freedom of speech

• A year on, NGOs amplify calls for justice and accountability for Jamal Khashoggi's murder

  On 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain official documents in order to get married, but he did not make it out alive. He was brutally killed inside the consulate in what the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Dr Agnes Callamard, called a “premeditated extrajudicial killing” for which the state of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is responsible.

  Khashoggi was a well-known Saudi journalist and intellectual who, due to safety concerns and the inability to continue his work inside Saudi Arabia, decided to live in self-imposed exile in the United States. He was a firm promoter of freedom of speech and press freedom in the Arab world. While he was no outright opponent of the Saudi royal family and did not call for regime change in the country, he criticised the arrest of human rights defenders and the reform plans of the Crown Prince. This alone may have been enough to seal his fate.

  After more than two weeks of deception and denial about his death, on 19 October 2018 the Saudi authorities admitted that Khashoggi had been killed inside the consulate by a group of men connected to the authorities, but continued to deny any direct knowledge or responsibility for the crime. One year after his murder, the remains of Khashoggi’s body are still missing and have not been returned to his family. The Saudi authorities implicated 11 individuals responsible for Khashoggi’s killing, some of whom face the death penalty. They are currently being tried in the Specialised Criminal Court, a jurisdiction notorious for violations of fair trial guarantees. The trial proceedings remain in large part secret, and criminal responsibility in the chain of command has not yet been established.

  Khashoggi’s death sparked outrage and was widely condemned. In the days and weeks following his killing, the international community began to ask questions and to demand clarity. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued several press releases, while the UN Special Procedures on enforced disappearance, summary executions and freedom of expression issued a joint Urgent Appeal. Moreover, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, stressed the need for a prompt, thorough and transparent investigation into the circumstances of Khashoggi’s death and full accountability for those responsible.

  On 24 October 2018, the EU Parliament issued a resolution urging the Saudi authorities to disclose the whereabouts of Khashoggi’s remains. In addition to demanding an independent and impartial international investigation into the journalist’s death, the resolution also classified it as being part of a pattern of a widespread crackdown against prominent human rights defenders, women activists, lawyers, journalists, writers and bloggers, which has intensified since Mohammad bin Salman began consolidating control over the country’s security institutions. It stated that the systematic practice of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings could amount to a crime against humanity. Lastly, it requested that the perpetrators of Khashoggi’s murder be identified and brought to justice, following a fair trial held in accordance with international standards before an impartial court and with international observers present.

  On 5 November, 2018, Saudi Arabia’s human rights record was examined by UN Member States as part of the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review. The killing of Khashoggi was raised extensively during the review and featured heavily among the 258 recommendations the Saudi authorities received to improve the human rights situation in the country. At least 27 states raised concerns about Khashoggi’s extrajudicial killing, with many reiterating the need for a transparent, impartial, independent and effective investigation.

  In January 2019, Dr Callamard decided on her own initiative and under the terms of her mandate as UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions to open a special human rights investigation into Khashoggi’s killing.

  On 7 March 2019, in a landmark initiative, a group of 36 UN Member States led by Iceland delivered a joint statement during the 40th session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) expressing serious concern over the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia and condemning in the strongest possible terms the killing of Khashoggi. The statement reiterated the call for a prompt, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into his murder and stressed the need to protect journalists and to uphold the right to freedom of expression.

  During the 41st session of the HRC, on 19 June 2019, Dr Callamard presented her report, which concluded that the murder of Khashoggi was “overseen, planned and endorsed by high-level state officials of Saudi Arabia”. The Special Rapporteur found that both the investigations conducted by Saudi Arabia and Turkey failed to meet international standards and that the ongoing trial in Saudi Arabia of 11 suspects, while seemingly an important step towards accountability, also fails to meet international fair trial standards. Dr Callamard believes that the killing of Khashoggi constitutes an international crime over which states should claim universal jurisdiction. Asserting that her human rights inquiry is not a substitute for a criminal investigation or a court of law, the UN Special Rapporteur called on the Human Rights Council, the Security Council or the UN Secretary-General to demand a follow-up criminal investigation.

  Most recently, on 23 September 2019, during the 42nd session of the HRC, Australia delivered a joint statement on behalf of 23 UN Member States raising concerns over the persecution and intimidation of activists, the practice of enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention, and reports of torture and unfair trials as well as extrajudicial executions. Furthermore, the statement called for an end to impunity over the murder of Khashoggi and highlighted the need for the truth to be established and accountability achieved. We deeply regret that a number of states that had joined the March 2019 statement have now decided to no longer support this immediate call for action. We would like to highlight that states still have the possibility to become co-signatories until 11 October 2019.

  Additionally, during the course of the past year and as a response to Khashoggi’s murder as well as the war in Yemen, some governments have suspended weapon sales to Saudi Arabia.

  While we welcome the appeals, pledges and measures taken by some states over the past year and consider them as steps in the right direction towards accountability for the murder of Khashoggi, more tangible actions must follow. There is an undeniable risk that with big events scheduled to take place in Saudi Arabia in 2020, such as the G20 summit and the famous Dakar Rally, state-to-state relations could normalise. We cannot stand by and allow the return of business as usual as this would mean that Khashoggi died in vain and that there is little hope for hundreds of other unlawfully disappeared, detained, tortured or executed activists whose cases failed to attract similar levels of international attention.  

  As Dr Callamard rightly said during a side event at the 42nd session of the HRC: “While one year must feel like a lifetime to Khashoggi’s family and friends, in human justice time and the search for truth it is very brief. Thus we should not lose sight of what we are trying to achieve; we should not lose hope and courage that justice can be attained.” In that spirit, the undersigned organisations renew their call for action, demanding the following:

  We call on the international community, and in particular the UN, to:

  1. Take action to ensure that a further impartial, prompt, thorough, independent and effective criminal investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is opened;
  2. Ensure that all perpetrators of the crime, including those at the head of the chain of command, are identified and prosecuted in a fair and transparent trial without recourse to the death penalty;
  3. Establish an immediate moratorium on all arms sales and exports of surveillance technology to Saudi Arabia;
  4. Co-sign the joint statement led by Australia on behalf of 23 UN Member States by 11 October;
  5. Introduce and endorse a UN resolution establishing a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia; and
  6. Urge the authorities in Saudi Arabia to implement the recommendations below.

  We call on the authorities in Saudi Arabia to:

  1. Return the remains of Khashoggi’s body to his family;
  2. Invite independent international experts to oversee investigations into his murder; cooperate in good faith with all UN mechanisms; and ensure that those responsible for his death are brought to justice;
  3. Immediately and unconditionally release all human rights defenders, writers, journalists and prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia whose detention is a result of their peaceful and legitimate work in the promotion and protection of fundamental human rights;
  4. Establish a moratorium on the death penalty, including as punishment for crimes related to the exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, and peaceful assembly;
  5. Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders and journalists in Saudi Arabia are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities and public reporting without fear of reprisals; and
  6. Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and bring all national laws limiting the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association into compliance with international human rights standards.

  List of signatories:

  • ALQST
  • Americans for Democracy and Human Rights
  • Amnesty International
  • CIVICUS
  • English PEN
  • European Center for Democracy and Human Rights
  • European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights
  • Gulf Center for Human Rights
  • Index on Censorship
  • International Service for Human Rights
  • MENA Rights Group
  • PEN America
  • Rights Realisation Centre
  • World Organisation Against Torture
• ISRAEL: ‘We dream of hundreds of thousands demonstrating for democracy, equality and human rights’

  CIVICUS speaks about currentprotests against judicial changes in Israel with Debbie Gild-Hayo, Director of Public Advocacy of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).

  Founded in 1972, ACRI is an oldest and largest human rights civil society organisation (CSO) in Israel. It advocates for the human rights and civil liberties of everyone living in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

  What are the judicial changes being proposed, and what is wrong with them?

  The government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promoting several pieces of legislation concerning the judicial system. The one that has advanced most and is the most controversial at the moment concerns the makeup of the Judicial Selection Committee. This committee chooses judges for the High Court, which also plays the role of a Constitutional Court, and also all other courts.

  The government wants the ruling coalition to have a majority in the Judicial Selection Committee so it can control the appointment of judges. It currently has to make compromises and reach agreements between all members of the committee, political and professional, to nominate judges. If the change is adopted, the nomination process will be totally political and will prioritise judges’ allegiance to the government over their professionalism.

  The reform would also diminish the authority of the High Court to conduct judicial review of Basic Laws – which have the status of a constitution in Israel – drafted by the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. For example, the coalition wants to pass a new Basic Law that will release ultra-Orthodox people from obligatory military duty, making their religious studies equivalent to army service. The High Court has already stated that this kind of arrangement would violate the principle of equality. But if the reform passes, then these kinds of unconstitutional amendments to Basic Laws will be possible and the High Court will not be able to intervene.

  Another bill concerns regular laws passed by the Knesset that contradict Basic Laws. The bill determines that in order to annul an unconstitutional statute the High Court will need 80 per cent of its members to agree, which is practically impossible to achieve. On top of that, the bill includes an override clause, which determines that even if the High Court recognises legislation as unconstitutional, the Knesset will have the power to override its decision with a simple majority of 61 of its 120 members.

  It’s important in this context to remember that Israel has a 20 per cent Arab population, so even if a majority of 80 out of 120 Knesset votes were needed for the override clause, like some suggestions that are on the table and quite widely accepted, it would still keep Arabs completely out of the law-making process in the most harming and controversial moments. The government wants to be able to pass laws deemed unconstitutional with a simple majority of 61 members, which could potentially harm an enormous part of the population.

  The government also seeks to change the status of legal advisors in ministries, turning them from independent advisors into politically nominated counsel whose rulings would have non-binding status.

  All of these bills would harm the independence of the judicial system and its ability to defend human rights, and specifically the rights of minorities.

  How would you describe the protests against the changes?

  I would describe them as amazing. As a human rights organisation, it is our dream to have hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating for democracy, equality and human rights. We wouldn’t have thought it possible only a short while ago. People are now attending parliamentary discussions – which, believe me, is incredible. I have been doing this job for a long time, and I used to always be there alone or with a few colleagues at most.

  I think many people felt threatened personally by the reform initiative. This is what usually brings people out to the street. A lot of people who have never been involved in politics before are now mobilising.

  In the last few months, I have talked to members of the Knesset as well as to protesters and advocated for other issues besides the judicial changes that are also harming democracy and human rights in Israel to be included on the agenda. Everything that is related to the occupation is excluded from the mainstream agenda. There is a perception that those demonstrating with Palestinian flags harm the protest.

  But a few things are slowly widening the protesters’ agenda. For instance, people have been speaking up against the creation of a militia of armed citizens to support the police. It is a good sign that criticism is starting to go beyond the judicial changes.

  Protesters include people of all ages and various professional groups, including doctors, social workers and teachers, as well as youth and student groups. But it is undeniable that most are middle or upper-middle class. A deep split has existed in Israeli society for many years, but now it has come to its peak. On the one hand you have the more liberal population and on the other the right-wing nationalist segment, including five per cent of the population who are settlers and 10 per cent who are ultra-Orthodox believers.

  How has the government reacted to the protests?

  From my point of view, there hasn’t been much repression. There are frequent clashes between police and protesters and there have been cases of police brutality, but the level of violence has not been that high. I have seen the police in action in other places, such as East Jerusalem, and they are much more violent. In this case, they have given quite a lot of room to protesters.

  The main thing the government has attempted to do is to delegitimise the protests, referring to protesters as ‘anarchists’, ‘leftists’, ‘a minority against the country’ and so forth, disregarding the fact that hundreds of thousands are protesting every week and many of the people opposing the reforms and deeming them non-democratic are public officials, including members of security forces, or have positions in the financial system. The government also claims protesters are violent, but I personally have never seen such non-violent protesters in my life. If you just look at the protests against the pensions system changes taking place in Paris right now, there is no comparison.

  What role are CSOs playing?

  CSOs have been fully involved in many ways. CSOs are doing advocacy and campaigns, explaining to the public what this judicial reform is about, talking to the press and writing reports. They are also going to the courts when any rights violation occurs, especially regarding freedoms of speech and assembly, and to the police to defend arrested people. And they also take part in the parliamentary legislation procedures, including by attending committee sessions.

  Do you think the protests will force the government to backtrack?

  Protests have put a lot of pressure on the government, influencing Israel’s financial situation and bringing international support, which is also threatening to the government. But we have not stopped the process, but rather slowed it down. The government started pushing all these bills at once and ended up at the end of the Knesset session with only one passed, which protects Netanyahu’s position by limiting the ways a sitting prime minister can be declared unfit for office.

  The judicial reform has been put off for a month, during which time its terms are supposed to be negotiated. The next session will take place in May, and it’s likely that there won’t be an agreement so the ruling coalition will accuse the opposition of obstruction and go on to push the bills forward. Even if there is an agreement between the coalition and the opposition, or part of it, about the details of the reform, it is not certain that the public will accept it.

  If the bills pass, then there will be petitions against them and the High Court might deem them unconstitutional, which will farther intensify the controversy between the sides, and deepen the constitutional clash.

  I don’t think protesters will give up. The worst worst-case scenario is that the ongoing constitutional clash will be accompanied by clashes on the streets. I don’t know what form they will take, whether it will be strikes, people refusing to join the army and the reserves, violent clashes on the street, or general chaos. The far right is more violent than its opponents, and we have already witnessed far-right violence in protests and attacks against Arabs on the streets. The ongoing clash could turn into a catastrophe, maybe also escalating to another major outbreak of violence in the Israel-Palestine conflict, as we saw two years ago in May.

  What forms of international support does Israeli civil society currently need?

  International pressure seems to be one of the only things really influencing this government because Israel is dependent on international support, and financial support in particular. Since the government has a legislative majority, it can theoretically pass all these laws, and the only thing stopping it, or slowing it down at least, seems to be financial pressure within Israel – for example, some high-tech companies have already said that they will relocate or have started to open new companies in other countries – and outside financial or other international pressure.

  Another worry is that although many people are on the streets now and protests seem to be very wide, they do not, and probably will not in the future, deal with the less mainstream issues, such as the rights of the Arab population in Israel and occupation issues. In fact, the Knesset has just passed an amendment to the Disengagement Law that would allow the reestablishment of former West Bank settlements that were evacuated in 2005. This was barely an issue in Israeli public debate. This is just one example. CSOs are currently, and will probably continue to be, the only ones dealing with these issues on the national level, and will also probably be attacked because of this.

  Civic space in Israel is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with ACRI through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@acri_online onTwitter.

• NIGERIA: ‘Many families prefer to keep their daughters at home to ensure their safety’

  CIVICUS speaks with activist Jeff Okoroafor about Nigeria’s security situation, including the trend of kidnappings of schoolchildren by rebel groups.

  Jeff is spokesperson for #BringBackOurGirls, a diverse citizen group that advocates for the effective search and rescue of all abducted children and the containment and neutralisation of insurgency in Nigeria.

  What’s the security situation in Nigeria’s Kaduna state?

  The security situation in Kaduna state is alarming and continues to deteriorate. Kidnappings for ransom and other forms of violence are on the rise. Those primarily responsible for these criminal activities appear to be Fulani herders, organised in bandit groups that have reportedly become affiliated with the Boko Haram insurgency. They are creating widespread chaos and terror in northern Nigeria.

  The state’s inability to curb such criminal activity and protect its citizens was reflected in the recent abduction of 287 students. A whole decade after Boko Haram kidnapped 276 high school girls in Chibok, a town in northeast Nigeria, the security situation remains precarious and has even worsened.

  Kaduna’s state authorities have proven ineffective in addressing these challenges. Instead of taking decisive action to dismantle these groups, they have opted to pay off insurgents to temporarily halt the violence. This is ultimately counterproductive, as the government submits to blackmail by rebel groups, further undermining security and leaving people vulnerable.

  During the recent Eid al-Fitr festival, a video emerged of over 100 armed Fulani herders conducting prayers in Kaduna. Gatherings of such size cannot happen without security agents being aware, pointing to possible complicity by the authorities. This lack of reaction fosters an environment of fear and insecurity.

  The ongoing cycle of violence, displacement and ransom-taking disrupts the lives of local communities, contributing to food insecurity as farmers cannot safely work their lands. It is crucial for the government to take a more strategic and robust approach to restore order and protect people.

  How have kidnappings affected the situation of girls and women?

  Right after the abduction of the Chibok girls, efforts were made to develop strategies to improve security in schools and safeguard girls and women in society. A task force involving community members and government representatives, including the then Minister of Finance, initiated the Safe School Initiative.

  This programme proposed to enhance security in schools by installing CCTV cameras, bringing in security agents, putting up perimeter fences and providing secure transportation. However, it never materialised.

  Today, many families prefer to keep their daughters at home to ensure their safety rather than risk sending them to school. In northern Nigeria, over 13.8 million children aren’t attending school, and the number continues to increase. Lack of formal education only exacerbates existing inequalities that disproportionately affect women and girls. The situation demands urgent action, but unfortunately the government is not doing much.

  What’s the government’s approach to securing the safe return of abducted people?

  The government doesn’t have a specific approach. The fact that mass abductions have continued, including the kidnapping of 300 female students in Zamfara state in 2021 and 100 schoolchildren in Kebbi state a few months later, highlights the lack of a real strategy to address the issue. Between January and April 2024 alone, 599 people were kidnapped.

  The government is largely reactive rather than proactive, which is concerning. It has not clearly communicated any specific measures. This indicates a significant gap in leadership and a disconnect between its goals and people’s needs.

  Civil society, which often operates close to affected communities, is calling on the government to adopt more effective strategies. These include developing a comprehensive plan for the safe return of the remaining 91 Chibok girls and other abducted people. Civil society also proposes establishing a military situation room with civil society participation to enhance information sharing and collaboration in addressing security challenges.

  We also demand an end to political interference in security matters, as this has been a barrier to effective action in states like Kaduna. The Nigerian military and police have the capacity to tackle these challenges, yet there seems to be a lack of political will to take decisive action.

  There is a pressing need for the government to adopt a comprehensive, coordinated strategy to address the security crisis and protect the lives and properties of its citizens. This includes collaborating with civil society, improving information sharing and taking decisive military and law enforcement actions to dismantle insurgent groups.

  How is civil society working to address the problem, and what obstacles does it face?

  Civil society organisations are making significant efforts to raise awareness and urge government action, but progress has been slow. Overall, there have been 80 new attacks on schools since the Chibok girls were abducted, resulting in the kidnapping of 1,800 students and 64 teachers.

  Nigerian civil society faces significant challenges in doing this work. Freedom of speech is not fully guaranteed, and those who speak out often face threats or retaliation. For instance, members of Bring Back Our Girls, including myself, have faced arrests and harassment for advocating for justice and the safe return of abducted girls.

  Ethnicity and religion also divide Nigerian society, making it difficult for people to unite in pursuit of common goals. People tend to support leaders from their own ethnic or religious groups, even when they don’t act in the best interests of the country.

  Advocacy work isn’t just challenging due to these obstacles – it’s also costly. Organisations must carefully plan and execute their strategies with very limited resources. In the past, strong international partnerships helped support civil society efforts, but these relationships have weakened over time.

  Still, civil society continues pushing for change and striving to hold the government accountable.

  What forms of international support does Nigerian civil society need?

  In the early days of the Bring Back Our Girls movement, prominent figures such as then-President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama raised awareness by publicly supporting the cause. Hollywood celebrities, musicians and news networks also played a crucial role in amplifying the movement.

  We need to achieve a similar level of international support and visibility. The Nigerian government tends to be more responsive to international pressure, so we encourage world leaders and organisations to keep the conversation alive and help us hold the Nigerian government accountable. This includes asking about the whereabouts of the 91 remaining Chibok girls and demanding action from Nigerian officials.

  We urge people around the world to use their platforms to put the Nigerian government under the spotlight and keep these issues alive.

  ---

  Civic space in Nigeria is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Bring Back our Girls through itswebsite and follow@BBOG_Nigeria and@JeffOkoroafor on Twitter.