, in accordance with ILO Recommendation 204 and the General Comments of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
- The right to work applies to non-citizens irrespective of their documentary status in South Africa;
- No restrictions on the “core” obligations placed on states in terms of the right to work, as set out by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are permissible;
- Restrictions or limitations on the right to work are permissible if they are set out in clearly in legislation, in pursuit of a legitimate objective, and are reasonable and proportionate taking into account the need to protect human dignity consistently with international human rights law and the Constitution;
- Any restrictions on non-citizens’ rights to work should be administrative (such as requiring permits or documentation), rather than substantive or categorical, otherwise they are likely to amount to prohibited forms of discrimination in terms of international and South African law; and
- Any administrative process designed by the State in this regard must be reasonable and proportionate and geared towards facilitating non-citizens ability to work in SA instead of limiting them.
Contact:
Tim Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: tim.hodgson(a)icj.org ; c: +2782871990
Shaazia Ebrahim, ICJ Media Officer, e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org ; c: +27716706719
Download
South Africa-Non Citizens Right to Work-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2020-ENG (full paper in PDF)
Apr 6, 2020
An opinion piece by Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Global Redress and Accountability
In New Zealand, swimming at the beach is prohibited, an activity so entrenched in the Kiwi psyche that for many it is like being asked to go without oxygen.
The Government has asked everyone to “unite against Covid-19” by living under the severest restrictions on fundamental freedoms the country has ever known. On 25 March, a one-week State of Emergency was declared, which was renewed for another seven days on 31 March.
New Zealand is also experiencing a “lockdown” under a Government-imposed “Covid-19 Alert System”, which means that, under the current Alert Level 4, nearly everyone must stay at home for at least four weeks unless they are purchasing groceries, medical supplies or enjoying exercise locally, among other restrictions.
This situation has taken us into unchartered territory and Kiwis should monitor the actions of our Government carefully.
Restrictions are being enforced by the police, who now enjoy extensive, broadly-worded, powers under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and the Health Act.
And the police have been active, including by setting up checkpoints to screen peoples’ movements, asking Kiwis to report on their neighbours who break the rules, and requesting people in non-managed self-isolation give consent to the police to track their movements using their cellular devices.
The Government’s response to Covid-19 appears to have the general support of most people.
Kiwis have good reason trust their Government, with New Zealand’s strong track record of upholding human rights and the rule of law.
And it should be commended for its swift implementation of a range of special actions taken to alleviate peoples’ suffering at this time, including the most vulnerable, such as by providing a wage subsidy scheme, leave and self-isolation support, business cash flow and tax measures, a mortgage repayment holiday scheme and a business finance guarantee scheme.
Establishing a bi-partisan Epidemic Response Committee to oversee the Government’s response was also a positive step, and should serve as a model to other states.
That said, we should not be complacent about the magnitude of what we are being asked to endure, and what it already means for the “Kiwi way of life”, our communities and the nation.
Lessons learned from around the world where living under limitations on rights and states of emergency has become a way of life for many (such as in Thailand where I live and work), include that without constant scrutiny, restrictions put in place to respond to an emergency can be abused and sometimes linger long after they are required, assuming they were ever required in the first place.
Another, global, example is how in the post-September 11 context, different limitations which were put in place to combat the specific threat of terrorism – including enhanced powers of state surveillance – remain in place today, altering the trajectory of whole societies around the world.
So, what does monitoring our Government’s response to Covid-19 mean for New Zealand and what can we use as a yardstick?
It is not widely known that an international human rights legal framework exists which applies to precisely this situation, and that it is legally binding on New Zealand.
The Government – including the police – cannot simply do whatever it wants to combat the pandemic, even in good faith.
Rather, the framework requires New Zealand to place human rights and the rule of law at the forefront of its response.
Among other things, the Government must ensure that each and every restriction on our rights and freedoms has a clear legal basis; is described in specific terms so that people know how their rights are being limited, under which law, and precisely what they are (and are not) permitted to do; and is subject to the review of the courts, if necessary.
In combating Covid-19, all states, including New Zealand, are confronted with the challenge of ensuring that the whole protective fabric of human rights (civil, political, economic, social and cultural) and the rule of law is applied coherently and consistently.
New Zealand has a duty to respect, protect and fulfil a cluster of rights, including the right to life and the right to health.
These duties have a range of sources in national and international law, including under treaties to which New Zealand is a State Party, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
For example, Article 12 of the ICESCR – which deals with the right to health – recognises New Zealand’s duty to respect, protect and fulfil “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” and the obligation to take effective steps for the “prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases.”
At the same time, New Zealand has a duty to respect, protect and fulfil another range of interrelated and interdependent rights including the rights to free movement, expression, assembly and association found in our domestic law (such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act) and the ICCPR.
Article 12 of the ICCPR states that “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.”
This is the Article that protects, for example, our right to travel between cities or go for a swim at the beach.
Subsection 3 allows certain restrictions on the right to movement but only in limited circumstances, including to protect public health: “The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.”
And by declaring a State of Emergency, New Zealand has entered into another, quite specific, legal territory that has its own framework for dealing with public emergencies, should it seek to derogate (suspend or restrict obligations in certain emergency situations) from its obligations under the ICCPR, which it does not appear to have done so far.
Whether through normal limitation or emergency derogation, there are certain conditions to restricting rights that must always be observed under international human rights law and standards.
The Siracusa Principles and the jurisprudence of the UN treaty bodies (tasked with monitoring the implementation of the core international human rights treaties) set out what these requirements mean in practice.
In particular, any restrictions should, at a minimum, be:
• provided for and carried out in accordance with the law;
• directed toward a legitimate objective, as provided under the ICCPR (in this case public health);
• strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective;
• the least intrusive and restrictive available to reach the objective;
• based on scientific evidence and be neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application; and
• of limited duration, respectful of human dignity, and subject to review.
While we should, of course, obey the current range of restrictions, we should also be aware of the Government’s obligations and our rights.
Government accountability, transparency and the rule of law – always necessary – is vital in these extraordinary times.
For example, we should welcome how initial confusion about the precise scope of restrictions, their legal basis and how they are being policed is now being addressed, including through a new, detailed, Health Act Order, and release of the Police’s Operational Policing Guidelines, both issued after questions were raised before the Epidemic Response Committee on Friday.
As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to rage around the world, many governments are struggling with an appropriate reaction.
New Zealand should continue to establish itself as a global leader on what a response grounded in human rights and the rule of law looks like.
To download the Op-Ed, click here.
This article was first published on Newsroom, available at: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/pro/2020/04/06/1117304/our-unprecedented-lockdown-should-be-carefully-monitored
Apr 3, 2020 | Comunicados de prensa, Noticias
Miles de personas pertenecientes a los Pueblos Indígenas de Guatemala (Mayas, Garífunas y Xincas), corren el riesgo de ser víctimas de la pandemia COVID-19, si el Gobierno no les provee, de manera inmediata, la información necesaria y les asegura el acceso a un adecuado servicio de salud, sin discriminación, afirmó hoy la CIJ.
“Los Pueblos Indígenas de Guatemala, enfrentan el riesgo de sufrir los efectos destructivos de la pandemia COVID-19, debido a la discriminación histórica y sistemática en su contra; lamentablemente, en la actual crisis, los Pueblos Indígenas no tienen acceso a información clara y sencilla, para saber cómo protegerse de la pandemia y cómo ser protegidos durante la emergencia, por el Sistema de Salud”, afirmó Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centroamérica.
“Las comunidades indígenas que más podrían sufrir los efectos de la pandemia, son aquellas que sufren el abandono absoluto del Estado de Guatemala y viven en extrema pobreza en la frontera con México en el norte y occidente del pais”, añadió.
La CIJ requirió a las autoridades del Gobierno de Guatemala, que garanticen que fluya información clara sobre medidas concretas de salud pública, en los idiosmas Mayas (Ixil, Quiché, Mam, Q´eqchí, Kakchiquel, Canjobal, Chuj y otros), así como en los idiomas Garífuna y Xinca.
Durante la pandemia, el Estado de Guatemala no ha tomado en cuenta las dificultades (financieras, geográficas, tecnológicas y barreras lingüisticas) que enfrentan los Pueblos Indígenas, en lo que respecta al acceso a la información. Por el otro lado, la CIJ ha observado que la información sobre las medidas gubernamentales para enfrentar la pandemia, ha sido comunicada en forma muy limitada.
Los Pueblos Indígenas han sido excluidos del Sistema Oficial de Salud, por la discriminación de que son objeto y por la falta de recursos gubernamentales que se invierten en el Sistema de Salud, luego de los procesos de privatización de los servicios sociales, que se han venido implementando a partir de la firma de los Acuerdos de Paz.
“La debilidad del Sistema de Salud Pública, la prevalencia del racismo existente desde siglos atrás y la marcada desigualdad que sufren los Pueblos Indígenas, agravan aún más el impacto potencial que el Corona virus y la pandemia podrán tener en los Pueblos Indígenas”, afirmo Cadena.
La CIJ insta al Estado de Guatemala a tomar las medidas legislativas, administrativas y judiciales necesarias para preservar los derechos humanos de los Pueblos Indígenas durante la presente emergencia y específicamente, para preservar el derecho a la salud, a la alimentación y a la vivienda; asímismo, para garantizar una vida digna a los Pueblos Indígenas, libres de cualquier amenaza a sus derechos civiles y políticos.
“Todas las medidas que el Gobierno implemente para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia, deben ser estrictamente necesarias, legítimas, proporcionadas y temporales”, afirmó Cadena.
“Hay algunas garantías como el derecho a la Reparación y el Derecho de Acceso a la Justicia, que no pueden limitarse ni suspenderse en ninguna circunstancia, ya que son vitales para que las y los ciudadanos, incluidos los Pueblos Indígenas, puedan defender sus derechos. Tomando en cuenta que la presente pandemia afecta el Sistema Legal en diferentes formas, el Gobierno de Guatemala tendrá que tomar medidas específicas para evitar la discriminación en contra de los Pueblos Indígenas y para garantizar el Derecho de Acceso a la Justicia, durante la pandemia”, finalizó Cadena.
Apr 3, 2020 | News
Millions of indigenous people in Guatemala (Mayas, Garífunas and Xincas) are at increased risk of falling victim to COVID-19 unless the government immediately provides them with necessary information and ensures they have access to adequate health care without discrimination, the ICJ said today.
“Guatemala’s indigenous people face an increased risk of suffering during this global pandemic because of the historic and systemic discrimination against them, which means that they don’t have access to proper information needed to protect themselves, nor to health care should they fall ill because of COVID-19,” said Ramón Cadena, ICJ’s Central America Director.
“The most suffering indigenous communities could be those very poor indigenous communities living at the border with México.”
The ICJ called on Guatemalan authorities to ensure that information about public health measures regarding COVID-19 be offered in the languages most used by indigenous communities (mayan languages such as ixil, quiché, mam, q´eqchí, kaqchikel; and garífuna and xinca languages).
During the pandemic the State of Guatemala has not taken into account the difficulties, such as financial, geographical, technological or linguistic barriers, that indigenous people face in accessing information.
On the other side, the ICJ has noticed that the information about the governmental measures to face the pandemic, has been disseminated in a very limited way.
Indigenous communities have been excluded from the official health system because of the discrimination against them and the lack of resources invested in the health system of Guatemala due to processes of privatization of social services, which have been implemented in Guatemala after the signature of the Peace Accords.
“The general weakness of the Guatemalan public health system, historic racism against the indigenous community and the tremendous general social inequality in the country all aggravate the potential impact of the pandemic on the indigenous community,” Cadena said.
The ICJ urges the State of Guatemala to take the necessary legislative, administrative, and judicial measures to protect Indigenous Peoples and preserve their human rights during the current emergency, specifically their right to health, food, and housing.
The ICJ also called on the Guatemalan government to avoid measures that threaten the life and dignity of people, including those from the indigenous community who are generally most subject to violations of their civil and political rights.
“Any measures taken in response to the pandemic must be limited to those that are strictly necessary, legitimate, and proportionate to the risk facing the community, and limited in time and subject to review,” Cadena said.
“There are certain guarantees, such as the right to an effective judicial remedy, that cannot be suspended or repealed and that are vital so that citizens, including indigenous people, can safeguard their rights, and even as the pandemic inevitably affects the legal system the government must do all it can to avoid discrimination against the indigenous community, which already suffers from racism and lack of access to justice.”
Apr 2, 2020 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Shaazia Ebrahim, ICJ Media Officer, and Tim Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, based in South Africa.
The inhumane conditions that most South African residents are subjected to in their daily lives will continue to deepen as the coronavirus spreads.
South Africans are encouraged to take precautionary measures to curb the spread of the pandemic by practising social distancing and intensifying hygiene control. The country will also be under a nationwide lockdown in order to “fundamentally disrupt the chain of transmission across society” from 26 March for 21 days.
The problem is that the recommended measures in South Africa, similarly to those of the World Health Organisation, assume that everyone lives in a house. A house which is at no risk of being destroyed by the state or private owners of the land upon which it is built: a house with access to water, sanitation and other basic services.
But the reality is that millions of South Africans do not live in a house, but in rudimentary structures in poor conditions. In a statement released this week, Abahlali baseMjondolo, a shack dwellers’ movement with members in various provinces across South Africa, articulated this.
Abahali’s frank assessment of the situation is that “it does not seem possible to prevent this virus from spreading when we still live in the mud like pigs”.
It is under the same conditions described by Abahlali baseMjondolo that many of the urban and rural poor in South Africa will be required to live under “lockdown”, commencing from midnight tonight.
Access to basic services: ‘if one person gets infected it’s disastrous’
Speaking before the release of the statement, Abahlali president S’bu Zikode expressed the distress that many around South Africa are currently experiencing. “Abahlali is very concerned about the outbreak of the coronavirus. The reason is, of course, that the conditions that we are subjected [give] us reason to be scared and worried,” he said.
“Social distancing” is difficult for many in South Africa. Government regulations say no more than 100 people should be “gathering” and people are more generally encouraged to keep a distance from one another. In Abahlali’s settlements, Zikode explains, there are thousands living close together under strenuous conditions.
“That on its own is automatically disrespecting the call from the president”, he said.
Abahlali, alongside various other South African movements and organisations, have for years been calling for the state to improve their living conditions and provide them with access to water, sanitation and other basic services.
In 2019 the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted its concern about “the large number of people living in inadequate housing, including those in informal settlements, without access to basic services; the growing number of informal settlements in urban areas due to rapid urbanisation”.
These calls have not received a sufficiently serious response from the government. Litigation to ensure access to basic services remains commonplace.
In this context, while hygiene has rightly been touted as one of the most important preventatives from spreading Covid-19, it is difficult to imagine how the majority living in South Africa will be able to ensure even basic measures such as handwashing.
Abahlali notes that in many informal settlements “hundreds of people [are] sharing one tap”. In this context, it is easy to see why leaders of Abahlali think that as it stands, preventing the spread of coronavirus is very important, but all but impossible.
“As leaders of Abahlali, we see it as once one person gets infected in the settlements, suddenly the entire settlement will be disastrous,” Zikode said.
A moratorium on evictions: halting evictions ‘will save lives’
Making matters worse, members of Abahlali, like many others in their country, lack security of tenure. As trying as their current circumstances may be, Abahlali warns of the potentially devastating effects of evictions during the pandemic. Another common way to induce evictions is to disconnect existing access to water, electricity and sanitation.
This is why Abahlali demands that “all evictions must be stopped with immediate effect” and that “all disconnections from self-organised access to water, electricity and sanitation must be stopped with immediate effect”. Indeed, it is difficult to see how any eviction during the pandemic could be “just and equitable” in “all relevant circumstances” as is required by South African law.
The call for a “moratorium” on evictions has also been made by a large group of social movements and civil society organisations in South Africa in a letter to the president. It has also received clear support from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing, who has called for a “global ban” on evictions worldwide:
“The logical extension of a logical stay-at-home policy is a global ban on evictions. There must be no evictions of anyone, anywhere, for any reason. Simply put: a global ban on evictions will save lives”, she said. The International Commission of Jurists has echoed these calls and the calls for connection of emergency water for all before the nationwide lockdown commences.
Coronavirus, the right to housing and access to land
In February, in giving input to the parliamentary committee contemplating the need to amend the Constitution to expedite land reform, Abahali argued that land is not a commodity and that the Constitution should include a “right to land” which it does not at present.
“Land should be shared and should be viewed as a public good”, Zikode explains.
Abahlali argues that the absence of a right to land in the Constitution undermines the constitutional right to housing: without land there can be no housing. Consistently with this logic, as early as 2000, South Africa’s Constitutional Court held emphatically that:
“For a person to have access to adequate housing all of these conditions need to be met: there must be land, there must be services, there must be a dwelling.”
The current crisis brought on by the coronavirus adds weight to Abahlali’s position on land. Access to land and security of tenure are necessary for access to adequate housing. If people have access to land and secure tenure, evictions are not a constant threat to their well-being.
Without access to housing and basic services, public health is severely compromised on a daily basis. Public health emergencies such as the coronavirus pandemic put even further pressure on an already compromised living environment. They therefore highlight that for many people, the right to adequate housing can only be discharged with full access to land.
The obligations of the South African government
The government of South Africa has rightly been praised for its proactive response to the coronavirus pandemic. The regulations passed in terms of the Disaster Management Act require that measures taken to combat coronavirus are implemented “as far as possible, without affecting service delivery in relation to the realisation of the rights” including the rights to housing and basic services, healthcare, social security and education.
The president’s announcement of a countrywide lockdown included a commitment that “temporary shelters that meet the necessary hygiene standards will be identified for homeless people”. Nevertheless, Abahlali’s members, who are not strictly homeless, might take cold comfort.
Disappointingly, the president failed to announce a moratorium on evictions or make any mention of evictions at all. This not only leaves many more people under the threat of being rendered homeless but may also lead to devastating displacement that will make the further spread of coronavirus possible.
The president did indicate that “emergency water supplies” are “being provided to informal settlements and rural areas”.
However, he did not make mention of whether expedited or emergency provision of other basic services such as sanitation, electricity and waste removal services where they are not currently available would occur. Urgent calls for emergency water connection coming out of Khayelitsha suggest that in many places in major informal settlements such emergency connections have not occurred.
The government of South Africa should be applauded for taking emergency measures. However, in so doing, it is implicitly acknowledging that many — if not most — South African residents have been living on a daily basis in conditions that are insufficient for them to live healthy, dignified lives.
This highlights the government’s existing and continuous failures to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights to access to housing and basic services.
The coronavirus, therefore, stands a stark reminder to all in South Africa of the dire impacts of social inequality in the country and the pressing need for government to pursue the realisation of all its obligations in terms of social and economic rights protected in the South African Constitution and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It also lends strong credence to the need for serious consideration of Abahlali’s claim for the need of a constitutionally protected right to land.
As Zikode concludes:
“Abahlali has always been about the land, decent housing, and dignity. Without land, housing is impossible. Without land, dignity is compromised. Land is close to the heart of many mainly black South Africans and it’s very close to the heart of Abahlali.”
Originally published in Daily Maverick
