Apr 20, 2019
The Egyptian government should withdraw proposed constitutional amendments that will consolidate authoritarian rule, Human Rights Watch and the ICJ said today.
The amendments will undermine the Egyptian judiciary’s dwindling independence and expand the military’s power to intervene in political life.
On April 16, 2019, Parliament finalized and approved the amendments, which a pro-government bloc proposed in early February. On April 17, the National Election Authority said a public referendum was set for April 19-22. The official draft amendments were only published in the official Gazette on April 18.
The vote takes place amid ongoing mass arrests and a relentless crackdown on fundamental freedoms, including currently targeting those calling for boycotting or rejecting the amendments. Given the ongoing repression, and that political opposition in Egypt has dwindled to a nominal presence, a free and fair vote will be impossible.
“These amendments aim to smother Egyptians’ aspirations to live in dignity and under the rule of law,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should immediately halt efforts to pass these amendments by threatening, disappearing, and persecuting peaceful critics and dissidents.”
The 596-seat Parliament, which is dominated by members loyal to President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and which routinely rubber-stamps government decisions, passed the amendments by a vote of 531 to 22. During Parliament’s “societal dialogue” sessions, few critics were allowed be take part in the discussions about the amendments.
“The amendments are a flagrant assault on the rule of law and independence of the judiciary in Egypt. If adopted, they will effectively place the military above the law and the Constitution and cement the executive’s subordination of judicial and prosecutorial authorities,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ’s MENA Director.
The initial amendments would have allowed al-Sisi to run for two more six-year terms, after his current second term. The final amendments will permit him to run for one additional term and also extends his current term from four to six years, a move that attracted criticism inside Egypt.
The amendments are particularly troubling given the widespread suppression of fundamental freedoms, including freedoms of expression, association, and assembly and the right to political participation, all of which are essential to a free and fair public vote.
A coalition of 10 secular and leftist political parties called for rejecting the amendments. Local news reports say that the public prosecutor is investigating an opposition political figure, Hamdeen Sabbahy, for “instigating chaos” and insulting the state because of his opposition to the amendments.
The authorities have also started aggressive smear campaigns against several activists and award-winning actors, and are exploring the potential prosecution of them following their participation in public advocacy efforts about Egypt’s human rights situation in Washington, DC and European capital cities in March.
In February and March alone, authorities arrested or prosecuted over 160 dissidents or perceived dissidents, according to Egyptian rights lawyers who spoke with Human Rights Watch.
Authorities also briefly arrested another opposition figure, Mamdouh Hamza, a businessman, on February 16, accusing him of “publishing false news” and citing critical posts on his Twitter account. They released him on bail a few hours later. Al-Araby al-Jadeed newspaper said that other opposition figures have received telephoned “threats.”
On April 10, the authorities blocked an independent campaign website, “Batel,” which, in the context of the referendum, could be translated as “void.” Egyptians living abroad started the campaign, inviting Egyptians to register their “No” votes online. Access to the site was blocked in Egypt only hours after its launch, but the campaign still managed to amass tens of thousands of “No” voters in a few days.
The authorities blocked seven other alternative websites that the campaign made to circumvent the efforts to block access in Egypt.
In their efforts to block access to the campaign, the authorities have blocked about 34,000 websites, according to an internet-monitoring website.
Since mid-2017, the authorities have blocked access to hundreds of websites including most of the independent news websites and some for human rights organizations.
The independent news website Mada Masr reported on February 10 that security authorities instructed mainstream media in Egypt not to report on the amendments, and in particular not to give critics any coverage. Mada Masr also reported that, at least since December 2018, meetings between staff from al-Sisi’s office and intelligence officials have been held at the General Intelligence Agency “on a nearly daily basis,” coordinated by al-Sisi’s son Mahmoud, a senior intelligence officer, to push the amendments.
A few days after parliamentarians proposed the amendments, supportive placards, signs, and billboards were erected across the country.
On April 16, Mada Masr, quoting witnesses in East Cairo, reported that security authorities had pressed business owners to post the signs. The government denied imposing fines on those who refused, but the authorities refused to permit opposition protests on March 27, citing “security threats.”
The al-Mashhad website also published a leaked memo from judges of the State Council, the body that contains the Supreme Administrative Court, to the Parliament, which said that the amendments “demolish judicial independence.” The State Council’s deputy chief justice, Judge Samir Yousef, later confirmed that he drafted the memo.
In July 2013, then-defense minister al-Sisi led the forcible removal of Egypt’s first freely elected president, Mohamed Morsy. Al-Sisi was officially elected president in 2014 and re-elected in 2018, after his government arrested or intimidated all of the other potential candidates.
Al-Sisi has presided over a government that has committed widespread and systematic human rights violations, including mass killings of protesters, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings of detainees, and torture and other ill-treatment in detention. Some of these crimes most likely constitute crimes against humanity.
The nationwide crackdown first targeted al-Sisi’s Islamist opponents but quickly expanded to include political dissidents, human rights lawyers and defenders, journalists, artists, gay men, lesbians, transsexuals, and virtually anyone expressing the mildest critical views. Government security forces, including the army, violate human rights with almost total impunity.
Since April 2017, the government has imposed a state of emergency, which has been used to justify undermining judicial independence, and used abusive counterterrorism and media laws to suppress fundamental freedoms.
President al-Sisi has apparently long opposed many of the human rights guarantees in the current constitution, saying in September 2015 that “the Constitution was written with good intentions. But countries cannot be built with good intentions.” The parliament speaker, Ali Abd al-Aal, said that a new constitution should be drafted in 5 or 10 years. Critics say this will happen when al-Sisi nears the end of his third and final term.
In an April 17 news conference, Judge Lasheen Ibrahim, the head of the National Elections Authority, called on Egyptians to vote and said that amending the constitution was justified because “it has to fit the [society’s] situation.”
“Egypt’s autocracy is shifting into overdrive to re-establish the ‘President-for-Life’ model, beloved by dictators in the region and despised by their citizens,” Page said. “But it’s a model that recent experience in Egypt and neighboring countries has demonstrated is not built to last.”
Egypt-Constitutional amendments-news-press release-2019-ENG (PDF, press release, Arabic)
For more information, please contact:
In Berlin, for Human Rights Watch, Amr Magdi (English, Arabic): +1-646-659-8020 (mobile); or magdia@hrw.org. Twitter: @ganobi
In New York, for Human Rights Watch, Michael Page (English): +1-617-453-8063 (mobile); or pagem@hrw.org. Twitter: @MichaelARPage
In Geneva, for the International Commission of Jurists, Said Benarbia: 0041798783546; or said.benarbia@icj.org
For more information about the abusive amendments, please read:
Egypt Constitutional Amendments: Unaccountable Military, Unchecked President and a Subordinated Judiciary
Egypt-Constitutional amendments-advocacy-analysis brief-2019-ENG (PDF, English)
Egypt-Constitutional amendments-advocacy-analysis brief-2019-ARA (PDF, Arabic)
Mar 15, 2019
Today the ICJ issued a Legal Brief note in order to help in understanding the offence of Subverting a Constitutional Government under Zimbabwe law.
Following protests that occurred in most major cities and towns in Zimbabwe in January 2019, a number of activists, human rights defenders, civil society leaders and opposition leaders have been arrested and charged with ‘subverting constitutional government’ as provided for under section 22 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code).
This legal briefing note seeks to provide an explanation of the elements of the crime and how it has been construed by Zimbabwean courts, and whether and to what the resort to section 22 has accorded with international law and standards, including African regional standards.
Under Zimbabwe’s existing laws, a person may be charged with an offence known as ‘subverting constitutional government’.
This is a crime akin to but less serious than treason. It is nonetheless an offence which attracts a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.
Various protesters have been arrested on the allegations that their public statements amounted to inciting the commission of this crime.
Following the January 2019 protests, more than 5 protesters and MDC opposition members have been charged with this crime.
Despite the high number of arrests based on this charge in the past few years, there have been no convictions.
Where the basis of the charge are public statements made, the question of what exceeds legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression arises.
As such, there is need to interrogate where the line is drawn between legitimate and illegitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
International human rights law, pursuant both universal and African regional standards, protects for the rights of persons to freedom of opinion and expression (Article 9 ACHPR; article 19 ICCPR), freedom of assembly (article 11 ACHPR;21 ICCPR) article, freedom of association (article 10 ACHPR; article 22 ICCPR), and the right to political participation (article 25 ICCPR).
These provisions in these international instruments impose an obligation on all state parties to respect the rights of persons under their jurisdiction.
Zimbabwe as a member state is bound by these provisions and similar provision under sections 58 (freedom of assembly and association), section 59 (freedom to demonstrate and petition), section 60 (freedom of conscience) and section 61 (freedom of expression).
These rights and fundamental freedoms, when exercised by human rights defenders, have been accorded heightened protection in international standards in particular through the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), adopted in 1999 by consensus of the General Assembly
While these freedoms are not absolute, under international law, any restrictions must be (i) legitimate, provided by law which is clear and accessible to everyone and formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct; (ii) proven strictly necessary to protect the rights or reputation of others, national security or public order, public health or morals and (iii) proven to be the least restrictive and proportionate means to achieve the purported aim.
Contact
Elizabeth Mangenje, e: elizabeth.mangenje@icj.org
Brian Penduka, e: brian.penduka@icj.org
Arnold Tsunga, e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Zimbabwe-Subverting Constitutional Gvt-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-ENG (full legal brief in PDF)
Mar 15, 2019
Today, ICJ and Human Rights Lawyers’ Association (HRLA) submitted recommendations to the Ministry of Justice on Thailand’s draft National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (‘draft NAP’), dated 14 February 2019, scheduled for public consultation between 15 February 2019 and 15 March 2019.
The organizations called for modifications to the draft NAP to ensure adequate legal and other protections for human rights defenders and their work, which was indicated as the identified as one of the NAP’s key priority areas.
The ICJ and HRLA welcomed the overall commitment expressed by the Thai Government, including the Ministry of Justice’s, to implement the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) through the NAP.
The organizations expressed concern, however, at the removal of a commitment that had been included in earlier versions of the NAP to “push for an Anti- Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) law” from the current draft NAP.
This removal was justified in the draft NAP on the grounds that the Court of Justice had already introduced legal amendments to prevent SLAPP lawsuits, in particular by enacting revisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Articles 161/1 and 165/2). The draft NAP also refers to certain powers of a public prosecutor as another means of preventing SLAPP lawsuits.
ICJ and HRLA indicated that these laws were inadequate to prevent judicial harassment of human rights defenders and called for the draft NAP to include concrete action with the force of law to protect individuals, and in particular human rights defenders, from judicial harassment, including through SLAPP lawsuits.
Background
Thailand is among the first countries in the ASEAN region to have begun the elaboration of a NAP. The UN Human Rights Council has stressed the importance of the development of National Action Plans by States to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which include the obligation to provide protections for persons from any adverse human rights impact of business activity.
On 15 February 2019, the Ministry of Justice circulated a final draft of the NAP for public consultation.
Upon finalization of the draft following the consultation, the draft will be forwarded to the Office of the National Economics and Social Development Council for their consideration before being sent to the Cabinet for approval.
The draft NAP sets out 4 key priority areas including (1) labour; (2) land, environment and natural resources; (3) human rights defenders; and (4) cross border investment and multi-national enterprises.
The draft NAP has set out several action points aimed to address concerns regarding the above-noted key priority areas for the period of 5 years (2019-2023).
Thailand-SLAPP Analysis-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (analysis in English, PDF)
Thailand-SLAPP Analysis-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-THA (analysis in Thai, PDF)
Mar 11, 2019
A new ICJ report examines the right to freedom of religion or belief in Malaysia, analyzing the country’s legal framework to identify protections of and limitations on the exercise of this right in law and in practice.
The report highlights that jurisdictional disputes affecting the adjudication of matters relating to religion and belief – between civil courts which apply federal and state laws, and Syariah courts, which apply Islamic laws – have emerged as the main arena of contestation.
These disputes have arisen amidst a national legal framework where there remains a lack of clarity in existing jurisprudence and law about the dual jurisdictional regime and insufficient legal safeguards exist to protect the rights of individuals with respect to personal and family matters concerning religion and belief.
Protective mechanisms for persons who wish to change or adopt a new religion also remain inadequate in law, while laws have been misused in practice to curtail the right to religion and belief of religious minorities.
The report explains the general international legal framework governing the right to freedom of religion or belief, before highlighting several concerns relating to the protection and promotion of this right in Malaysia. These include:
- Discrimination against religious minorities;
- Limitations on the rights of children relating to personal matters governed by Islamic Law;
- Discrimination against persons who wish to change or adopt a new religion;
- Criminalization and prosecution of proselytism among Muslims;
- Prohibitions on the use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims;
- Criminalization of free expression through the crime of sedition.
These concerns are detailed in the report. In light of these challenges, the report offers a number of recommendations to the Government of Malaysia to assist authorities in ensuring Malaysia’s legal framework is implemented in accordance with international human rights law and fully protects the right to freedom of religion or belief.
The report situates its legal analysis within Malaysia’s socio-political context, where religion and ethnicity play significant roles in politics and society, and concerns are emerging of rising intolerance against religious and ethnic minorities.
This report is part of a series of ICJ publications on the right to freedom of religion or belief, produced with the support of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion and Belief (IPPFoRB).
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, frederick.rawski@icj.org
See also
New primer on freedom of religion or belief in international human rights law
New briefing paper: challenges to freedom of religion or belief in Nepal
Download
Malaysia-Freedom of religion Exec sum-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (executive summary, in PDF)
Malaysia-Freedom of religion brief-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (full report, in PDF)
