Refugees breathe a sigh of relief
Last week the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court in Nairobi Kenya, ruled that the government ordered closure of the world’s biggest refugee camp, Dadaab, was unconstitutional. In turbulent times when it comes to the global refugee crisis the affirmation of the rule of law and the promotion and protection of refugee rights is a welcome, yet rare occurrence.
Dadaab is a semi-arid town in the Kenyan county of Garissa, it is also home to roughly 329 811 refugees housed in 5 camps organized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The vast majority of its inhabitants are Somalis fleeing persecution and strife in Somalia. Three of first of the five camps, Dagahaley, Hagadera and Ifo I were constructed in 1992, the last two Ifo II and Kambioos camps were opened in 2011 after 130,000 new refugees from Somalia arrived.
Somalia has been ravaged by civil war, drought and famine leaving its inhabitants with no choice but to flee. Life in the Dadaab is not easy with challenges related to over crowding, and poor security yet, despite the hardships it remains home to thousands of refugees as it caters for basic needs.
The Kenyan government, citing the blossoming of terrorism as a primary reason, sought the closure of Dadaab, and the repatriation of Somalis by way of government order in May 2016. The government believes that the extremist Islamic terrorist group Al Shabaab is using Dadaab to recruit members and as a base to coordinate attacks. The attacks on Westgate Mall and Garissa, were, according to the government prime examples of this.
The Westgate Mall attack in September 2013 left 67 people dead. The April 2015 Garissa University College attack claimed the lives of 148 students. Al Shabaab claimed responsibility for both attacks.
Other reasons for closure included the immense environmental and economic burden placed on Kenya due to the presence of vast numbers of refugees. The existence of human trafficking and the proliferation of arms were also raised as justifications for the closure of the camp.
Human rights groups-Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and Kituo Cha Sheria challenged the closure order in court. The judge found that the closure plans were illegal and discriminatory. The judge also found that the closure and return of refugees to Somalia would violate the long standing principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the forced return of refugees to a place where they will continue to face grave danger.
The UNHCR 2015 statistics paint a very grim picture with the global number of refugees and internally displaced persons at a staggering 65.3 million. This is the largest figure ever reported. 53 percent of the world’s refugees come from Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia and half of all the recorded refugees in 2015 were under the age of 18.
Other source countries include South Sudan, Sudan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Columbia, and Myanmar. UN Statistics also indicate that 29% of the world’s displaced persons are being hosted in Africa whilst only 6% are hosted in Europe. The Middle East and North Africa host the largest number with 39% and the America’s host 12%, whilst 14 % are hosted in Asia and the Pacific.
Whilst the issues raised by the Kenyan government and other governments faced with ever growing numbers of refugees warrant concern and should be addressed, it should be done with due regard to human rights and with the protection of the vulnerable in mind.
Refugees are fleeing the worst possible atrocities and require support and assistance.
Denying the existence of opportunistic terrorists seeking to abuse the refugee crisis would be naïve but painting all refugees as terrorist is unconstructive and misguided. It also constitutes a form of collective punishment and seriously jeopardizes the lives of innocent refugees. The assumption that the closure of refugee camps and refusing to accept refugees will stop terrorist attacks is also of little constructive value in the fight against terrorism.
The Special Rapporteur on Counter-terrorism and Human Rights, Ben Emmerson found that the perception that refugee status is used to provide some sort of safe haven for terrorists to be “analytically and statistically unfounded.”
In 2016, in the European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, Europol also noted that there was “no evidence that terrorist were systematically using refugee flows to enter Europe”. There is also little evidence to suggest that refugees are somehow “more prone to radicalization than others.”
Indeed nations hosting refugees face great burdens, but constructive solutions that promote and respect human rights should be engaged. Measures to stop the conflicts that cause people to flee also require dedicated action. Until then, it falls to the human rights defenders and courts to promote the rule of law and protect the rights of refugees.
**This article originally appeared in the Star Newspaper on 16 February 2017.
AU Commission under new leadership: what does this mean for the ICC and the AU?
The 28th Ordinary African Union Summit has produced interesting developments. The election of a new AU Commission Chairperson and discussions pertaining to yet another International Criminal Court (ICC) withdrawal strategy are particularly intriguing.
The Summit, which ran from 22 January to 31 January, saw Chad's Moussa Faki Mahamat’s election after seven rounds of voting in Addis Ababa. Ghana’s Ambassador Thomas Kwesi Quartey was elected Deputy Chairperson.
The AU Commission is a key organ that plays an integral part in the day-to-day management of the African Union. It is designed to protect and further the interests of the AU. This includes strategic planning, harmonisation of policies and the provision of operational support for all AU organs.
Given that the Commission wields so much power, the Chairperson is an individual who greatly shapes and influences the destiny of the AU. The Chairperson is considered to be the Chief Executive Officer, the legal representative of the Union and the Accounting Officer of the Commission.
The coveted Chairperson title was hotly contested. The AU was due to elect a new AU Commission chairperson in July 2016 but the election was postponed following three rounds of fruitless voting as candidates failed to obtain the required number of votes. In addition, more than half of the member states abstained from the second round of voting in 2016.
Contenders included Senegal’s Abdoulaye Bathily, Botswana’s Venson-Moitoi and Equatorial Guinea’s Mba Mokuy. Many commentators were of the opinion that Kenya’s candidate, Foreign Minister Amina Mohamed was likely to be elected.
Mohamed seemed to be a frontrunner for the position, however, Mahamat managed to secure the requisite two thirds and was declared the winner.
Mohamed has been one of the loudest ICC critics and her candidacy for AU Commission Chair invoked a sense of foreboding for the AU’s already strained relationship with the ICC.
It was the indictment of Sudanese President Al Bashir in 2009 that significantly influenced the evolution of the AU-ICC relationship. The AU prefers that sitting heads of state remain out of justice’s reach whilst the Rome Statute of the ICC, in seeking to prevent impunity, ensures that no one is above the law. Thus, unsurprisingly, the 2010 ICC cases against President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto further incensed the AU.
The AU also accuses the ICC of targeting African leaders. Yet an objective assessment of the ICC cases in Africa will show that the vast majority of cases are self-referrals where African states have requested the Court’s intervention. Uganda, The Democratic Republic of Congo, and Central African Republic (CAR) referred themselves to the ICC in 2004. Mali did so in 2012, and CAR did so again in 2014. Gabon is the latest African nation to request the Court’s intervention in 2016 and that matter is in the preliminary examination phase.
This leaves cases from: Libya and Sudan, which came before the Court by way of a United Nations Security Council referral; the Kenyan cases which represent the purest form of the prosecutor initiating a process of his (at the time it was Prosecutor Ocampo) own volition; and Cote d’Ivoire which accepted the Courts jurisdiction and the prosecutor then initiated a process after obtaining authorisation from the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber. It is more accurate to say that Africans are making use of the Court they helped create.
In addition, the AU has concerns about the controversial United Nations Security Council referral of situations to the ICC. This is a reasonable concern as the 5 permanent members have veto powers. Given the highly politically charged environment in which the UNSC operates this means only referrals that meet their political objectives will survive. The AU, understandably, has a problem with this, as do all who seek the fair application of justice. These are just a few of the grievances that have led to the AU issuing calls of non-cooperation and encouraging withdrawal from the ICC.
To date, only South Africa, Burundi and Gambia have officially signaled their intention to withdraw. In any case, member states signed the Rome Statute as sovereign states and must “unsign” in compliance with their own domestic procedures not merely at the behest of AU. At every AU Summit the threats of mass withdrawal are presented yet, ironically, the loudest anti-ICC governments, for example Uganda and Kenya remain under the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Whilst calls for withdrawal are nothing new, fresh resistance to withdrawal proposals enlivened this Summit. Nigeria, Senegal and Cape Verde reportedly opposed the withdrawal strategy and Zambia, Tanzania, Liberia, and Botswana reportedly intend to remain as members. Whilst the ICC is by no means perfect, it requires support and constructive engagement from its members. Perhaps new AU Commission leadership could positively influence the situation though little is known about Mahamat’s stance when it comes to ICC issues. Time will tell.
** This article originally appeared in the Star Newspaper on 2 February 2017
The high price of impunity
In December 2016 we celebrated the prospect of a peaceful democratic transition in Gambia as President Yahya Jammeh conceded defeat in the elections after over two decades in power. One week later, he changed his tune and refused to accept the election results. He remains defiant. Regional and international leaders are trying to persuade Jammeh to leave office peacefully and these efforts include promises of asylum and protection from prosecution for alleged human rights violations. Should Jammeh accept offers of immunity and political asylum, the perpetuation of impunity will be the result. A high price to pay for a peaceful transition or a reasonable trade-off?
Jammeh lost the election to President Elect Adama Barrow on 1 December 2016, where only 39.6 percent voted for Jammeh, 43.3 percent voted for Barrow and 17.1 percent voted for Mama Kandeh.
Jammeh alleges that the election results are inaccurate despite the Independent Electoral Commission confirming the legitimacy of the results. Jammeh has taken the matter to court. Unfortunately and perhaps conveniently for Jammeh, due to a shortage of judges, the Gambian courts can only hear the case in May.
Given that Barrow is meant to assume office on 19 January, the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS) have been engaged in diplomatic efforts to encourage Jammeh to step down. The AU has indicated that as of 19 January they will no longer recognise Jammeh’s authority and have warned of “serious consequences” should Jammeh refuse to leave office peacefully. ECOWAS, though also pursuing peaceful mediation and seeking a peaceful transition have been rumored to be considering the mobilization of military forces.
At present Jammeh seems unconvinced by all regional mediation efforts and the golden ticket appears to be the offer of political asylum in Nigeria. The risk of prosecution is believed to be one of the reasons that Jammeh refuses to leave office, and this way Jammeh could be shielded from the long arm of the law. Nigeria's House of Representatives approved a motion to grant Jammeh asylum if he steps down. Though it is not binding on the Nigerian government, it seems to provide room for the Nigerian President to extend the offer.
However, we all know how that turned out for Liberia’s warlord, Charles Taylor. Taylor, after receiving promises of political asylum, moved to Nigeria. The Nigerian government subsequently saw fit to facilitate Taylor’s transfer to Liberia and then to the Special Court for Sierra Leone where he was tried and found guilty.
Jammeh’s rule has been characterised by grave violations of human rights and some of his alleged crimes include mass murder, torture, summary executions, enforced disappearances among many other alleged crimes.
Should Nigeria provide asylum, Jammeh could peacefully agree to transfer power, which could usher in a new era of democracy in Gambia. Whilst this may seem like a fair trade-off for many Gambians seeking to prevent a war, what about the Gambians who have suffered grave injustices at the hands of Jammeh?
What about those who have been waiting for Jammeh to have his day in court?
Should Jammeh be granted political asylum, this could foster a culture of impunity and inspire other leaders to follow the same trend- refuse to step down after losing credible elections and bargain with the threat of war and chaos in exchange for your immunity.
The reality is impunity continues to damage the rule of law and justice in Africa. It continues to encourage would be perpetrators to do as they wish knowing they can later evade justice. Whilst threats of war should be given due regard, the long term effects of leaders violating human rights only to retire enjoying the peace and serenity of their million dollar beach-side villas must also be given due regard.
Impunity continues to cripple democratic institutions, compromise governance frameworks, and undermine human rights. Should this all come to pass, Jammeh would join an already long list of leaders who have found a safe haven in neighbouring African countries.
Uganda’s Idi Amin was welcomed in Libya at first and then later spent his last days protected in Saudi Arabia. He is allegedly responsible for the deaths of over 100 000 people. The Democratic Republic of Congo’s Mobutu Sese Seko fled to Togo and moved on to Morocco afterwards where he died. Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia continues to live in peaceful exile and out justice’s reach in Zimbabwe. Mengistu is allegedly responsible for the deaths of many people, with estimates ranging from 500,000 to over 2,000,000 people.
The biggest tragedy in the provision of political asylum is that the voices of the millions of victims are quickly forgotten. Instead leaders play political games, ignore the commission of egregious crimes and support impunity. A very high price to pay or a reasonable trade-off?
** This article originally appeared in the Star newspaper on 19 January 2017 under the title, The High Price of Immunity
Gambia: Full of Surprises
Last week Gambian President Yayha Jammeh accepted defeat after losing the election to a business man by the name of Adama Barrow. Whilst this should just be a normal occurrence, it is actually cause for celebration and comes as a massive surprise as it does not happen often enough in Africa. Too often leaders who have been in power for over two decades like Jammeh, refuse to accept defeat, yet he has stunned the world with his concession. Jammeh and events in Gambia continue to surprise the world for both good and bad reasons.
Jammeh, whose full and cumbersome title is “His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhaji Dr. Yahya Abdul-Aziz Awal Jemus Junkung Jammeh Naasiru Deen Babili Mansa” has been the “Commander In Chief of The Armed Forces and Chief Custodian of the Sacred Constitution of the Gambia” for 22 years. He came into power by way of a military coup at the young age of 29 in 1994, ousting Dawda Jawara. Jawara had been President since 1970, having been elected five times.
On the list of terrible surprises is the extreme level of human rights abuses in Gambia. Jammeh’s time in power has been marred with allegations of unimaginable human rights abuses. Torture, enforced disappearances, restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, and murder are just a few of the crimes he has been accused of. Journalists, human rights defenders, political opposition, religious leaders, lesbians and gays all form part of his hit list.
In particular, the extreme nature of his homophobic utterances have been a surprisingly shocking. Jammeh is quoted as saying, “As far as I am concerned, LGBT can only stand for Leprosy, Gonorrhoea, Bacteria and Tuberculosis, all of which are detrimental to human existence" and has promoted the beheading of gay and lesbian people.
In his 2005 report, The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture raised his concerns about the prevalence of torture in the country, particularly in prisons. The report includes mention of severe beatings, electrocution, asphyxiation and the dripping melted plastic onto a person’s skin as part of a technique used to punish and extort information. This is just a preview of what has transpired under Jammeh’s rule. Given this history of oppression and alarming disregard for human rights, Jammeh’s concession comes as a very pleasant surprise.
To be fair, Jammeh has surprised the world in other positive ways. He has taken very progressive steps to protect the rights of women and girls. Jammeh has strongly opposed the practice of female genital mutilation in Gambia, banning it in 2015 and declaring that it had no place in Islam or in any modern society. Female genital mutilation statistics are high in Gambia where 76.3per cent of girls have experienced some form of female genital mutilation.
He also banned child marriages in Gambia in 2016 and imposed heavy penalties for offenders. This was an important step given that 46.5% of girls marry before the age of 18.
Unfortunately, the list of pleasant surprises is short.
Jammeh implemented tried and tested election oppression tactics during the election campaign which makes his loss and concession even more surprising. Voters had no access to the internet 24 hours before the polling stations opened. Making or receiving international calls was also restricted. Jammeh claimed that this was necessary to prevent unrest. Months before the election Jammeh used state resources to campaign whilst opposition members were allegedly targeted and intimidated.
The next surprise to come from this situation is the election of a relatively unknown individual. Little is known about President Elect Adama Barrow who will be sworn in 60 days from the day he was announced as the winner. Hopefully, Barrow’s swearing in will mark Gambia’s first truly peaceful transition since the nation gained independence in 1965.
Peaceful transitions and the acceptance of new leadership do not happen as often as they should in Africa. For example, President Joseph Kabila, in the Democratic Republic of Congo had the same opportunity to hold free and fair elections this year, yet sadly elections have been postponed. He remains in power despite exceeding his constitutionally prescribed term limit whilst civil unrest and instability plague the nation. Burundi finds itself in a similar position with President Pierre Nkurunziza holding on to power despite the people agitating for reform. The unrest has resulted in the allegations of crimes against humanity as Nkurunziza’s government mercilessly persecutes those seeking change.
Perhaps the rest of Africa’s longstanding leaders who continue to stifle democracy can take a page out of Jammeh’s book in this regard. The election of Barrow is an important victory for self-determination in Gambia, yet it is tragic that peaceful, credible democratic changes of government are regarded as pleasant surprises instead of normal occurrences in Africa.
** This article originally appeared in the Star newspaper on 8 December 2016
ICC withdrawal justified?
It has been a busy few weeks in international criminal justice. Burundi, South Africa and Gambia are leaving the Rome Statute and Russia has symbolically unsigned.
While the African states have their unique reasons for withdrawing from the Rome Statute, a commonly shared and loudly articulated perception is that the ICC is targeting Africa. While much attention is given to this alleged bias, reality is far more nuanced.
Granted, all the cases and situations under investigation currently are from the African continent, except the situation in Georgia. Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Central African Republic (CAR), Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, Uganda, Kenya, Libya and Sudan are all under investigation or at trial phase. Yet cases in CAR, DRC, Uganda, and Mali came before the court by way of self-referral, meaning that autonomous independent African governments saw fit to refer the situation on their territory to the ICC. This is one of the three ways in which a matter comes before the ICC.
Most recently, on September 21, Gabon made use of the self-referral mechanism requesting the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) “to open an investigation without delay”.
The number of self-referrals exhibit Africans making use of the court they were crucial in creating.
Kenya experienced the first use of prosecutorial proprio motu powers, which is when the prosecutor acts of his or her own volition and initiates a process in a signatory state. A similar situation exists with Cote d’ Ivoire. This constitutes the second way in which a matter can come before the ICC, but only after the country itself is found unwilling to pursue accountability.
The cases of Sudan and Libya display the third and most controversial way in which a case comes before the court - the UN Security Council referral. The UNSC can refer a situation to the ICC and the five permanent members (China, Russia, the US, Britain and France) can veto a referral. This is precisely why crimes in Syria continue to go unaddressed as the geopolitical interests of Russia and China keep preventing referral. The fact that three non-members (Russia, China and the US) have the power to veto and refer other non-ICC member states is highly problematic and creates a grave imbalance.
Despite the source of the referral being controversial, the court still has to conduct independent investigations to determine whether crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes had been committed.
Much is said about the cases that are under investigation or at trial stage but many forget that the ICC has several non-African preliminary examinations.
The situation in Palestine has been under preliminary examination since January 16, 2015, after the government lodged a declaration giving the ICC jurisdiction and then it later acceded to the Rome Statute.
The Ukraine is another country under preliminary examination since April 2014.
The OTP is also looking into the alleged crimes of British Troops in Iraq during the war. The situation in Iraq/UK has been under preliminary examination since May 2014 where there are over a 1 000 victim accounts of alleged war crimes committed against detainees by UK troops. Several of the accounts relate to torture, including sexual assault and rape, sleep deprivation, electrocution, and waterboarding. There are also allegations of unlawful killings in British detention facilities.
The next preliminary examination of great significance is that of Afghanistan and the conduct of American troops. Given the unsubstantiated allegations that the ICC is a tool of neo-colonialism, and the sheer devastation caused in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the prospect of having the US and Britain face justice could significantly alter perceptions of bias and alleged lack of credibility.
The allegations of crimes in US detention facilities operated by the CIA seem to indicate that during interrogation US forces used torture and sexual violence to extract “actionable intelligence” from detainees - apparently all part of pre-approved interrogation techniques. In its preliminary examination report this month the OTP indicated it “would make a final decision on whether to request the pre-trial chamber authorisation to commence an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan imminently.”
The ICC is not perfect and some of the grievances expressed by withdrawing states may have merit but none of them warrant throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Those who refuse to be part of a universal justice system must be named and shamed and this includes the US, China, Russia and now, of course, South Africa, Burundi and Gambia.
**This article appeared in the Star Newspapers on 24 November 2016 under the title "Name and Shame ICC deserters"
The “banalisation of bigotry”
As right wing politicians with xenophobic agendas continue to gain momentum in Europe, Dutch politician and leader of Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), Geert Wilders is no exception. Wilders recently released his 2016 manifesto calling for the “de-Islamization” of the Netherlands as part of his campaign to win the general elections in March 2017.Opinion polls put Wilders and his party as favourites to win the March election. This is a concerning indication of where one of Europe’s most diverse and tolerant nations may be headed and how extremism is increasingly unchallenged and unchecked.
The PVV seem to be growing in popularity amongst Dutch citizens. What attracts and simultaneously deters people from this party is the “de-Islamization of the Netherlands” policy. As acts of terrorism from extremist Islamic groups increase in Europe the unfortunate and erroneous reaction is to paint all Muslims with the terrorist brush instead of identifying that individual terrorist are to blame. The unfounded and illogical misperception that terrorism is an Islamic phenomenon is being recklessly peddled by politicians such as Wilders, fuelling discrimination and intolerance.
Promising to return the Netherlands to the Dutch people, Wilders is calling for: the closure of all mosques and Islamic schools; a ban on the Koran; a ban on immigrants from Islamic countries; and a ban on wearing Islamic headscarves in public. Wilders has also managed to include an economic argument to his proposed policy by alleging that such measures will somehow save the Netherlands 7.2 billion euros. Wilder’s modus operandi is to exploit the fears of is people whilst creating deep societal divides and generating inter-faith tension.
The Netherlands is a party to several international treaties that outlaw discrimination in its various forms. Having lived there myself, I can safely say that I found The Hague and Amsterdam to be two of the most tolerant, liberal, open minded, accepting cities in the world. The Hague is known as the International City of Peace and Justice and is home to many international people, and international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. Geert Wilders and his party, should they gain more momentum, could significantly damage the city’s reputation as well as that of the country.
Thankfully, activists and those who believe in human rights are not idly watching as extremist right wing agendas become mainstream. Last week, the Peace Justice and Security Foundation hosted its inaugural Gala to raise awareness and promote its noble goals. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Hussein used this platform to succinctly and eloquently address Geert Wilders and other right wing extremist, “populists, demagogues and political fantasists”.
The entire speech was incredibly powerful and the temptation to directly quote more of this impassioned oration is strong, but instead I will highlight a few points in a bid to whet your appetite and inspire you to find the speech yourselves.
Zeid called Wilder’s manifesto “grotesque” and stated that Wilders was promoting racial and religious prejudice. Zeid made it clear that this dangerous path to extremism and xenophobia must be not be left unchallenged. Most importantly he asked whether society in general is doing enough to constructively engage religious intolerance and other forms of discrimination as he called society to take a stand.
Like the UN High Commissioner, there are others who have also taken a stand in the past. Dutch activists and normal Dutch citizens have been proactive in the fight against the dangerous rhetoric produced by Wilders. As a result Wilders had to face charges of criminally insulting religious and ethnic groups and inciting hatred and discrimination. He was acquitted of all charges in 2011 though the judge did indicate that his comments were not far from being legally unacceptable.
This year Wilders is on trial again for allegedly inciting hatred against the Dutch Moroccan minority.
In addition to his legal battles, Wilders has previously been shunned internationally. For example in 2009 the United Kingdom government took a stand when former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from entering the UK, citing that his presence in the UK would pose a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.”
Wilders decided to ignore the ban and travelled to the UK accompanied by his television crew. He was meet by immigration officials upon arrival and sent back on the next available flight. He subsequently had the ban over turned in October 2009 but a powerful message was sent by the UK government.
As the PVV gain ground in the Netherlands it is hoped that activism against hate speech and religious intolerance will continue in the Netherlands and beyond. Hopefully more will heed Zeid’s message and answer his question- “are we going to continue to stand by and watch this banalization of bigotry, until it reaches its logical conclusion?”
*This piece first appeared in the Star Newspaper on 14 September 2016
Libya Post-Gaddafi — The Real Question
On 1 September in 1969 young Muammar Gaddafi seized power in Libya from King Idris I and remained there for nearly 42 years. Remembered as a dictator and a despot, Gaddafi’s era was marred with numerous accounts of grave human rights violations. Fast-forward to Libya today where news headlines include reports of heavy casualties as ISIS battles for the Libyan city of Sirte. The comparison of Libya under Gaddafi and post Gaddafi raises the question: was the 2011 revolution a step forward or was Libya better off under Gaddafi? But is that the right to question to be asking?
Gaddafi came from humble beginnings as the son of Bedouin goat herder. After obtaining a good education and military training, Gaddafi rose to the rank of captain and seized power in 1969. Gaddafi’s political ideology was rooted in orthodox Islamic beliefs, a blend of revolutionary socialism, and a strong sense of Arab nationalism. His strong anti-west agenda and the financial and tactical support he provided to various terrorist groups made him unpopular with many western leaders. This precipitated the economic and political isolation of Libya.
Though Libya was economically stable and seemingly calm, Gaddafi ruled with an iron fist, crushing any opposition and preventing dissent. The 1970s in Libya where characterised by summary executions, arbitrary detention and the disappearance of anyone who posed a threat to Gaddafi’s draconian leadership. The repression continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s. One of the lowest points included the state sanctioned 1996 massacre of 1200 prisoners in Abu Salim prison in Benghazi.
According to the UN, Gaddafi used “arbitrary detention, torture and assassinations on a widespread scale as a matter of official policy.”
Gaddafi’s system of governance involved pitting different tribes against each other and rewarding loyalty with access to opportunities. Gaddafi nurtured and controlled tribal and ethnic tension to maintain power. Racial discrimination was also common as the documented by the United Nations. Black people(including Libyans and sub-Saharan immigrants) were discriminated against. Other victims of discrimination included the Amazighs, who were not only prevented from expressing their linguistic identity but were also culturally repressed.
The discontent felt by the Libyan people eventually culminated into the 2011 civilian protests. Civilians agitating for change were brutally and systematically attacked by Gaddafi forces. This led to international intervention. NATO provided aerial support to the anti-Gaddafi forces, assisting them to secure victory and the United Nations Security Council referred the situation to the International Criminal Court.
Life under Gaddafi was by no means easy, however, Libya today is in ruins.
On 29 August 2016, 34 Libyan government soldiers were killed and 150 wounded in battle against ISIS in the Sirte, Gaddafi’s birth place. Gaddafi’s demise has left a vacuum that has attracted extremist groups like ISIS.
Sirte was seized by ISIS in February 2015 and the Libyans loyal to Libya’s Government of National Accord, have been trying to get it back ever since. In addition to having to contend with the rise of ISIS in Libya and no centralised government, conservative estimates indicate that there are at least 100 different tribal and militia fiefdoms in the country.
Economically and politically Libya continues to be unstable. The proliferation of arms and the smuggling of people continues exacerbate problems. Oil production has drastically plummeted and state institutions like the judiciary and law enforcement agencies are yet to recover.
This comparison of Libya under Gaddafi and Libya now, is interesting but popular commentary on the issue produces the question was: Libya better off under Gaddafi. This is the wrong question. Whilst one can indeed question aspects of the revolution including NATO’s involvement, questioning whether keeping a serial human rights violator in power is curious. Instead Libyans, NATO and the UN should be asking: what should have been done to prevent Libya’ s descent into chaos post Gaddafi?
President Obama has reportedly admitted that one of the worst mistakes of his presidency was failing to prepare for the aftermath of the Libyan revolution.
Despite the current state of affairs it is undeniable that Libya under Gaddafi’ was by no means blissful for all. The rate and extent of human rights abuses was extreme and the fact that the people themselves began the revolution speaks volumes about the desire for change. It is evident that a majority of Libyans were no longer prepared to continue living under such repressive conditions and many were prepared to die for the cause and pave the way for a new Libya.
The scale of the protests and the number of people who took arms to fight for their freedom renders questions about whether Libya is better or worse off redundant. The vast majority of Libyans no longer saw Gaddafi’s regime as an option. This is the salient point that is so frequently omitted when people compare Libya before and after Gaddafi.
*This piece originally appeared in The Star Newspaper on 1 September 2016, with the title “ What we should ask about Libya”
“Never Again” is not good enough
Last week I visited the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial site in Germany, the first concentration camp opened by the Nazis. I was immediately gripped by the emotionally moving exhibition and by the mere fact that I was standing at the same location where 32 000 documented deaths took place, with many more going undocumented. What particularly caught my eye were the words inscribed on a monument, in Yiddish, German, French, English and Russian “Never Again”. Yet, history continues to repeat itself as the genocide and persecution remain part of our modern day existence with many groups falling victim to such crimes. The Yazidi people, are one such group that has been ruthlessly targeted by ISIS.
The Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial site is a powerful reminder of the suffering of anyone who opposed the Nazi regime and those who were not deemed “worthy” to inhabit the German empire Adolf Hitler sought to create. Opened just a few weeks after Hitler was proclaimed leader it was originally designed to hold political prisoners (social democrats, communists, trade unionists) only, but was later expanded to include, gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witness members, and priests. It would be the model followed in the construction and organisation of other concentration camps.
The Memorial is designed to take you on the journey endured by prisoners, from arrival where they are stripped of everything they own, daily roll call procedures, forced labour, crowded beds, and finally to their tragic death. The Memorial details the harsh conditions, poor nutrition, inhuman and degrading treatment designed to the crush the human spirit.
Prisoners were treated with extreme brutality and were frequently humiliated, punished and tortured by the Nazi guards. Using the powerful narrative of former prisoners, the Memorial site includes extracts from their testimony as they recall the horrors they experienced in the camp.
Dachau Concentration Camp existed for twelve long years before it was liberated by the Allied Forces in April 1945. The Memorial on the grounds was established in 1965 thanks to the efforts of surviving prisoners who formed the Comité International de Dachau and with financial support from the Bavarian state.
The monument bearing the words “Never Again” includes an urn, buried there in 1967, containing the ashes of an unknown prisoner. It symbolises the fate that befell thousands of prisoners who were burnt in the crematorium.
Walking past the crematorium and the gas chamber disguised as a shower room is an experience I will not soon forget. After prisoners died in the camp their bodies were cremated and ashes discarded. The information provided at the Memorial indicates that the ovens were operated day and night as the death toll continued to rise. Towards the end of 1944 the ovens were simply inadequate in comparison to the mounting number of corpses. When the Allied soldiers liberated the camp, they discovered dozens and dozens of naked corpses piled up in the crematorium.
Next to the crematorium is a statue called the “Unknown prisoner” by Fritz Koelle. Under the statute it is written “ to honour the dead, warn the living”, another phrase that triggered further pondering on how history repeats itself. After every massacre, genocide,or act of atrocity we all say “Never again” yet the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry into Syria confirmed in June this year that ISIS is committing genocide against the Yazidi people.
ISIS who have sought to eradicate the Yazidi people through murder, sexual slavery, and measures aimed to prevent Yazidi children from being born, have publicly denounced Yazidis as “infidels”. ISIS’s 2014 attack on the Sinjar District in Iraq revealed a new level of brutality and disregard for human life. Yazidi men and boys (over the age of 12) were either shot, execution-style, or had their throats slit. Some were killed for refusing to convert to Islam, others because weapons were found on in their possession, others for trying to escape. Women and small children were forced to watch as their family members were savagely murdered.
Women and children were also taken hostage and used as forced labour and sold as sexual slaves. The older women (over the age of 60) were reportedly murdered and buried in mass graves. Many women and children remain in captivity today. The UN report details women being kept in crowded holding areas, being given very little food and water and being forcibly transferred to “slave markets”
Unfortunately It won’t be long until we lament the lives lost, and trauma inflicted during acts of genocide. It will not be long before we build more memorials to honour and remember those who have passed. It will not be long before we say “Never again”.
*** This piece original appeared in the Star Newspaper on 18 August 2016.
Déjà vu for Africa — Bashir goes in and out of Uganda unscathed
Reports have confirmed that President Bashir was welcomed in Uganda last week for President Yoweri Museveni’s swearing in ceremony as Museveni celebrates yet another term in office. Bashir’s presence in Uganda is particularly disturbing as Uganda is a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and hence the east African nation has a duty under international law to arrest Bashir. Yet no such action was taken.
Uganda signed the Rome Statute in 17 March 1999 and deposited its instrument of ratification in June 2002. The ICC’s very first cases were as a result of Uganda referring itself to the court and so it is quite ironic that now they welcome a suspected perpetrator of egregious crimes.
Though ironic, it is not entirely surprising as Uganda’s anti-ICC rhetoric has increased significantly since the indictment of President Bashir in 2009.
In 2004 Museveni saw fit to refer a situation with the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) to the ICC, having conceded that he was unable to adequately address the issue. The ICC investigations in Uganda have focused on the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the armed conflict predominantly fought between the LRA and the Ugandan national forces.
The ICC issued warrants of arrest for LRA leader Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti, who remain at large.
However, the third suspect, Dominic Ongwen, surrendered himself to the court in January 2015. They stand accused of murder, pillage, rape, and forced enlistment of children, to name but a few of the horrors that ordinary Ugandan civilians have endured.
Uganda’s current and unfortunate disregard for its commitments in terms of international criminal law are a worrying sign as far as the administration of international criminal justice in Africa is concerned. President Bashir and his determination to remain a fugitive of justice continues to be one of the main reasons for the maladministration of international justice in Africa.
Bashir has been the subject of court cases in Nigeria, Kenya and most recently in South Africa. His resolve to remain an outlaw has put his fellow African leaders in a precarious position given the commitments they made to fight impunity and pursue accountability.
The most unfortunate part of this state of affairs is that atrocities continue in Sudan under Bashir’s watch and victims who have lost loved ones, been displaced, and suffered cruel and inhumane treatment, have no recourse to justice.
Bashir not only refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the ICC but those who defend him (the African Union, the South African government and Uganda to name but a few) continue to assert that incumbent heads of state should not be subjected to the jurisdiction of the ICC and that they are entitled to immunity.
This suggestion shows very little regard for justice and human rights and continues to perpetuate the culture of impunity. It is (more often than not) heads of state and senior government officials who commit the crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC; thus, to suggest that they be shielded from the long arm of the law is untenable.
Bashir could have appeared before the court, as President Kenyatta did during the subsistence of his trial. Kenyatta, as a sitting head of state, continued with the duties of his office while facing the charges brought against him by the ICC. Kenyatta’s case subsequently fell apart due to unfortunate witness tampering but the salient point is that he has displayed that it is indeed possible for sitting heads of state to co-operate with the ICC.
One must also bear in mind that the ICC is a court of law, where evidence-based decisions are made. President Bashir, like anyone else, would have a fair and impartial trial.
The ICC has recently shown in the case against President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto that they will not continue with matters if the necessary evidence does not exist. In Kenyatta’s case the prosecutor herself withdrew the charges after losing key witnesses who had reportedly been intimidated. In the case of Ruto, the judges of the ICC vacated charges on the basis that there was insufficient evidence and therefore no case for Ruto to answer to.
While this was a devastating outcome for the victims, it displayed that the ICC will strictly follow the evidence and will not proceed in situations where it no longer exists.
President Bashir does his African peers a great disservice by visiting signatory states and continuing to make his inability to face justice a continental problem.
Any nation that welcomes Bashir shows nothing but blatant disregard for innocent victims of Darfur and those who have witnessed unspeakable atrocities at the hands of the Sudanese government.
**This article originally appeared in the Daily Maverick on 17 May 2016
What it takes to stay in power
Elected by his party the Patriotic Salvation Movement, Chadian President Idriss Déby has done it again- he is serving his fifth term in office after being declared the winner in the April 2016 elections. Déby has been in office since 1990. There are several components required to maintain power for such a long period of time in African countries and one of these factors seems to be maintaining a strategic and mutually beneficial relationship with a global super power. Déby has this down to an art, with France, the USA and China in his corner, unfortunately, to the detriment of the Chadian people.
Déby led a military coup that defeated then President Hissène Habré in 1990. Déby removed constitutional limits to presidential terms in 2005 and since then he has remained at the helm. Many of the elections won by Déby have been controversial and there have been several attempts to overthrow him.
Déby strategically appoints loyal supporters to key positions and controls parliament through the majority held by his party.
Deby’s time in office has been marred by allegations of gross human rights violations, including the restriction of freedom of expression, arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention. His country has, according to Transparency International statistics, a literacy rate of 33,6 % and extreme levels of poverty. Corruption is rife, life expectancy is low and only a select few benefit from the nation’s oil reserves. Yet Déby remains focused on staying in power instead of instituting necessary reform and improving the lives of his people.
Remaining in power for an abnormal length of time requires, among other factors, ensuring one has a close and lucrative relationship with the likes of Russia, China, USA, or France. Most African leaders who have remained in power for more than 20 years have managed this “great feat” with support( in its various forms) from global super powers. China supports President Bashir of Sudan, financially, diplomatically and with military support . He has been in power since 1989. China also provides extensive support to President Eduardo dos Santos of Angola, who has been in power since 1979. China also invests heavily in Uganda which has been under Museveni’s rule since 1986. There are several more examples.
In the case of Chad and its oil deposits France, China, and the US have all had their fingers in the proverbial pie. The result of Deby’s relationships with the aforementioned powers is the generation of wealth that has been directed towards consolidating his authority.
Culprit number one is France. France has been involved in propping up leaders in Chad for many years. When Déby overthrew Hissène Habré, the French troops stationed in Chad to assist Habré, did nothing. It became apparent that the French had chosen to back Déby, having lost faith in Habré.
In 2008 and in 2006 the French came to Déby ‘s aid when rebel groups threatened to overthrow him. Chad clearly remains of great strategic and economic importance to France who reportedly have two military bases there.
Oil companies began to show interest in Chad’s oil in the 1970s and it remained untapped until 2000 primarily due to the nation’s instability . The oil kept France interested in its former colony and like a moth to the flame, it also attracted American attention.
The American oil giants ExxonMobil and Chevron in conjunction with the Malaysia based PETRONAS, operated Chad’s first major oil project-the 4.2 billion dollar, 1070km Chad-Cameroon pipeline in 2000. The World Bank provided loans for the project on condition that the government used the revenue to improve education and health care.
By 2006 it was evident that the revenue generated was being used to enhance Chad’s military capabilities. The World Bank withdrew funding in 2008 and Chad had to pay back the loans. This was not the major setback it could have been, as by that time Chad had established relations with China which resulted in China purchasing the rights to a massive oil exploration area, pumping more money into the country.
Déby has used the profits made from the oil to reward his loyal supporters and to ensure that his army is well equipped and thoroughly trained. These two factors have helped keep him in power and his army is now seen as force to be reckoned with regionally. The Chadian soldiers have been instrumental in the fight against Islamist extremism and this in turn pleases the US and France who continue to see the value in maintaining their symbiotic relationship with Chad. This relationship benefits everyone except the people of Chad.
Vast amounts of time, energy and money are diverted to supporting efforts to stay in power as opposed to serving and providing for the electorate. China, America and France are complicit in this unjust state of affairs.
** This piece orginally appeared in The Star newspaper under the title : Unjust State of Affairs on 12 May 2016.