Thailand: return country to democracy and the rule of law

Thailand: return country to democracy and the rule of law

On the one-year anniversary of the military coup of 22 May 2014, the ICJ urges Thailand to restore democracy and the rule of law, revoke the repressive laws passed since the coup, and ensure that any revised Constitution meets international human rights and rule of law standards.

Swaziland: arrest of judges raises serious concerns

Swaziland: arrest of judges raises serious concerns

The ICJ is concerned at the recent arrest of Swaziland High Court Judges Jacobus Annandale and Mpendulo Simelane, the High Court Registrar Fikile Nhlabatsi and the Minister of Justice Sibusiso Shongwe.

The four detainees appeared today before High Court Justice Qinisile Mabuza (photo).

Justice Minister Sibusiso Shongwe was denied bail and remains detained, while the other two High Court Judges and the registrar were released on bail.

The judges, registrar and Minister of Justice are all facing various charges related to corruption and obstructing the course of justice.

The ICJ is also aware that police are presently seeking to arrest Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi, and that they have surrounded his place of residence.

The ICJ has received information alleging that the police have cut off the electricity and water and have actively prevented people from bringing food supplies to him and his family.

The ICJ urges the authorities in Swaziland to immediately investigate the situation of the Chief Justice and, if the allegations are substantiated, to immediately restore supply of essential services to the Chief Justices family, denied in violation of rights guaranteed under the Swaziland’s Constitution and its international legal obligations.

“The arrest and attempted arrest of several judges, and a High Court Registrar as in this case, invariably raises questions of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary,” said Wilder Tayler Secretary General of the ICJ.

“The ICJ therefore calls on the authorities in Swaziland to conduct themselves with rigorous adherence to rule of law principles, the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. They must also do so with strict respect for international human rights law,” he added.

The ICJ emphasizes that the Chief Justice and the other judges are entitled as everyone else in Swaziland to freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial guaranteed under international law.

These protections include the right to be informed the reasons for their arrest and the nature of any criminal charges, the right to representation by a lawyer of their choice and the right to be considered for bail if appropriate.

If no crime is alleged, but serious professional misconduct is suspected, then arrest and detention is inappropriate.

Additional information:

The ICJ has had longstanding concerns with the state of the independence of the judiciary and legal profession and the fair administration of the justice in Swaziland.

The ICJ has recently intervened in a case involving the conviction of prominent lawyer Thulani Maseko in an unfair trial.

For an ICJ analysis of the independence of the judiciary and legal profession in Swaziland, go here.

Contact:

Arnold Tsunga, Regional Director, ICJ’s Africa Programme, t: +27 731318411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org

Shootings in courthouse in Milan, Italy

Shootings in courthouse in Milan, Italy

Among the victims of a gun attack today at the Palace of Justice of Milan, according to press reports, were Judge Fernando Ciampi and lawyer Lorenzo Alberto Claris Appiani.

Press reports state that the person who opened fire in the Palace of Justice of Milan, killing three persons and injuring several others, was a defendant in a case.

The ICJ calls on relevant authorities immediately to launch a thorough inquiry into the system of security at the Palace of Justice, for judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, as well as witnesses and parties to cases, employees, and others present in the buildings.

The ICJ recalls that the State has a duty under international law to ensure protection for members of the judiciary and others who may be at risk of such attacks.

Thailand: Lift martial law and return the country to civilian authority

Thailand: Lift martial law and return the country to civilian authority

Thailand must lift martial law and return the country to civilian rule, instead of invoking arbitrary powers under Article 44 of the country’s interim constitution, said the ICJ today.

Today, Prime Minister and head of the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), General Prayut Chan-o-cha, announced that he had submitted a revocation of the Martial Law, imposed nationwide on 20 May 2014, to King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

Gen. Prayut stated that in place of Martial Law, he would invoke Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, which effectively gives him the authority to rule without any legal restrictions or accountability.

“Ending Martial Law is a necessary step, but replacing it with Article 44 does not address the serious violations of Thailand’s obligations under international human rights law. Article 44 of the Interim Constitution is drafted so broadly that it could give the head of the junta even greater powers than Martial law,” said Wilder Tayler, Secretary General of the ICJ. “Article 44 would allow the head of the NCPO to issue any orders he wishes under the pretext of strengthening public unity and national security, and also deems any such order to be legal and constitutional, removing any possibility of judicial oversight.”

Article 44 of the interim Constitution gives the NCPO power to give any order deemed necessary for “…the benefit of reform in any field and to strengthen public unity and harmony, or for the prevention, disruption or suppression of any act which undermines public peace and order or national security, the Monarchy, national economics or administration of State affairs …,” and provides that any such order “…is deemed to be legal, constitutional and conclusive…”

“Article 44 violates the fundamental pillars of the rule of law and human rights, including equality, accountability, and predictability. Article 44 could potentially allow for arbitrary rule by the head of the NCPO, so using it would not be a real improvement over the Martial Law, which at least has been in existence since 1914, and has a degree of clarity to its scope and application,” said Tayler.

“The NCPO should revoke Martial Law and also explicitly commit itself to observing Thailand’s international obligations, which means avoiding any use of Article 44,” he added.

International law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or restrict protection for human rights on grounds of emergency.

Such “derogations” are permissible under Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a State Party, only “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation”.

“The situation in Thailand does not meet the extremely high threshold required for derogating from international human rights law,” said Tayler. “Thai authorities have repeatedly promised a rapid return to the rule of law and respect for human rights in the country, but replacing Martial Law with rule by Article 44 doesn’t suggest an improvement for the rule of law or respect for human rights.”

Thailand-Martial Law-Article 44-News-Press release-2015-THA (Thai version, full text in PDF)

Translate »