| |
Back to Index
African
Union fails to defend press freedom
Julia
Crawford, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
February 05, 2007
http://www.cpj.org/attacks06/africa06/africa_analysis_06.html
When African
heads of state gathered in July in the Gambia’s sleepy seaside capital,
Banjul, their host had just shut down a leading private newspaper,
jailed journalists, and halted a planned freedom of expression forum
on the fringes of the summit. At the summit, the African Union swore
in judges for a future pan-African court of justice and human rights,
but said nothing about human rights abuses in the Gambia or the
lack of due process for its detainees. In a declaration marking
the 25th anniversary of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights, AU leaders vowed to rededicate themselves "to ensuring
respect for human and peoples’ rights" as a prerequisite to
their common vision of "a united and prosperous Africa."
The charter, binding on all AU members, includes freedom of expression
as a fundamental human right. Yet the heads of state failed to comment
on the Gambia’s vicious repression of the independent press and
its lackluster effort to solve the 2004 assassination of a leading
editor.
The AU’s failure
to speak out against press freedom abuses while it maintains offices
in the capitals of two of the continent’s principal abusers—the
Gambia and Ethiopia—casts doubt on its commitment to freedom of
expression. The organization has a number of tools to defend freedom
of the press, including the Banjul-based African Commission on Human
and Peoples’ Rights. In 2002, this human rights commission adopted
a Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa,
which was hailed by rights activists. In 2004, it appointed a special
rapporteur on freedom of expression in Africa, whose mandate includes
the possibility of carrying out investigative missions. The AU’s
new African Peer Review Mechanism, a voluntary system under which
member states are evaluated for good governance, is also a potential
tool for the advancement of press freedom throughout Africa.
But progress
is slow, and abuses continue on a massive scale in many member states.
Ethiopia, where the AU has its headquarters, has at least 18 journalists
behind bars, making it the world’s fourth leading jailer of journalists.
It is surpassed on the continent by Eritrea, with 23, most of whom
have been held incommunicado and without charge for more than five
years. (An Internet report considered credible by CPJ sources said
three Eritrean journalists may have died in custody.) A CPJ survey
found Eritrea, where the government shut down the entire private
press in 2001, and Equatorial Guinea to be among the 10 Most Censored
Countries in the world. Zimbabwe’s litany of human rights abuses
includes the use of repressive laws to persecute independent journalists
and censor the private press. Many AU member states use outdated
criminal laws to harass and imprison journalists, while impunity
persists in the murders of journalists in countries such as the
Gambia, Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Somalia.
So why is the AU not doing more?
The AU’s special
rapporteur on freedom of expression, South African attorney Faith
Pansy Tlakula, told CPJ that the AU faces many challenges. "The
question is, among all the challenges—democratization, peace and
development, postwar reconstruction—whether, in the order of things,
freedom of expression is going to be a priority," she said.
"Of course it should be, as a precursor to the enjoyment of
all the other rights."
Tlakula said
her priorities were to monitor and report on freedom of expression,
thereby raising awareness of the AU human rights commission’s work
in this field. She said she had not completed any investigative
missions since her appointment in December 2005, although she was
preparing a report on the Gambia. Tlakula said her office, like
much of the AU, was hamstrung by limited staff and financial resources.
"We’re working on a part-time basis," she told CPJ. By
all accounts, lack of resources is a significant problem for the
human rights commission as a whole. "Some of the rapporteurs
of the commission do a good job, but it’s always a struggle because
there is no money," said Darian Pavli, an attorney at the Open
Society Justice Initiative in New York, which has brought cases
before the commission.
Lack of political
will is another issue. "The root of the problem is misguided
solidarity at the top political level," Pavli told CPJ. "Most
leaders are reluctant to say things that could come back and hit
them."
At its December
2005 session in Banjul, the commission condemned human rights violations
in Zimbabwe and Eritrea, and enjoined the leaders of those countries
to respect their obligations under the charter. It called on Zimbabwe
to support "the fundamental rights and freedoms of expression,
association and assembly, by repealing or amending repressive legislation,"
and it issued a blunt appeal to Eritrea to "immediately free
the former cabinet ministers, government officials, members of parliament,
journalists, media practitioners, and other individuals who have
been arrested and detained for many years without trial." The
commission also asked the Ethiopian government to "release
arbitrarily detained political prisoners, human rights defenders,
and journalists," and urged it to "guarantee at all times
freedom of opinion and expression."
Eritrea remains
Africa’s most repressive country following a September 2001 crackdown
in which authorities suspended all private press operations, jailed
political dissidents and journalists in secret locations, and forced
many others into exile. In Zimbabwe, the government has waged a
relentless war on critical voices since 2000, using repressive new
laws to imprison and harass journalists and driving dozens into
exile. The laws have also led to the closure of several newspapers,
including the country’s only private daily.
At a summit
in Khartoum in January, AU heads of state adopted the human rights
commission’s decisions "except for those containing the resolutions
on Eritrea, Ethiopia ... and Zimbabwe," admonishing the commission
for not having enlisted responses from those member states. Six
months later, the Banjul summit made no mention of human rights
abuses in those countries.
In addition
to its recent tough resolutions, the commission, which was inaugurated
in 1987, has produced some jurisprudence on press freedom issues,
although Pavli said not enough cases have been brought. Part of
its mandate is to interpret the charter, Article 9 of which states,
"Every individual shall have the right to receive information.
Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate
his opinions within the law." Pavli described this as "the
weakest of all free speech articles among the regional bills of
rights," but noted that the commission has given "within
the law" a broad interpretation by applying international standards.
Pavli said the
human rights commission has also been gaining in moral authority.
"The decisions are not strictly binding, but they have the
potential to be embarrassing. In the beginning, states wouldn’t
even show up for a commission hearing, but in the last five to 10
years it has gained some authority," he said. "States,
if they can avoid it, would rather not be found in violation of
the charter." For example, Pavli helped bring a case against
the government of Cameroon on behalf of award-winning journalist
Pius Njawe, whose Freedom FM radio station was shut down as it attempted
to launch in May 2003. Njawe, winner of a 1991 CPJ International
Press Freedom Award, has shown continuing courage in the face of
imprisonment, harassment, and censorship. Cameroonian officials,
confronted with a potentially embarrassing complaint, signed an
agreement to allow Freedom FM to launch, although they have dragged
their feet thus far in honoring the pledge.
There is hope,
too, that the future African court will give human rights decisions
more teeth. "The court will strengthen our work," the
AU’s Tlakula told CPJ. "If we take cases to the court, it will
issue enforceable orders, which will enhance the protection of human
rights. A court order is much better than a recommendation."
Pavli said the independence of the court nevertheless remains to
be seen, as does the AU’s willingness to enforce its decisions.
"Ultimately, the test for enforcement will be political,"
he told CPJ. "It will be up to the organization as a whole
to ensure compliance."
Peer pressure
is the cornerstone of another AU tool, the voluntary African Peer
Review Mechanism. The process involves a self-assessment by the
country submitting to the review—one that is supposed to be inclusive
of civil society—and an assessment by an outside team of AU experts;
the team then draws up a report, including a "Program of Action"
for improvements. Ghana and Rwanda were the first countries to complete
the process; their reports were released in 2006. About half of
the AU member states have now signed up for a review.
Still, activists
complain that civil society is sidelined from the process, the reports
are sanitized, and not enough attention is paid to critical issues—in
particular, freedom of expression and the media. The report on Rwanda,
which has a pattern of violence and intimidation against journalists,
contains only scant and inconclusive reference to press freedom.
"The African Peer Review Mechanism is something of a sham,
I think," said veteran South African journalist and press freedom
activist Raymond Louw. He said the need for a free press was originally
included in the self-assessment questionnaire, but it was removed
from the final draft. Louw is among those leading an effort to have
the heading reinserted, a battle he described as uphill.
The Peer Review
Mechanism can certainly be improved. AU human rights tools are gaining
ground, while the establishment of an African court of human rights
will also be important. The AU, like its predecessor, the Organization
of African Unity (OAU), nevertheless remains reluctant to point
the finger at individual member states, let alone sanction them.
If the African Union wants to finally shake off suspicions that
it is still a "club of dictators," as critics once dubbed
the OAU, then it must be prepared to take tough action against human
rights abusers and give press freedom the importance it deserves
in the development of democracy and human rights in Africa.
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
|
