Back to Index

IPI calls on the AU to reassess the Zimbabwe's human rights record & freedom of the press
International Press Institute (IPI)
April 04, 2006

http://www.freemedia.at/Protests2006/African_Union04.04.06.htm

H.E. Denis Sassou-Nguesso
Chairman of the African Union
The African Union Commission
PO Box 3243
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Fax: + 251 1 517844

H. E. Kofi Annan
Secretary-General
United Nations
New York, NY 10017, USA
Fax: +1-212 963 4879
Vienna,

4 April 2006

Your Excellencies,

The International Press Institute (IPI), the global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists in over 110 countries, is writing to express its disappointment at the slow progress being made by the African Union (AU) in criticising Zimbabwe's record on human rights, particularly freedom of the press.

Based on IPI's review of the situation, there have been several attempts by the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) to encourage the AU to condemn Zimbabwe's abysmal human rights and press freedom record. To this day, however, these attempts have foundered for reasons ranging from improbable excuses made by the Zimbabwean government, to the AU's desire to focus on procedural matters and alleged reporting irregularities rather than human rights abuses.

In June 2002, the ACHPR sent a fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe. The delegation was led by the ACHPR's vice-chairperson, Jainaba Johm, and included the commissioner responsible for Zimbabwe, N. Barney Pityana, and the commission's legal officer Fiona Adolu.

After consulting with individuals and groups inside Zimbabwe, the delegation produced a strongly worded report calling on the Zimbabwean government to promote a climate conducive to freedom of expression, and noted the existence of legislation undermining freedom of expression.

At the AU's third summit in July 2004, there were plans to discuss a summary of the mission as part of the ACHPR's annual review of Zimbabwe; however, the decision was later rescinded after the Zimbabwe government successfully argued that it had not had an opportunity to examine the report. According to the Zimbabwean government, the report had been sent to the wrong ministry thus preventing an assessment of its contents.

Following its 38th session, held in Banjul, The Gambia, the ACHPR passed a 5 December 2005 resolution on the human rights situation calling on the "government of Zimbabwe to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of expression" and to allow a second fact-finding mission to enter the country.

Prior to the AU's sixth summit in Khartoum, Sudan, in January 2006, the council of ministers once again rejected a report on Zimbabwe by the ACHPR claiming that it contained "irregularities and procedural flaws."

According to news reports, one reason for the rejection was that the report resembled the 2004 report, while another was that the 5 December resolution on Zimbabwe, which formed part of the overall report, called for the AU to follow a recommendation of the United Nations. Another perceived flaw was that the report contained the work of a group of non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

It is now nearly four years since the original fact-finding mission and IPI is concerned that the AU is failing in its duty to uphold human rights, particularly freedom of the press. While it is entirely proper for the Zimbabwean government to be allowed time to reflect on any report containing allegations of human rights violations, it is wholly inappropriate that the AU should allow transparently obvious delaying tactics to derail the process of criticising the Zimbabwean government for these abuses.

Regarding the other alleged reasons for rejecting the report, IPI is surprised that the AU does not support a recommendation of the United Nations. The role of the ACHPR is to report on the measures taken to implement the African Charter, and towards this end it may cooperate with other African or international organisations, including the United Nations.

Moreover, the same is also true concerning the NGOs. The ACHPR has the right to receive and consider communications from these organisations, including information on human rights abuses. These organisations have a wealth of information and experience about the present situation in Zimbabwe and it should be noted that the ACHPR met with similar organisations when conducting its fact-finding mission in 2002.

IPI would also take issue with the notion that information about abuses may be set aside purely because they stem from the reporting of NGOs. The only deciding factor for the inclusion of information on human rights violations should be whether the allegation occurred and whether it is supported by evidence.

Furthermore, the AU is well-advanced in the unique process whereby the political, governance and human rights practices of countries are voluntarily assessed under the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), a vital part of the important and internationally-acclaimed New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad) initiative.

IPI believes that in failing to take action on the ACHPR's criticism of Zimbabwe, the AU may be jeopardising the credibility of this process. The ACHPR statement on Zimbabwe requires a review by Zimbabwe's peers in the AU and if that is not forthcoming, the world may be led to believe that the Nepad APRM lacks substance.

Bearing the above in mind, IPI calls on the AU to reassess the Zimbabwean situation and to re-examine the reports of the ACHPR. IPI believes that Zimbabwe represents an important test for African democratic institutions and it is essential that the AU places the importance of human rights and freedom of the press above what appears to be a deep-seated reluctance to criticise African leaders.

We thank you for your attention.

Yours sincerely,

Johann P. Fritz
Director

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP