Apr 5, 2016 | News
The Court of Appeal’s decision to lift the stay of execution of Kho Jabing is a serious blow to human rights in Singapore, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today.
The ICJ urges the Government of Singapore to grant Kho Jabing clemency and immediately impose a moratorium on executions, with a view towards abolishing the death penalty in the near future.
“The death penalty is never justifiable,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “If Singapore goes through with the execution of Kho Jabing, it will go against the growing international consensus to abolish the death penalty.”
Currently, 117 member states of the United Nations support the General Assembly resolution passed in December 2014 calling for an international moratorium on the use of death penalty, the ICJ reminds.
The Geneva-based organization opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and considers the imposition of the death penalty to constitute a denial of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
The ICJ has received information that there are nine other individuals currently on death row in Singapore.
Authorities have not yet released the date of Kho Jabing’s execution.
The lawyers of Kho Jabing will be filing a petition for clemency in the next few days.
The ICJ urges the Government of Singapore to halt the imminent execution of Kho Jabing, grant the petition for clemency and commute his death sentence.
Background
Kho Jabing, a Malaysian national, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Singapore in 2010. After amendments were made in 2012 on the laws on the death penalty in Singapore, Kho Jabing was re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The prosecution, however, appealed the re-sentencing and the case was brought to the Court of Appeal.
The court rejected his application for clemency in October 2015. On 23 November 2015, he was granted a temporary reprieve pending the outcome of a petition filed by his lawyers, which raised questions of fact and law.
The decision of the Court of Appeal this morning lifted the temporary reprieve and upheld its decision to impose the death penalty on Kho Jabing.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Advisor, tel. no. +66840923575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Apr 1, 2016
An opinion piece by Vani Sathisan, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser in Myanmar, and Bobbie Sta. Maria, Senior Researcher for Southeast Asia, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre.
More than half a century of military rule ostensibly comes to a close on April 1, when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy officially takes over Myanmar’s government and the first civilian President since 1962 starts leading the nation.
Despite these extraordinary developments, daunting challenges remain in Asia’s second poorest country. Myanmar’s military still controls key governmental functions; the country is barely emerging from decades of civil conflicts; rule of law and institutions are weak; the economy is fragile and dominated by crony companies; corruption, and human rights abuses remain stubbornly persistent.
In opening up, Myanmar has embraced special economic zones (SEZs) – designated areas in which businesses receive tax, tariff and regulatory benefits – as a means to encourage economic trade and investment heavily promoting three major zones; Thilawa, Dawei and Kyaukphyu.
But in all three, affected communities have repeatedly complained about the need to address human rights and environmental harms caused by the projects, including land, air, and water pollution, and the displacement and loss of traditional forms of livelihoods of thousands.
Communities in these zones have also voiced concerns about a lack of transparency, inadequate consultation and participation of affected local communities in project-related decisions, and insufficient compensation for losses.
While SEZs are supposed to drive Myanmar’s economic growth, at the moment it looks as if this growth disproportionately rewards businesses and investors, and not the communities displaced and impoverished to make way for them.
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and the International Commission of Jurists are engaged in efforts to encourage greater public accountability among foreign companies for their human rights impacts – including by highlighting concerns of affected communities with businesses, providing guidance, and tracking companies’ investments and efforts to avoid negative impacts – but a concerted response by government is vital.
The National League for Democracy taking office is crucial, because whilst they support the Thilawa zone, they have said they will review the continuation of the Dawei and Kyaukphyu zones including by speaking with relevant stakeholders.
We hope that the new regime will not lose sight of its commitments in its Election Manifesto, including encouraging “foreign investment in line with the highest international standards”, and laying down “paths for economic cooperation that can bring sustainable long-term mutual benefits”.
The problems surrounding SEZs are significant and urgent. This period of re-evaluation provides the new government an opportunity to fulfill its duty to protect affected communities.
They can build upon the limited progress of the previous government in legislating rights protections by ensuring that laws are properly implemented.
For example: Myanmar law now requires environmental impact assessments (EIA) for investments in certain industries.
The newly approved EIA Procedures cover environmental and social impacts and incorporate international best practices on involuntary resettlement and indigenous peoples. The new National Land Use Policy refers to participatory, transparent and accountable processes.
The new government must amend the SEZ law to ensure that investment projects are planned, designed and undertaken with respect for the fundamental principles of participation, transparency and accountability.
While land issues are undoubtedly complex, the prevalence of land-related grievances presents a challenge for the new government to take bold steps towards the protection of land rights, including addressing illegal land acquisitions and making real efforts to meet international standards for consultation, compensation and resettlement.
By design, SEZs are meant to lure businesses through friendly conditions.
But this goal must not be pursued at all costs, especially not in ways that will lead to irreversible environmental damage, abuse of rights, or further impoverishment of locals.
The challenge to govern carries with it the responsibility to listen, respectfully engage, and ensure the protection of the human rights of all people in Myanmar.
Mar 31, 2016 | News
A Delhi Court acquitted human rights defender Irom Sharmila of an “attempt to commit suicide” charge. The government of Manipur must in turn immediately drop the charges against her, said the ICJ today.
Irom Sharmila, was charged under section 309 the Indian Penal Code.
She has been on a continuous hunger strike for over 15 years, demanding repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).
“This order is a welcome recognition that Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike is a form of peaceful dissent and protest protected by the right to freedom of expression,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
This week, Iron Sharmila was acquitted of the charges against her in Delhi. The case against her in Manipur is, however, still on-going.
The decision of the Delhi court is not binding on the courts in Manipur, but the charges are analogous, and similar reasoning should prevail, the ICJ says.
“The government of Manipur should drop the other charges under section 309 against her, and release her immediately and unconditionally,” said Zarifi.
On at least two occasions previously, courts in Manipur have directed that Irom Sharmila be released, saying that charges under section 309 were not applicable.
“The use of section 309 against Sharmila highlights the outdated and absurd nature of this law,” Zarifi said.
“The government should expedite the repeal of 309 and, instead of criminalizing Irom Sharmila’s protest, focus on the reason behind it and repeal the AFSPA,” he added.
The AFSPA gives armed forces a range of “special powers” in “disturbed areas”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death”.
Furthermore, under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court.
These provisions are inconsistent with a range of human rights, including the right to life and right to remedy.
They have also facilitated torture, rape and enforced disappearances in areas where operational, the ICJ notes.
“This law is inconsistent with India’s human rights obligations, and has led to human rights violations, wide-spread impunity, and immense grief and suffering in the areas where it operates”, Zarifi said.
“It is high time that it was taken off the books”.
Background
Irom Sharmila began a hunger strike in November 2000, calling for the repeal of the AFSPA, following the unlawful killing of 10 civilians by security forces purportedly acting under it in Malom.
She was arrested by the Manipur government in 2000 under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits an “attempt to commit suicide”.
Irom Sharmila has been in custody almost continuously since her initial arrest, and has continued her hunger strike.
She is fed through a nasal tube at the Jawaharlal Nehru hospital in Imphal where she is usually held.
The Delhi government also charged her on similar grounds with respect to an incident from 2006, when she held a protest in their jurisdiction.
In 2014, a Manipur court quashed charges under section 309 against Irom Sharmila, saying “The agitation of Irom Chanu Sharmila is a political demand through lawful means of repealing a valid statute. … she may continue with the fast till her demand is met politically by the Government”.
However, since she continued her hunger strike, she was immediately re-arrested on the same grounds.
In its 210th report, the Indian Law Commission has recommended that section 309 be repealed. In 2011, the Supreme Court said: “the time has come when [section 309] should be deleted by Parliament as it has become anachronistic.”
In 2014, the government announced that it was in the process of repealing 309.
The AFSPA applies to “disturbed areas” in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.
An almost identical law is also applicable in Jammu and Kashmir.
Mar 30, 2016 | News
The Malaysian government must immediately halt the politically motivated sedition investigation launched by the police against members of the Malaysian Bar who had called for the Attorney General’s resignation, the ICJ said today.
“The Malaysian authorities are using the archaic, colonial Sedition Act to harass and silence lawyers who are demanding that the country’s legal authorities observe international standards of propriety and independence,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“This latest misuse of the Sedition Act constitutes a brazen political attack on the independence of the country’s lawyers,” she added.
On 29 March 2016, lawyers Charles Hector, Francis Pereira, and Shanmugam Ramasamy, received letters from police authorities summoning them to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters on 31 March 2016 for the purpose of taking down their statements regarding a complaint filed against them under the Sedition Act (1948).
The three had proposed a motion during the Malaysian Bar’s 70th Annual General Assembly, calling for the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali. The motion was passed by a majority vote.
Karen Cheah Yee Lynn, Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, was also notified that her statement would likewise be taken but she was not summoned to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters.
The Malaysian Bar demanded the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali after he summarily ended the investigation of alleged corruption by Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The Prime Minister appointed Attorney-General Apandi on 27 July 2015, in the midst of the corruption investigation.
Attorney General Apandi subsequently cleared Prime Minister Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing and instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to close the investigations.
“In 2012, Prime Minister Razak had promised to repeal the Sedition Act, but since then his government has increasingly relied on the law’s impermissibly vague and broad language as a useful tool of repression,” Gil said.
International standards highlight that protecting the independence of lawyers and their professional associations is essential for upholding the rule of law and the administration of justice, the ICJ says.
“This police investigation is clearly designed to challenge that independence,” Gil said.
“The Malaysian Bar has been one of the few institutions consistently defending the rule of law and human rights in Malaysia, and it is crucial to maintain the ability of its members to engage critically in upholding the standards of professional integrity and independence,” she added.
The ICJ urges the Malaysian government to repeal the archaic Sedition Act 1948 and fulfill the commitment it made in 2012 to abolish it.
Unless repealed or considerably revised so that it will be consistent with international law, the Sedition Act 1948 will continue to unduly limit and repress the freedom of expression, not only of lawyers and human rights defenders, but of all Malaysians exercising their fundamental rights, the ICJ says.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background
Under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments have the obligation to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (Principle 16).
Like other citizens, lawyers are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly. Lawyers have the right to take part in the public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights (Principle 23).
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers also state that lawyers are entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests and protect their professional integrity (Principle 24).
Governments should ensure that these professional associations are able to function without improper interference (Principle 25).
In its 2016 resolution on human rights in the administration of justice, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously affirmed that “the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the integrity of the judicial system and an independent legal profession are essential prerequisites for the protection of human rights, the rule of law, good governance and democracy, and for ensuring that there is no discrimination in the administration of justice, and should therefore be respected in all circumstances” (Resolution 30/7, 1 October 2015).
Malaysia’s Sedition Act 1948, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
Mar 29, 2016
An opinion piece by Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia.
The government of President Yameen Abdul Gayoom of the Maldives continues to abuse an overbroad anti-terror law as a blunt-force tool to arbitrarily and indiscriminately silence perceived political threats to his regime.
During a recent visit to the Maldives last month, I was alarmed by the numerous and increasing number of terrorism trials against public officials.
While international attention has relaxed in recent months following former president Mohamed Nasheed’s medical leave to the UK pending appeal of his own terrorism conviction from last year, President Yameen’s government continues to use a deeply politicized criminal justice system to persecute anyone out of favour with the President, be they opposition party members, judges, even former cabinet members and erstwhile allies.
In October 2015, for instance, then-Vice President Ahmed Adeeb was arrested in connection with a suspected bomb blast on a boat carrying the President, even though a US FBI investigation was unable to conclude that the explosion was caused by a bomb.
The then-VP was subsequently summarily impeached and soon thereafter charged with several counts of corruption and terrorism.
During a 15 February 2016 hearing, a terrorism charge based on an alleged firearm seen in the former VP’s residence in April 2015 was formally presented and disclosed to the defense for the first time, though the defense continues to be denied access to the evidence or witness list in this case on national security grounds.
A second charge of terrorism against the former VP, this one in connection with the alleged bomb blast on the President’s boat, was filed on 17 March.
The defense was not formally notified of this new charge, only learning of it through media reports.
Here too, the defense is yet to be given access to any government witnesses or evidence relating to the charge.
Such denial of access to evidence and witnesses contravenes the right to prepare an adequate defence and the right to test evidence, fundamental components of the right to fair trial.
On 16 February, leader of the opposition Adhaalath party, Sheikh Imran Abdullah, was convicted and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment on terrorism charges in connection with a public speech given during an opposition protest rally.
The disproportionately severe punishment in Sheikh Imran’s case – a 12-year ‘terrorism’ sentence for a political speech – was the outcome of an arbitrary and unfair trial process fraught with apparent fair trial violations, including allegedly doctored evidence.
Two more recent victims of inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges are Magistrate Judge Ahmed Nihan and former Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin, both of whom were arrested on 7 February in connection with an alleged ‘forged’ arrest warrant against the President for his alleged role in a major corruption scandal involving the embezzlement of several million dollars of state funds.
On 8 March, more than one month after the arrests, both were charged under sections 4(a) and 5(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2015, for conspiring to ‘kidnap’ the President.
Meanwhile, on 15 March, former Defense Minister Col. (retd.) Mohamed Nazim’s conviction on ‘weapons smuggling’ charges (based on the discovery of one pistol and three bullets allegedly found in his home in January 2015) was upheld by the appellate High Court, one year since his conviction and three months since the final hearing in his appeal.
The ICJ has previously documented in detail, in its August 2015 fact-finding report, the substantial fair trial violations in Col. Nazim’s investigation and trial, including indications that the weapons in question were planted, that implicate an arbitrary, unfair and politically motivated proceeding.
There is a clear pattern here of the Maldives government seeking to neutralize certain political actors through arbitrary, heavy-handed and politically motivated abuse of the anti-terrorism law that amounts to a flagrant violation of the basic international principles of fair trial, judicial independence and separation of powers.
It is also a clear breach of the Maldives’ international legal obligation to respect the right to fair trial under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives acceded in 2006.
The misuse of anti-terror laws in the Maldives seems part of an effort to halt and reverse the progress made during the country’s brief democratic transition after 2008.
As the country faces growing political unrest and instability, President Yameen’s government must restore the rule of law, strengthen the judiciary and other democratic institutions, and set the country back on the path towards a more representative and accountable government.
An important first step in doing so is immediately ceasing from using the anti-terror law as a political weapon to chill the actions of public officials and silence real or perceived political opponents, and ensuring that those currently facing criminal charges are provided a fair trial in accordance with the Maldives’ international human rights obligations and its national laws.
