Africa: How the Death Penalty Is Slowly Weakening Its Grip On Africa

ANALYSIS

By Kiggundu Henry

At both global and continental levels there is an observable trend towards the abolition of the death penalty. More than two thirds of all states have now either abolished the practice or have long-standing moratoria on its use. Though Amnesty International reported a slight increase in the actual number of executions last year, the overall decline is unmistakable.

This trend of state practice can be read in conjunction with an interpretation of international human rights law as progressively abolitionist. At the time of its drafting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) made a provision for countries which had not already abolished the death penalty, but established stringent conditions under which it could continue. Article 6 was also drafted in such a way that it envisages and indeed facilitates the abolition of the death penalty over time.

In those countries where it remains, international safeguards have both a procedural component, centred on the requirements of legality and fair trial, and also a substantive component entailing imposition only for the most serious crimes, principles of equality and consistency, and minimum standards of protection for vulnerable groups (including those with mental illness, the focus of Friday's World Day against the Death Penalty).

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has acknowledged "the evolution of international law and the trend towards abolition of the death penalty" and has encouraged that trend with recommendations calling for moratoria on its use. Earlier this year, one of the Commission's Working Groups convened in Cotonou, Benin, to finalise the text of an Optional Protocol to the African Charter on the abolition of the death penalty. That process was positively received by a broad array of civil society actors, and will now be finalised by the African Union.

As of October 2014, seventeen African states have abolished the death penalty by enacting national legislation. A further twenty-five State Parties have not carried out an execution for ten years. That leaves only twelve states--Botswana, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe--which retain the death penalty and have recently used it.

Africa accounted for only 8% of the executions known to have taken place in 2013, (a figure which excludes executions in China). Of those 64 executions, 55 took place either in Somalia or Sudan.

On the international stage, ten of Africa's abolitionist states have also ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR on the abolition of the death penalty, with Gabon the most recent, earlier this year.

Despite these promising trends, and the general optimism of the international community about the trajectory of the death penalty, it is important not to overlook the shadow that it still casts. Where it remains, it is a cause for concern that the death penalty can be imposed for offenses which do not meet the international legal threshold of "most serious crimes"--a term which is understood to mean only those involving intentional killing.

The case of Meriam Ibrahim, who was sentenced to death for apostasy in Sudan, brought this issue to global headlines earlier this year. The imposition of the death penalty by military tribunals--which have been found unable to meet international standards of due process for civilian matters--remains a cause of concern, particularly in Somalia.

The lack of due process within capital cases has proved a concern elsewhere on the continent. The mass-sentencing of more than 600 people in Egypt was an extreme case, but the UN has also, for example, expressed concerns that the judicial system in South Sudan is too weak to provide sufficient protection against arbitrary death sentences.

Moreover, while moratoria on executions are to be welcomed, if they are not accompanied by a change in judicial practice, long-term moratoria result in a very large number of people languishing on "death row", a condition which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is estimated that there are several thousand people on death row in Kenya, and hundreds in Algeria, Tanzania and the DRC.

But these reflections should not detract from the many positive developments which continue across much of the rest of the continent. Over the past year there has been an ongoing review of the penal code in Comoros, and the constitution in Sierra Leone. A constitutional amendment has been proposed to abolish the death penalty in Ghana.

Last month a new penal code was approved by parliamentarians in Chad that made no allowance for the death penalty, and would effectively abolish it. While other elements of this penal code give human rights activists cause for concern, the step taken towards formal abolition should be welcomed.

In May a workshop was convened in Tunisia to discuss the reform of the Penal Code, and a reduction of the number of crimes for which the death penalty might be imposed. A Parliamentary Network for Abolition is also gaining strength in Morocco. The presence of openly abolitionist Ministers of Justice in Zimababwe (Emmerson Mnangagwa) and Tanzania (Mathias Chikawe) should also be regarded in a positive light.

A number of other African states have accepted recommendations made under the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) either to work toward abolition at a national level or to make binding international commitments regarding the death penalty. If these commitments in Geneva are translated into actual policy in national capitals then the continent could soon witness a significant shift in terms of the status of the death penalty. Its grip, in this sense, is weakening.

It must be said that campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty has a certain allure for those working in human rights. The very clear cut (and usually transparent) distinction between retentionist and abolitionist states permits a Manichean view of the work. The very uplifting transition of a state from one camp to another--a progression which international law mandates should only occur in one direction--presents activists with an unusually unambiguous "win". However, it is important to bear in mind that a focus on the number of abolitionist states, designed to make the problem appear one concerning an ever-diminishing proportion of the world, can partially disguise the human cost of its continued practice.

From the perspective of the right to life, a focus on the death penalty can also be reductionist. Capital punishment is by no means the most significant threat to life in Africa, claiming fewer than 250 lives over the past seven years. In this regard, the enlargement of the mandate of the African Commission's Working Group on the Death Penalty also to include Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Killings, was a welcome development. It allows the Commission to address other violations of the right to life, such as the excessive use of force by law enforcement. In its response to mass public demonstrations in September last year, for example, Sudanese authorities are believed to have killed at least twice as many people as have been executed in that country since 2007.

The symbolic significance of the death penalty, however, should not be underestimated. Its abolition in an increasing number of countries in Africa and around the world reflects an evolving understanding of the relationship between the state and the citizen, and one which can only have a beneficial impact on the enjoyment of the right to life, as well as other human rights.

Uganda police eaten by GREED,TRIBALISM AND CORUPTION

In an opener to the level of corruption among other social economic evils in the Uganda Police Force (UPF), Just woke up as usual hearing a public out-cry on one of the local radio stations that senior police officers in Kireka a kampala suburb at kireka police station have assumed the powers of the executive, Judiciary and the legislature. as they arrest charge........................................still developing.

New Rapes and Massacre Further Expose Museveni, Kagame

  OPINION!!!!
 Ugandan and Rwanda troops are part of the African Union peacekeeping force that was recently accused of sexual violence against women in Somalia. The silence from the international community is shocking - but not surprising. One only needs to look at the activities of presidents Museveni and Kagame in DR Congo and inside their own countries to understand

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame had hoped that the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, the genocide committed by the Israeli army against Palestinian people, the "Boko Haram" crimes against humanity, the killing of Black people in Ferguson in the United States and the "Islamist State" in Iraq and Syria... would grab all the headlines to cover up the mass rapes recently committed in Somalia by Rwandan, Ugandan and Burundian soldiers serving under the banner of African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) but trained, fed and paid for by the United States of America; as well as the recent massacres in Rwanda.

For us Congolese people, when the BBC broke the news on 8 September 2014 based on a [url= Human]http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/16/amisom-s-toll-somali-women-and-girls]Human Rights Watch report[/url] that 'Africa Union troops' (that is Rwandans, Ugandans and Burundians), 'raped Muslim girls in Mogadishu', it was not a big surprise given the fact that for 13 years, Rwanda and Uganda, backed by Britain and America have invaded Congo and killed more than 8 million people and used raped as a weapon of war and looted minerals. (The Wall Street Journal reported on 18 September 2014 that of the 1,300 American companies which source their minerals from eastern Congo, only four companies were brave enough face an audit).

What was surprising was the dead silence of the United States of America, 'the leader of the world' when it comes to human rights, the United Nations and the African Union itself, for reasons that we can understand: Since 1994, the Tutsi have become untouchable despite the fact that they have committed and are committing the same crimes in Congo, in their own countries and in Somalia - yet the whole world treats them as victims. How come the victims of genocide are killing, raping and committing genocide in other countries with the complicity of the international community yet the same international community wants us to commemorate the 'Rwanda Genocide Day'? For how long is the 'international community' and the African Union going to shield Museveni and Kagame, these two Tutsi brothers, from accountability for their crimes?

It took the courage of the Christian Science Monitor, after reading the 71-page report which documented 10 cases of rape and sexual assault and 14 cases of sexual exploitation in 2013 and 2014, to challenge the conscience of the world in an article published on 8 September 2014 and titled: 'African Union forces accused of sexual abuse. Will anyone be held accountable?'
As if that was not enough, AFP reported on 9/11 that a string of arrests of prominent Rwandan military figures, some of them close to the central African nation's inner circle of power, has prompted speculation of a major political crisis. In fact, last month former presidential guard chief and serving colonel, Tom Byabagamba, and retired brigadier-general Frank Rusagara were charged in a Kigali court for inciting rebellion by 'spreading rumours'. A retired captain, David Kabuye, was also detained.

AFP quoted analysts, critics and experts who all say that the arrests expose the workings of a paranoid state that is increasingly nervous over the activities of the dissident Rwanda National Congress (RNC), an exiled opposition group that includes several former top members of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

'Any critic is immediately associated with the RNC, even though sometimes there is no connection,' said Rene Mugenzi, a Rwandan human rights activist exiled in Britain. He said the latest arrests targeted people seen as 'loose cannons' who were too outspoken, and that the authorities appeared worried that the RNC, which includes several former military brass, had managed to maintain their contacts in the armed forces.

But some analysts said there may be genuine concern about the threat from the dissident RNC. 'I would not rule out that those arrested are suspected of links' with the RNC, said the Belgian academic Filip Reyntjens, a fierce critic of Kagame. He said the RNC was currently the central preoccupation of the Rwandan government, especially given that a former Rwandan Chief of Staff and founding member of the RNC, General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, 'has kept many contacts in the military, where he was rather popular.' Another co-founder of the RNC, Rwanda's former intelligence chief Patrick Karegeya and once a comrade-in-arms of Kagame, was murdered on New Year's Eve in Johannesburg.

And the purge goes on in Kigali. In fact the President of the Rwandan Senate Jean Damascene Ntawukuliryayo was forced to resign by President Paul Kagame according to a report by L'Avenir on 19 September 2014. Reason? Ntawukuliryayo invited a delegation of Congolese parliamentarians in Kigali convinced that time has come for Rwanda and Congo to dialogue. Kagame does not see it that way! So how can we restore peace?

In addition, the Hutu FOUND NOT GUILTY by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania, Hutu exonerated by the ICTR in Arusha, still remain unwanted and undesirable in Rwanda or elsewhere in the world! For Kagame, whether found not guilty or not, they are still 'genocidists'! When international justice does not lean on the side of Kagame, he vilifies it. But is Rwanda not currently a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council? Has Rwanda not been joined by Sam Kutesa from Uganda as the current president of the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly? So why should they not respect the verdict of the a UN tribunal?

In fact, a Reuters report on 28 September 2014 highlighted the plight of Justin Mugenzi and others who might also be acquitted soon, who live in limbo in safe houses in Arusha because they are too scared to go back to Rwanda, where political rivals now hold sway. According to Reuters, the plight of Mugenzi and others like him is a setback to years-long efforts to create a system of international justice by using special courts such as the ICTR - set up to try those accused of carrying out the Rwandan genocide - or permanent tribunals with a more general remit such as the Hague-based International Criminal Court.

Worst of all, the culture of machete, massacres and genocide is still rife in Rwanda and Burundi. Proof? Up to 40 dead bodies, including some wrapped in plastic, were discovered by Burundian fisherman in Lake Rweru in July and August. The identity of the bodies and the circumstances surrounding their deaths remain unclear. Reuters quoted Burundian authorities on 25 September 2014 as saying that 'there are no indications the bodies are of Burundian citizens. They say they have asked families living in the area but have not had reports of any missing individuals.' The head of the criminal investigation division of the Rwandan police, Theos Badege, repeated previous statements that the bodies were not Rwandan nationals. As the two tiny countries traded accusations, the Burundian ambassador to Belgium spilled the beans and revealed that the 40 bodies were floating from Akagera River from Rwanda into Lake Rweru which separates Rwanda and Burundi, suggesting that a slaughter had taken place in Rwanda. President Kagame requested an explanation from the Burundian government (led by a Hutu) but the explanation was not forthcoming. So he decided to expel the ambassador Burundian, according to a report by L'Avenir 16 September 2014.

America's double standard again came to light when the US called on Rwanda and Burundi to investigate the discovery of up to 40 dead bodies. 'We firmly believe that these victims deserve to be identified. Their families deserve to know their fate, and those responsible should be brought to justice,' Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the State Department, said in a statement. The United States called on the two countries to conduct a 'prompt, thorough, and impartial and concerted investigation' into the deaths with the assistance of 'independent, international forensic experts,' she said.

For more than 16 years, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi and the so-called rebels they have masterminded in Congo have killed more 8 million Congolese people. The United States has never called on them to be brought to justice because Rwanda and Uganda act as mercenaries for the U.S. in Africa, especially in the Great Lakes Region of Africa. In fact in 2005, Uganda was found guilty by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of violating the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of Congo, plundering its natural resources and was responsible for human rights abuses when it sent its troops there. And the Museveni state has not paid the $10 billion Congo demanded as part of the court ruling. Rwanda's turn will come.

For Museveni and Kagame using the 1994 genocide as a tramp card does not bite anymore. Even recently at the 69th UN General Assembly, Museveni, not long ago nicknamed as the 'Bismarck of the Great Lakes Region of Africa', devoted a big chunk of his speech on the history of the ancient Kongo Kingdom, arguing that 'the Kingdom of Kongo covered parts of Northern Angola, Cabinda, parts of the Republic of Congo and Western parts of the DRC. As a consequence of the actions of colonialism, that polity declined and disintegrated. It is only now that the modern countries of that area are regenerating that portion of Africa'.

The truth of the matter is that Museveni and Kagame have failed in the macabre and sinister mission Anglo-Saxon powers assigned to them in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, especially that of balkanizing the Democratic Republic of Congo. Just recently, the Congolese army and its SADC allied defeated Rwandan and Ugandan troops in eastern Congo masquerading as M23 rebels and drove them out of there.

Antoine Roger Lokongo is a Congolese journalist studying for a PhD in Biejing, China.

THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR/S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE legal link international EDITORIAL TEAM

Uhuru Kenyatta Trial not working well-Morreno Ocampo

 
Former chief prosecutor for the ICC, Luis Moreno Ocampo has conceded that the trial against Uhuru Kenyatta "was not working well".

Ocampo who handled the case in its initial stages upto to trial, however welcomed Kenyatta's scheduled appearance as "showing African commitment to change", according to a BBC report.

The former prosecutor's damning statement comes hours before Kenyatta faces the judges to discuss accusation by prosecution that Kenya was not cooperating with the court.

Former Special Court for Sierra Leone prosecutor David Crane added his voice to the debate, "If you're going to indict a head of state you can't make mistakes".

The status conference starts at 10:30am Kenyan time. Kenyatta who is in the Hague in his personal capacity will be treated like any other suspect within the court premises.

Prosecutors accused the Kenyan government on Tuesday of failing to hand over phone and bank records they said would help them show Kenyatta paid collaborators to take part in post-election violence in 2007.

Attorney General Githu Muigai said Kenya had cooperated to the extent permitted by domestic law and provided all information available.

Muigai said there were limits to what Kenyan authorities could do to obtain Kenyatta's records.

"Where it has been possible within the law to carry out an independent interrogation of the requested subject, we have done so," he said. He had transmitted three months of Kenyatta's banking records, he said.

The case was to start in September but the prosecution asked the court to postpone the case indefinitely. The prosecution says the evidence available is yet to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt".

Most of prosecution witnesses against Kenyatta have withdrawn from the case.

Kenyatta has denied the charges levelled against him.

Kenyatta is allegedly criminally responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator pursuant to article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute for the crimes against humanity of: murder (article 7(l)(a)); deportation or forcible transfer (article 7(l)(d)); rape (article 7(l)(g)); persecution (articles 7(l)(h)); and other inhumane acts (article 7(l)(k)).
The case is at 'critical juncture' because the Chamber will decide on two things: indefinite adjournment of the trial( prosecution request) and or terminate( defence demand).

Justice Minister resigns-President accepts

 Former Justice Minister Christiana Tah

In a major blow to the Unity Party-led government of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Justice Minister Christiana Tah has tendered in her resignation. The former Justice Minister is said to have cited a litany of reasons ranging from the undermining of her office, which prevented her from investigating allegations of fraud against the National Security Agency to a wide range of issues bordering interference from the Executive Branch.

"I cannot be the minister of Justice and not supervise the operations of the security agencies under the Minister of Justice to independently investigate allegations of fraud against the National Security Agency.

What is the rule of law if a duly appointed Minister of Justice with oversight has grave concerns about what her violational resignation will mean for her own personal security and freedom as a Liberian citizen," an excerpt of the letter of resignation by the Justice Minister.

Minister Tah's resignation letter was reportedly tendered to the government after serving the Ellen Johnson-led government for six years. Cllr. Tah told a news conference in Monrovia Monday that she had respectfully asked the President to accept her resignation.

"These are perilous times of our nation and I take solace in our resilience as a people as I pray that we learn and emerge from the challenges of our nation building stronger," she said.

She thanked President Sirleaf for the opportunity to serve her country in the capacity of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice for six years, adding: "I thanked the Liberian people for your support, cooperation and understanding in even the most difficult times."

Cllr. Tah succeeded former Justice Minister Francis Johnson Allison, who served as the first Justice Minister in President Sirleaf's government. An Executive Mansion release issued late evening yesterday said President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has received and accepted the resignation of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, Republic of Liberia, Cllr. Christiana Tah.

According to an Executive Mansion release, Cllr. Tah tendered in her resignation as Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, Republic of Liberia on Monday, October 6, 2014 at a meeting with the Liberian President at her Foreign Ministry office earlier yesterday. Early this year, the Supreme Court barred Justice Minister from practicing law for six months after being found guilty of contempt.

The ruling cited Tah's decision to grant "compassionate release" to journalist Rodney Sieh, who was jailed last year in connection with a libel case, as the reason for its ruling and her suspension. In 2010, Sieh's Front PageAfrica newspaper printed allegations that Agriculture Minister Chris Toe's ministry could not account for millions of dollars, leading Toe to file a libel claim against the journalist.

Rodney Sieh was jailed in August after failing to produce the US$1.5 million that Toe was awarded by the court. The justice minister allowed the journalist to be released for 30 days in October after he was hospitalized with malaria, which critics say was not compatible with Liberian law.

Toe withdrew his claim in November. The Supreme Court called Sieh's release a disregard of the court's order despite the fact that his right to seek medical treatment while in prison was not surrendered. There have been many recent controversies involving imprisonment of and danger to journalists throughout the world.

Law Society Takes On Top Judges

The Law Society of Swaziland is taking on the kingdom's judiciary, arguing that King Mswati III has appointed judges in violation of the constitution.

An attempt to challenge the appointment as a High Court Judge of Mpendulo Simelane failed on Friday (1 August 2014) when a case at the High Court was dismissed before the Law Society's lawyers arrived at the court.

The Law Society argues that Simelane is too inexperienced to be a High Court Judge. It says the constitution states that a High Court Judge must have at least 10 years' experience in legal practice. The Law Society says Simelane only has five years' experience, which the judge disputes.

In Swaziland, King Mswati rules as an absolute monarch and he chooses the judges. Critics say that Swazi judges tend to do the bidding of the King, rather than uphold the constitution.

The King reappointed Michael Ramodibedi as Chief Justice in contravention of the constitution that states the holder of this position should be a Swazi. Ramodibedi comes from Lesotho.

The three judges on the High Court bench in the Simelane case were themselves inexperienced. The chair, Judge Abande Dlamini, sits in the Industrial Court and had been sworn in as an acting High Court Judge only the day before.

The other two judges on the bench, Justices Mbuso Simelane and Bongani Dlamini are also only acting judges.

Together they dismissed the Law Society's case and awarded punitive damages against the organisation when at 9.30am the case was called three times and the Law Society failed to answer. The Law Society's legal team arrived at the court 15 minutes later.

The Law Society is to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, it is also to challenge the appointment of Judge Abande Dlamini, because, as with Simelane, Dlamini has not been a legal practitioner for at least 10 years.

It also says that Justices Mbuso Simelane and Bongani Dlamini should not hear a case brought by the Law Society because they are themselves members of that organisation.

Judge Mpendulo Simelane was criticised by the United States, the European Union and many human right organisations across the world last month when he sentenced a magazine editor Bheki Makhubu and human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko to two years imprisonment after they wrote and published articles critical of the judiciary in general and Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi in particular.

Following the dismissal of the Law Society's application, the Swazi Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, reported that permanent High Court judges were available to hear the case and it was not necessary to have acting judges on the bench.

It speculated that Chief Justice Ramodibedi did not trust some of the permanent High Court judges.

The newspaper reported that in May 2014 Ramodibedi issued warrants for the arrest of three High Court judges, but had to withdraw them after Supreme Court judges threatened to resign if the arrests went ahead.

The newspaper reported, 'The move to sideline the judges is consistent too with the CJ's recent interview in one of the tabloid weekly publications that some judges were being used to overthrow the Monarch and he would not allow them whilst he was still in charge.

'This recent move by the CJ is a vote of no confidence to the rest of the judges of the High Court to listen to such an application,' the newspaper reported.

courtsy of SLS