human rights violations

  • Thai government fails to accept recommendations to repeal restrictive laws at UN periodic review

    Human rights groups CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation and the Asia Democracy Network (ADN) are disappointed by the Thai government’s failure to accept recommendations to repeal restrictive laws as recommended by members states of the UN Human Right Council, despite making commitments to civic freedoms. These actions highlight the inconsistent approach of the government to human rights that is undermining its credibility.
  • Thailand: First conviction under Article 112 for protest act sets a disturbing precedent for civic space

    Following the conviction of Narin - a protester who placed a sticker over the Thai King’s portrait under Article 112 (lese majeste) - on Friday, 4 March 2022, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and Asia Democracy Network (ADN) said:

    The conviction of Narin under Article 112 (lese majeste) for placing a sticker with the logo of a satire page ‘Gukult’ over a portrait of the King during a democracy protest in September 2020 sets a disturbing precedent for civic space in Thailand. This marks the first time a Thai court sentenced an individual to imprisonment under the draconian lese majeste law for such an act during a protest. The verdict demonstrates the government’s intensifying targeting of individuals and allies of the pro-democratic movement.

    Narin was found guilty and sentenced to three years, which was reduced to two years after his testimony. The court ruled that Narin had acted to ‘insult’ and ‘defame’ the King under Article 112. Right after reading the decision, Narin was released on 100,000 THB bail.

    Thailand, as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), must respect and protect fundamental freedoms for all individuals. We reiterate our call to repeal Article 112 and all other laws used to curtail free expression and demand an immediate and unconditional release of all detainees who are being held in prison under this act. 

     

    Civic Space in Thailand is rated as Repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor

     

     

     
  • Thailand: States must urge the government to address the deterioration of fundamental freedoms

    As Thailand’s human rights record is examined at the Human Rights Council on 11 November 2021, CIVICUS and the Asia Democracy Network (ADN) call on UN member states to raise serious concerns about Thailand’s civic freedoms.

    In the previous UPR cycle in 2016, Thailand committed to guarantee and respect the right to freedom of expression, assembly, and association; put an end to all forms of harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders; and ensure that all legislation comply with international human rights standards protecting fundamental freedoms. It received 35 recommendations related to civic space, accepting 10 and noting 25.

    Thailand has not upheld these commitments. A joint submission by CIVICUS and ADN to the Human Rights Council in March 2021 highlighted Thailand’s ongoing use of repressive laws against human rights defenders, activists and journalists as well as harassment, physical attacks and allegations of enforced disappearances of activists. Our organizations also raised concerns about the crackdown on peaceful protests, the arrests and criminalization of protesters and the use of excessive force by the police.

    Over the last four years, criminal defamation laws such as section 116 of the Penal Code on sedition have been used to quash dissent by the authorities. More recently, sedition charges have been brought against human rights defenders involved in protests calling for democratic reforms. Although rarely used since 2018, there has been an escalation of investigations and arrests for lèse majesté (section 112 of the Penal Code) since November 2020 against the leaders of the pro-democracy movement.

    Other concerns related to freedom of expression include the Computer-Related Crime Act (CCA), which allows the authorities to conduct surveillance on online content and prosecute individuals under broadly defined offences and the cybersecurity law passed in 2019 that gives the government sweeping access to people's personal information. Outspoken media outlets and reporters have also often face intimidation and punishment for commentaries critical of the authorities.

    “In the upcoming session at the Human Rights Council, states must use the opportunity to call out Thailand for its systematic repression of pro-democracy activists, human rights defenders and journalists. These actions are inconsistent with Thailand’s international obligations,” said Cornelius Hanung, Advocacy and Campaigns Officer for Asia from CIVICUS.

    The Thai authorities have also imposed restrictions on peaceful protests in recent years and arbitrarily arrested peaceful protesters. In 2020, at least 90 people joining peaceful protests were arrested between 13 and 21 October 2020 by the police. The use of excessive force by the police to disperse protesters have been widely reported. On 17 November 2020, during a protest outside parliament, police used water cannon laced with purple dye and an apparent teargas chemical, as well as teargas and pepper spray grenades, to forcibly disperse thousands of protesters, including students, some of whom were children.

    “No one should be detained merely for exercising the right to peaceful assemble. The authorities must immediately end its harassment of protest leaders and participants and release all those detained. There should also be prompt, effective and independent investigations into any violations during protests and perpetrators held accountable,” said Ichal Supriadi, Secretary General at Asia Democracy Network.

    Civil society organizations, pro-democracy groups, student networks and labor groups in Thailand have been subjected to restrictions and multiple forms of intimidation for carrying out their work. More recently, the Thailand Government is considering a revised NGO law that contains arbitrary and vague-defined powers that could be used to muzzle civil society groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It includes excessive punishments, places discriminatory restrictions on organizations that receive foreign funding and allows for intrusive surveillance and searches without judicial oversight.

    Key recommendations that States should make include:

    • Ensure that processes to draft any new laws to oversee the formation and operation of CSOs include meaningful consultation with CSOs and HRDs and are consistent with international law and standards related to the freedom of association.
    • Provide HRDs, civil society members and journalists with a safe and secure environment in which they can carry out their work. Conduct impartial, thorough and effective investigations into all cases of attacks, harassment and intimidation against them and bring the perpetrators of such offences to justice.
    • Specifically, repeal or review article 112 (lèse-majesté) and article 116 (sedition) of the Penal Code to bring it in line with the ICCPR, UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 34 and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders
    • Specifically, review and amend the Computer Crime Act and Cybersecurity law to ensure that these laws are in line with best practices and international standards in the area of the freedom of expression.
    • Ensure that journalists can work freely and without fear of criminalization or reprisals for expressing critical opinions or covering topics that the government may deem sensitive.
    • Unconditionally and immediately release all protesters detained for exercising their right to the freedom of peaceful assembly and drop all charges against them.
    • Review and, if necessary, update existing human rights training for police and security forces, with the assistance of independent CSOs, to foster the more consistent application of international human rights standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms

    The examination of Thailand will take place during the 39th Session of the UPR on 10 November 2021. The UPR is a process, in operation since 2008, which examines the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States every four and a half years. The review is an interactive dialogue between the State delegation and members of the Council and addresses a broad range of human rights topics. Following the review, a report and recommendations are prepared, which is discussed and adopted at the following session of the Human Rights Council.

    Civic space in Thailand is rated as repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor
  • Thailand’s abusive draft law on not-for-profit organizations

    President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. 

    The White House

    Washington, DC 

     

    Dear President Biden, 

    We, the undersigned non-profit organisations, are writing to express our serious concerns regarding Thailand’s Draft Act on the Operations of Not-for-Profit Organizations, which the Thai Cabinet approved in principle on January 4, 2022. The passage of this draft law would systematically violate the rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression of non-profit groups. So we urge you to call on the Thai government to scrap this draft law when you meet with the Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha and his delegation at the upcoming US-ASEAN special summit at the White House in May 12-13, 2022. 

    The draft law would enable officials to unilaterally order the temporary or permanent shutdown of any non-profit organisation (NPO) operating in Thailand if they conduct activities or make public representations that the Thai government considers adversely affects Thailand’s “relations between countries”; “affect the happy, normal existence of other persons”; affect “public interest, including public safety”; infringe on “public order,” or “people’s good morals;” or “cause divisions within society.” Non-profit organisations also are forbidden from doing anything that infringes on “the rights and liberties of other persons” or impacts the “government’s security, including the government’s economic security.” None of these terms is defined, providing maximum discretion to officials, including the military and national security officials who are the originators of this draconian, rights-abusing legislation, to act against any organisation arbitrarily. 

    If this bill becomes law, we anticipate that many organisations signing and supporting this letter will face punitive action, including intrusive investigations, public threats, and ultimately orders from government authorities to end operations. 

    As you may know, in addition to the laudable work done by Thai civil society organisations in supporting human rights, social welfare, civic activity, and humanitarian work in Thailand, there is also a regional dimension to civil society in Thailand, with important international humanitarian and human rights organisations operating in Thailand to assist refugees and displaced persons fleeing the crisis in Myanmar (Burma) and supporting the provision of assistance into Myanmar. These efforts will also be put at risk if the draft law passes, given the provision that prevents civil society from undertaking actions that ostensibly jeopardise Thailand’s friendly relations with its neighbouring countries. 

    Similarly, Thailand has long served as a refuge for political and rights activists fleeing from repressive governments in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, and non-profit organisations supporting these refugees would also face significant threats of being shut down if this bill is enacted. 

    Protecting Thai civil society

    To comply with relevant provisions of the Thai constitution, the Thai government, led by the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, organised a public comment process between late January 2022 and the end of April 2022. In response to this rudimentary consultation process, a total of 1,867 non-profit organisations across Thailand released a joint statement and subsequently held a public rally to call for the Thai government to withdraw this bill. 

    The core message of our coalition is that we are civil society groups working on a wide range of issues. As organisations, we work across many sectors, and among other things, we strengthen democratic processes; safeguard the environment; reduce poverty; feed families; support children, people with disabilities, and older people; stop human trafficking; investigate business supply chains; protect human rights; support civil initiatives; expose government corruption and malfeasance; protect whistleblowers, and help people to access adequate health care and education. 

    Thai civil society and international supporters make Thailand a better, more inclusive democracy, and they should not face draconian restrictions of the sort that the current Thai government is proposing. 

    Risks of the bill

    The draft law threatens the important work of civil society, and the Thai government has provided no rationale for this law, except that other countries in the region have similar laws. The drafters openly espouse following the example of India, where government restrictions forced the closure of many international nongovernmental organisations. The Thai government claims that they are aiming to create “transparency” in the non-profit sector has no basis, given that Thailand already has adequate laws and regulations to regulate non-profit organisations. This draft law is a massive extension of government power over every aspect and every grouping of civil society in Thailand. 

    The specific language of the law states that: “‘Not-for-profit organisation’ means a collective of private individuals who form themselves as any form of grouping to conduct activities in society without intending to seek profits to be shared. However, it shall not include a group of people gathering to implement a particular, one-time activity, or conduct an activity to serve only the group's interests, or a political party.” Moreover, the law states that “Any NPOs which have been established under any specific law, in addition to acting in compliance with that law, shall also be subject to the provisions of this Act.” 

    Given the broad definition of “non-profit” organisation, the law will encompass everything from foreign chambers of commerce to farmer groups, organisations supporting vulnerable persons like people living with HIV/AIDS, migrant worker collectives, LGBTQ+ organisations, aggrieved villagers protesting land expropriation, forestry and environmental groups, community sports clubs and local foundations, human rights organisations, and community development groups. There are no apparent limits for the groups that will be adversely affected by this law. 

    Put simply, the Thai government hopes that the international community will be looking the other way while it severely restricts basic freedoms across Thailand. In a nation of nearly 70 million people with a government infused with military influence at top levels, it is explicit that this bill would be applied arbitrarily to severely restrict the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and other human rights.

    A closer look at the bill

    As mentioned above, the draft law’s language is very vague. The subjective language means that almost any action could violate the law’s provision. Below, non-profit organisations are asked to make sure they are not tainting people’s “good morals” or “disturbing the normal happy existence of persons”—or pay a daily fine of 10,000 baht (US$295). 

    Section 20: A Not-for-Profit Organization must not operate in the following manner: 

    (1) Affect the government’s security, including the government’s economic security or relations between countries. 

    (2) Affect public order, or people’s good morals, or cause divisions within society. 

    (3) Affect public interest, including public safety. 

    (4) Act in violation of the law. 

    (5) Act to infringe on the rights and liberties of other persons or affect the happy, normal existence of other persons. 


    Section 26: Any NPO which fails to stop its operations as ordered by the registrar under Section 20, paragraph 2 or Section 21 where Section 20 paragraph 2 applies, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 500,000 baht and a daily fine of 10,000 baht throughout the period of the breach or until it is operating correctly.

    The draft law will also effectively prevent organisations helping communities throughout Thailand from accessing the funding they need to do their crucial work. The restrictions and reporting requirements on funding support from outside Thailand are contrary to international law. They also inhibit a crucial funding source for organisations that help people in Thailand every day.

    Section 21: A Not-for-profit Organization which receives funding or donations from foreign sources is required to act as follows: 

    (1) Inform the registrar of the name of the foreign funding sources, the bank account receiving the funds, the amount received, and the purposes for the disbursement of the funds.

    (2) Must receive foreign funding only through a bank account notified to the registrar. 

    (3) Must use the foreign funding only for the purposes notified to the registrar in the article (1). 

    (4) Must not use foreign funding for any activity characteristic of pursuing state power or facilitating or helping political parties. 

    The draft law moves Thailand further down the slippery slope to a loss of privacy and the right to freedom of association. 

    Section 19:To ensure transparency and to keep the public informed about the operations of NPOs, an NPO is required to disclose information regarding its name, founding objectives, implementation methods, sources of funding, and names of persons involved with its operations to ensure such information is easily accessible to government agencies and the public.

    Civil society organisations, the individuals who work for them, and the communities who benefit from these groups have the right to come together, express their opinions, and contribute to their communities. Those core civil and political rights are enshrined in international law, notably the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Thailand is a state party to and is obligated to uphold. 

    Recommendations

    We respectfully call on you and your administration to press the Thai government to immediately withdraw the Draft Act on the Operations of Not-for-Profit Organizations and ensure that other laws and regulations that Thailand proposes pertaining to non-profit organisations strictly adhere to international human rights law and standards. 

    Sincerely,

    1. Amnesty International

    2. APCOM

    3. Asian Cultural Forum on Development (ACFOD)

    4. Asia Network for Free Elections (ANFREL)

    5. Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN)

    6. Asia Pacific Transgender Network (APTN)

    7. Article 19

    8. Asia Democracy Network (AND)

    9. Be Slavery Free

    10. Campaign Committee for Human Rights (CCHR)

    11. Campaign for Popular Democracy (CPD)

    12. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

    13. Community Resource Center (CRC)

    14. Cross Cultural Rights Foundation (CrCF)

    15. CSO Coalition for Ethical and Sustainable Seafood (CSO Coalition)

    16. Democracy Restoration Group (DRG)

    17. EnLAW

    18. Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)

    19. Equal Asia Foundation

    20. Finnwatch

    21. Fishwise 

    22. Fortify Rights

    23. Forum Asia (Asian Forum for Rights and Development)

    24. Freedom Fund

    25. Freedom United

    26. Global Labor Justice-International Labor Rights Foundation

    27. Glom Duayjai 

    28. Green America 

    29. Greenpeace Thailand

    30. Greenpeace USA

    31. Human Rights Watch

    32. Human Rights and Development Foundation (HRDF)

    33. Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA)

    34. Humanity United Action 

    35. ILGA Asia (Asian Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) 

    36. Inter Mountain People's Education and Culture in Thailand Association

    37. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

    38. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

    39. International Justice Mission (Thailand)

    40. Jaringan Mangsa Dari Undang–Undang Darurat (JASAD)

    41. Justice for Peace Foundation

    42. Kru Kor Sorn 

    43. Labour Protection Network (LPN)

    44. Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)

    45. Manushya Foundation

    46. MAP Foundation (Migrant Assistance Program)

    47. MobNews

    48. NGOs for the People 

    49. Patani Human Rights Organization (HAP)

    50. Peace and Human Rights Resource Center (PHRC)

    51. Protection International

    52. SEA Junction

    53. SHero Thailand 

    54. Solidarity Center 

    55. Stop Drink Network Thailand (SDN)

    56. Thai Action Coalition for Democracy in Burma (TACDB)

    57. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR)

    58. Thai Teachers for Child Rights Association (TTCR)

    59. Togetherness for Equality and Action (TEA)

    60. Union for Civil Liberty (UCL)

    61. United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration

    62. Verite 

    63. Women4Oceans

    64. Workers’ Union (Thailand)

    65. Young Pride Club (YPC)

     

    cc:    Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State

             Wendy R. Sherman, Deputy Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State

     

     

     
  • The crisis of accountability persists in the Philippines

    Statement at 48th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

    Delivered by Roneo Clamor, Karapatan

    CIVICUS and Karapatan welcome the High Commissioner’s update.

    In June 2020, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that violations of human rights, including the widespread and systematic killing of thousands of alleged drug suspects, attacks on human rights activists and the vilification of dissent, were pervasive in the country, and accountability for these actions are virtually non-existent. We have seen no human rights progress on the ground, and the crisis of accountability persists.

    The UN national joint programme for human rights adopted in July 2021 has minimal prospects to improve the situation on the ground, particularly given the obvious lack of political will to do so.

    Those who protect human rights and call for justice continue to be targeted and attacked. Activists have been killed over the year both by the security forces and unknown individuals. In many instances this occurred following reports of them being red-tagged. In virtually none of the cases has anyone been held accountable.

    Others, like 64-year-old human rights worker Teresita Naul, have been arrested on trumped up criminal charges without due process. Senator Leila de Lima remains in prison for politically motivated charges because of her actions to investigate killings in the drug war.

    The draconian Anti-Terror Act, adopted in 2020, appears to be aimed at further criminalising dissent.

    Justice is about holding perpetrators of human rights violations accountable, reparations for the victims, and the non-repetition of the crimes and atrocities committed. None of these will be forthcoming under the current administration, or the current resolution. We urgently call on the Human Rights Council to establish an overdue independent investigation in the Philippines.

    Thank you.

    Civic space in the Philippine is rated as repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor
  • The DRC: CIVICUS calls for the immediate release of journalists Patrick Lola and Christian Bofaya

    CIVICUS calls on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) authorities to immediately release journalists and activists Patrick Lola and Christian Bofaya, arrested for doing their job. Patrick and Christian have been arbitrarily detained without charge for five months in the central prison of Mbandaka, the provincial capital of Equateur.
  • The International Community Must Support and Protect Palestinian Civil Society

    بالعربية

    As a group of 242 regional and international organisations, we express our full solidarity with Palestinian civil society and human rights defenders as Israel continues to escalate its attacks to shut down critical human rights work and silence opposition to its occupation of Palestinian territory and apartheid over the Palestinian people as a whole. We urge the international community to take all necessary action to support and protect Palestinian civil society and human rights defenders and ensure the continuation of their invaluable work.
  • The situation in Sudan since the coup is critical, and risks further escalation

    Statement at the 49th Session of the UN Human Rights Council
  • Tibetan activist jailed for advocating cultural rights

    A Chinese court has sentenced a Tibetan activist to five years’ imprisonment under a national security law, for peacefully advocating cultural rights in Tibet.
  • Tigray: Escalating violence & restrictions to civic space requires action to protect those on the ground

    Statement at the 49th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

    Interactive Dialogue on the oral update of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in the Tigray region of Ethiopia

    Delivered bySibahle Zuma

    Thank you, Mister President.

    CIVICUS and its partners in Ethiopia thank the High Commissioner for the timely update on the human rights situation in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. We are deeply concerned at the high levels of violence exemplified in the attack of the Bahrale refugee camp on 3 February which resulted in five refugees killed and several women kidnapped by armed men. We are getting reports of Tigrayan fighters killing civilians, gang-raping women and girls and looting, including from hospitals, with impunity.

    We are particularly concerned about restrictions that have made it nearly impossible for civilians to receive critical supplies from humanitarian organisations. Humanitarian operations in Tigray are largely reduced or suspended due to the lack of fuel, cash and other supplies. The ongoing fighting in Afar contributes to the large-scale displacements in the region and hinders the delivery of humanitarian supplies into Tigray.

    Civic space in Tigray has shrunk considerably with the repression of civil society both by State and non-state actors. Telecommunications restrictions continue with the aim of controlling communication channels. These restrictions risk silencing victims and hinder access to information.

    The special session in December 2021 highlighted the urgent need for investigations and accountability for the serious violations of international law, possibly amounting to war crimes, that have rocked Tigray since November 2021 and which continue to escalate.

    We ask the High Commissioner to provide more information on how States can best support civil society, including humanitarian groups, and to protect those on the ground amidst worsening conditions.

    We thank you.

     Civic space in Ethiopia is rated as "repressed" by the CIVICUS Monitor 
  • UAE: Appeal for UAE to release detained human rights activists ahead of Dubai Expo

    UAE Open Letterعربي

     

    Your Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan,

    As the Expo Dubai 2020 opens for six months starting on 1 October 2021 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) under the motto “Connecting Minds and Creating the Future through sustainability, mobility and opportunity”, we the undersigned call on the Emirati authorities to demonstrate their commitment to these values by releasing all imprisoned human rights defenders and activists, detained in violation of their right to freedom of expression.

    We further call on the UAE authorities to comply with international standards for prisoners, including by allowing regular family visits, access to healthcare and regular consultations with their lawyers, and ending the practice of holding them in solitary confinement.

    Approaching ten years behind bars, the group of pro-democracy advocates, known as the “UAE 94”, remain unjustly jailed for signing an online petition calling for political reform in 2011. Following a grossly unfair mass trial, 69 members of the UAE 94 were sentenced to between seven and 15 years, including eight in absentia. They are held in Al-Razeen prison, a maximum-security facility in the desert of Abu Dhabi, where activists, government critics and human rights defenders are commonly held. They face arbitrary and unlawful disciplinary measures, such as solitary confinement, deprivation of family visits, and intrusive body searches.

    Sentenced to seven years in prison, four of these political prisoners remain imprisoned even after completing their sentences, according to Emirati activists. Abdullah Al-Hajiri, Omran Al-Radwan Al-Harathi and Mahmoud Hasan Al-Hosani completed their sentences in 2019, and Fahd Al-Hajiri in 2020. Instead of being granted release, these prisoners were transferred to a so-called Munasaha centre, a “counselling centre” within Abu Dhabi’s Al-Razeen prison facility. Three UAE 94 prisoners currently serving 10-year sentences are human rights lawyers Dr. Mohammed Al-Roken and Dr. Mohammed Al-Mansoori, and Mohammed Abdul Razzaq Al-Siddiq.

    Prior to the authorities’ arbitrary dissolution of the UAE’s Jurists Association in 2011, Dr. Al-Roken and Dr. Al-Mansoori served terms as its president. In 2012, they were arbitrarily arrested for signing the 2011 reform petition and for their dedicated work as human rights lawyers defending victims of repression. Detained in Al-Razeen prison, the men reported that they were tortured, as well as subjected to arbitrary disciplinary measures such as denial of family visits, according to Emirati activists.

    In 2011, Dr. Al-Roken bravely defended five human rights activists in a case known as the “UAE5”. Among them were prominent human rights activist and poet Ahmed Mansoor and academic Dr. Nasser bin Ghaith. Although the defendants in the case were pardoned by presidential decree at the time, both Mansoor and bin Ghaith were given 10-year prison sentences in subsequent cases, which involved grossly unjust trials on spurious charges.

    Ahmed Mansoor serves on the advisory boards of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division and won the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders in 2015. Since his second arrest in March 2017, he has been held in solitary confinement in a 4 x 4 meter cell with no bed or mattress in Al-Sadr prison, Abu Dhabi. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison in May 2018. In protest, he went on two hunger strikes in March and September 2019, which have severely impacted his health. His condition has been further exacerbated by the denial of adequate medical care.

    Economist Dr. Nasser bin Ghaith has faced similar mistreatment in prison, where he had to resort to three separate hunger strikes to attempt to bring attention to his unjust conviction and inhumane detention conditions. Dr. Bin Ghaith, a lecturer at the Abu Dhabi branch of Paris-Sorbonne University, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his online criticism of the Emirati and Egyptian authorities. Despite his hunger strikes, prison authorities have consistently denied Dr. Bin Ghaith appropriate medical care, including his prescribed blood pressure medication.

    In September 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolutioncalling for “the immediate and unconditional release of Ahmed Mansoor, Mohammed al-Roken and Nasser bin Ghaith as well as all other human rights defenders, political activists and peaceful dissidents." The resolution insists that the Emirati government “guarantee that human rights defenders in the UAE are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities in all circumstances, both inside and outside the country, without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions, including judicial harassment.” This is far from being the case: the UAE authorities have squashed dissenting voices to such a degree in recent years that it can now be said that there are no human rights defenders left in the country, and freedom of expression and civic space are virtually non-existent.

    In light of the upcoming Dubai Expo, and the UAE’s candidacy for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2022, we urge the Emirati government to consider using this opportunity to prove to the international community a true commitment to human rights by unconditionally releasing all jailed human rights defenders. In particular, we urge the authorities to free all prisoners who have been denied release after the completion of their sentence. Their ongoing detention constitutes an outrageous violation of both domestic and international law.

    Pending their release, we appeal to Your Highness to ensure that prisoners are granted access to basic amenities in their cells such as a bed, blankets in winter and air conditioning in summer, to have regular family visits, and to be allowed outside their cells to have contact with other prisoners in the canteen or the yard, as provided for by the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. With the spotlight on the UAE from October 2021 to March 2022, the Emirati government has a unique opportunity to show good-will and a commitment to international law by addressing the aforementioned human rights abuses, including by releasing from prison our jailed friends and colleagues.

    Sincerely,


    Signatories:


    1. ACAT Cameroon
    2. ACAT Canada
    3. ACAT Central African Republic
    4. ACAT Germany
    5. ACAT Italia
    6. ACAT UK
    7. Access Center for Human Rights (Wousoul)/Centre d'accès pour les droits de l'homme (ACHR)
    8. Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT) Belgium/Belgique/Belgie
    9. ActiveWatch
    10. Africa Freedom Information Centre (AFIC)
    11. Albanian Media Institute (AMI)
    12. ALQST for Human Rights
    13. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
    14. Amman Center for Human Rights Studies (ACHRS)
    15. Amnesty International
    16. Arab Human Rights Centre in Golan Heights
    17. Arab Organisation for human Rights in the UK
    18. Article 19
    19. Association Marocaine des droits de l’Homme
    20. Bahrain Press Association BPA
    21. Bangladesh Institute of Human Rights
    22. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM)
    23. Bytes for All, Pakistan
    24. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
    25. Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility
    26. CIVICUS
    27. Detained International
    28. Emirates Detainees Advocacy Centre (EDAC)
    29. European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
    30. Federal Association of Vietnamese Refugees in the Federal Republic of Germany
    31. FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
    32. Forum Tunisien pour les Droits Économiques et Sociaux (FTDES)
    33. Freedom Expression Institute (FXI)
    34. Front Line Defenders
    35. Global Voices Advox
    36. Globe International Center
    37. Greek Helsinki Monitor
    38. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
    39. Human Rights Association for the Assistance of Prisoners
    40. Human Rights Sentinels
    41. Human Rights Watch
    42. IFoX Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
    43. Independent Journalism Center
    44. Innovation for Change Middle East and North Africa (I4C MENA)
    45. International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL)
    46. International Campaign for Freedom in the UAE (ICFUAE)
    47. International Press Centre (IPC)
    48. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
    49. Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative (ICSSI)
    50. JusticeMakers Bangladesh
    51. Landless Workers Movement (MST)
    52. Lawyers for Lawyers
    53. Lebanese Center for Human Rights
    54. Ligue Algérienne de défense des droits de l’Homme
    55. Media for West Africa (MFWA)
    56. Media Institute for Southern Africa, Zimbabwe (MISA)
    57. Medical Action Group, Inc.
    58. MENA Rights Group
    59. Metro Center For Journalists Rights & Advocacy
    60. Mwatana for human rights
    61. Odhikar
    62. PEN America
    63. PEN Canada
    64. PEN International
    65. Programme Against Custodial Torture and Impunity (PACTI)
    66. Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)
    67. Promo LEX Association, Republic of Moldova
    68. Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
    69. SOHRAM-CASRA Centre Action Sociale Réhabilitation et Réadaptation pour les Victimes de la Torture, de la guerre et de la violence
    70. Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression
    71. The South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEEMO)
    72. Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD)
    73. UIA-IROL (Institute for the Rule of Law of the International Association of Lawyers)
    74. Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
    75. World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
    76. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

    Civic space in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is rated as 'closed' by the CIVICUS Monitor.
  • UAE: Freedom of expression must be upheld at all times

    Freedom of expression must be upheld at all times, not only tolerated during Hay Festival Abu Dhabi

    Arabic

    As the Hay Festival Abu Dhabi opens on 25-28 February 2020 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), we the undersigned call on the Emirati authorities to demonstrate their respect for the right to freedom of expression by freeing all human rights defenders imprisoned for expressing themselves peacefully online, including academics, writers, a poet and lawyers. In the context of the Hay Festival, the UAE’s Ministry of Tolerance is promoting a platform for freedom of expression, while keeping behind bars Emirati citizens and residents who shared their own views and opinions. We support the efforts of festival participants to speak up in favour of all those whose voices have been silenced in the UAE. We further support calls for the UAE authorities to comply with international standards for prisoners, including by allowing prisoners of conscience to receive books and reading materials.

    The country’s most prominent human rights defender, Ahmed Mansoor, is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence after being convicted on the spurious charge of “insulting the status and prestige of the UAE and its symbols including its leaders” in reprisal for his peaceful human rights activism, including posts on social media.

    Mansoor is being held in solitary confinement in an isolation ward in Al-Sadr prison, Abu Dhabi, in dire conditions with no bed or books. In the nearly three years since his arrest in March 2017, he has only been permitted to leave his small cell for a handful of family visits, and only once has he been allowed outside to the prison sports yard for fresh air. In protest, he went on two separate hunger strikes which have harmed his health - harm which has been exacerbated by the lack of adequate medical care. By holding Mansoor in such appalling conditions, the UAE authorities are violating the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment under international law. We urge the Emirati authorities to comply with international law and we appeal to the humanity of members of the government to provide Mansoor with acceptable conditions until he is released.

    Mansoor, who has four young sons, is also an engineer and a poet. He serves on the advisory boards of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division. In October 2015, Mansoor gained international recognition for his vital work when he received the prestigious Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders.

    Mansoor undertook a month-long hunger strike in March 2019 to protest his punitive prison conditions, arbitrary detention, and unfair conviction. In May, seven United Nations independent experts expressed grave concern about Mansoor. Again, in early September 2019, after being tortured through beatings by prison guards, he began a second hunger strike. Due to the lack of independent human rights NGOs in the country, it is very difficult to obtain news about his current situation, including whether or not he remains on the hunger strike since the last report that he was still not eating solid food in January 2020, leaving him unable to walk.

    In October 2019, over 140 NGOs worldwide appealed to the UAE authorities to free Ahmed Mansoor, who spent his 50th birthday in isolation and on hunger strike.

    UAE Activists

    Other prisoners have been tortured in prison in the UAE. A Polish fitness expert, Artur Ligęska, was held in the same isolation ward as Mansoor, in conditions he described as “medieval”. After his charges were dismissed and he was freed in May 2019, Ligęska wrote a book in which he recounted the prison conditions in Al-Sadr’s isolation wing, where prisoners were held without running water for many months in very unhygienic conditions, and some were subjected to torture, abuse and sexual assault. He was instrumental in getting the news about Mansoor’s hunger strike out to the world from prison in March 2019, at great personal risk.

    Other human rights defenders have faced similar mistreatment in prison, where they are often held in isolation, resorting to hunger strikes to try to bring attention to their unjust imprisonment and ill-treatment in detention.

    Human rights lawyer Dr Mohammed Al-Roken, who has been detained since July 2012 solely for peacefully exercising his rights to freedom of expression and association, including through his work as a lawyer, is serving a 10-year prison sentence for signing - along with 132 other people - an online petition calling for political reform. He was convicted and sentenced following a grossly unfair mass trial of 94 people (known as the “UAE 94” trial) including human rights lawyers, judges and student activists. Among them, was another human rights lawyer, Dr Mohammed Al-Mansoori who was also arrested in July 2012 and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Dr Al-Mansoori had not been allowed to contact his family for over a year, and was only permitted to do so recently. Both men are being held in Al-Razeen prison, a maximum-security prison in the desert of Abu Dhabi, which is used to hold activists, government critics, and human rights defenders. They face arbitrary and unlawful disciplinary measures, such as solitary confinement, deprivation of family visits, and intrusive body searches.

    Dr Al-Roken was a member of the International Association of Lawyers (UIA) and the International Bar Association, and both Dr Al-Roken and Dr Al-Mansoori served as president of the UAE’s Jurists Association before its arbitrary dissolution by the Emirati authorities in 2011. Dr Al-Roken has authored books on human rights, constitutional law, and counterterrorism. He dedicated his career to providing legal assistance to victims of human rights violations in the UAE, for which he was awarded the Ludovic Trarieux International Human Rights Prize in 2017. Over two dozen NGOs called for his release in November 2019.

    Academic and economist Dr. Nasser Bin Ghaith, a lecturer at the Abu Dhabi branch of the Paris-Sorbonne University, was sentenced on 29 March 2017 to 10 years in prison for critical comments he made online about human rights violations in the UAE and Egypt.

    In a letter written from prison, Dr. Bin Ghaith stated that “the verdict proves that there is no place for freedom of speech in this country” and announced that he would begin a hunger strike until he was released unconditionally. He has also undertaken subsequent hunger strikes to protest conditions in Al-Razeen prison, including to demand his immediate release following the pardon of British academic Matthew Hedges on 26 November 2018, a week after he was sentenced to life in prison on spying allegations. Hedges was held, mainly incommunicado and in degrading and inhuman conditions for seven months, until he faced an unfair trial on charges of spying for the United Kingdom government.

    In October 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, calling on the UAE to, among other demands, stop all forms of harassment and immediately lift the travel ban against human rights defenders, and urging the authorities to “guarantee in all circumstances that human rights defenders in the UAE are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities, both inside and outside the country, without fear of reprisals”.

    The Hay Festival Abu Dhabi is supported by the UAE’s Ministry of Tolerance, in a country that does not tolerate dissenting voices. Regrettably, the UAE government devotes more effort to concealing its human rights abuses than to addressing them and invests heavily in the funding and sponsorship of institutions, events and initiatives that are aimed at projecting a favourable image to the outside world.

    With the world’s eyes on the Hay Festival Abu Dhabi, we urge the Emirati government to consider using this opportunity to unconditionally release our jailed friends and colleagues, and in the interim, to at least allow prisoners of conscience to receive books and reading materials, to have regular visits with family, to be allowed outside of their isolation cells to visit the canteen or go outside in the sun. In particular, we ask that Ahmed Mansoor be given a bed and a mattress so that he no longer has to sleep on the floor, and that prison officials cease punishing him for public appeals that are made on his behalf. We ask the authorities to improve their prison conditions as a sign of goodwill and respect for people who wish to organise and participate in events in the UAE, such as the Hay Festival Abu Dhabi or the upcoming Expo 2020 Dubai, in the future. By doing so, the UAE would demonstrate that the Hay Festival is an opportunity to back up its promise of tolerance with actions that include the courageous contributors to freedom of expression who live in the country.

    Signatories:

    Access Now
    Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain

    Amnesty International

    Arabic Network for Human Rights Information

    Association for Victims of Torture in the UAE 

    Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC)

    Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)

    Campaign to FreeLatifa

    CIVICUS

    Committee to Protect Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia

    Detained in Dubai

    Detained International

    Electronic Frontier Foundation

    European Center for Democracy and Human Rights 

    FIDH, in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

    Front Line Defenders

    Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)

    IFEX

    International Campaign for Freedom in the UAE

    International Centre for Justice and Human Rights 

    International Press Institute (IPI)

    International Publishers Association (IPA)

    International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

    Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada 

    Maharat Foundation

    MENA Rights Group

    No Peace Without Justice 

    Norwegian PEN

    PEN America

    PEN International

    Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)

    Rights Realization Centre

    Tunisian Association for the Defense of Individual Liberties

    Tunisian League for the Defense of Human Rights

    Tunis Center for Press Freedom

    Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State, Tunisia

    World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

    April Alderdice, CEO MicroEnergy Credits

    Fadi Al-Qadi, author and MENA human rights expert

    Noam Chomsky, Professor

    Ronald Deibert, Director of the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto

    Brian Dooley, human rights advocate

    Drewery Dyke, human rights advocate

    Jonathan Emmett, author

    Stephen Fry, author and presenter

    Ahmed Galai, Ex-Vice President of the Tunisian Human Rights League (member of the National Dialogue Quartet, co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2015)

    Melanie Gingell, human rights lawyer

    Chris Haughton, author

    Matthew Hedges, PhD candidate and former prisoner in the UAE

    Bill Law, journalist

    Artur Ligęska, Polish activist and former prisoner in the UAE

    Danielle Maisano, novelist, poet and activist

    Michael Mansfield QC, Barrister

    Albert Pellicer, poet and lecturer

    Simone Theiss, human rights advocate
  • UN member states must show their commitment to justice and accountability for the people of Myanmar

    Statement at the 54th Session of the UN Human Rights Council 

    Interactive Dialogue on the report of Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar

    Delivered by May Thiri Khin, Burma Human Rights Network

    We thank the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) for their recent report. The creation of the IIMM has been an important step by this Council to strengthen its efforts for justice and accountability.  

    The Burma Human Rights Network is a civil society organisation working to document crimes against Muslim minorities and others in Myanmar while CIVICUS has been tracking attacks on civic space including the torture, sexual violence and killings of political and human rights activists in detention, as also documented by the IIMM. 

    We welcome the engagement of the IIMM with civil society and survivors. We recommend the IIMM ensure more regular and transparent communication and coordination with affected communities and civil society in Myanmar and Bangladesh through more dedicated IIMM outreach focal points who can speak Burmese and other ethnic languages. We also request the IIMM to translate its updates into more ethnic languages.

    We encourage the IIMM to continue to investigate crimes against Muslim and other ethnic minorities throughout the country. We also urge the IIMM to better support Myanmar human rights organisations on investigative standards, tools, and techniques. Such trainings will allow them to better support the mechanism’s mandate by submitting evidence collected according to best practices and international standards.  

    We encourage all UN member states to show theircommitment to justice and accountability for the people of Myanmar byincreasing their support to civil society groupsandactivists documenting serious crimes,continuing to fund the IIMM and to support ongoing international justice mechanisms.

    We thank you.

    Civic space in Myanmar is rated as Closed by the CIVICUS Monitor
  • Une réponse internationale unifiée et coordonnée s’impose face aux attaques de la Russie en Ukraine

    L'alliance mondiale de la société civile CIVICUS est solidaire du peuple ukrainien et appelle à une réponse internationale rapide, unifiée et ciblée sur la Russie.
  • Unified and coordinated international response a must in face of Russia’s attacks on Ukraine

    Read the statement in Russian

    Global civil society alliance CIVICUS stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and calls for a swift, unified and targeted international response on Russia.
  • UNITED NATIONS: ‘Outstanding issues on the binding treaty on business and human rights are mainly political’

    Fernanda HopenhaymCIVICUS speaks with Fernanda Hopenhaym, chair of the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Business and Human Rights, about the process to develop a binding international treaty on business and human rights.

    Why is a binding treaty on business and human rights so important?

    The process to develop this treaty stems from the conviction that a legally binding instrument is needed to regulate the obligations of private companies and, above all, to facilitate access to justice for victims of their abuses. Its aim is to incorporate human rights protections in the context of business activity.

    An international treaty would transcend the jurisdictional limitations of states. Transnational capital operates across borders. Huge numbers of companies in most sectors operate global supply chains. When abuses occur somewhere in these chains, it is very difficult for victims to access justice, as there are no justice mechanisms that transcend borders. Corporate operations are transnational but justice is not.

    Of course, states must take measures at the domestic level, strengthen their regulations, improve their laws and develop public policy and action plans to ensure effective protection of human rights. And companies must also make commitments to improve their practices. The treaty under negotiation would be part of a package of measures that are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

    The treaty process began in June 2014, when the UN Human Rights Council established an open-endedintergovernmental working group mandated to negotiate and agree on an international legally binding instrument to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises under international human rights law.

    What role is the Working Group on Business and Human Rights playing?

    TheWorking Group on Business and Human Rights is a UN special procedure, established by a 2011resolution of the Human Rights Council, with a mandate to promote, disseminate and implement theGuiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, exchange and promote good practices and lessons learned from the implementation of the Guiding Principles, and assess and make recommendations on these. Its mandate has been successively renewed in 2014, 2017 and 2020. It is composed of five independent experts, mostly academics, and has balanced geographical representation. I have been a member of the Working Group since 2021. The other four current members are from Australia, Nigeria, Poland and Thailand. Three of the five of us are women.

    While it does not have any decision-making authority over the Treaty, the Working Group plays an important role. We participate in almost all negotiating sessions through roundtables and discussions and we provide technical opinions. We have commented on the draft articles and we encourage the proactive participation of states from different regions of the world.

    One of the premises of the Guiding Principles is the development of measures that can be combined in order to address the problems that exist in relation to the protection of human rights in the context of business activity. A legally binding instrument is just one of those necessary measures.

    The Working Group has been very clear in sending out a message favourable to the treaty negotiation process.

    What progress has been made in negotiating the treaty?

    In the previousinterview we had in 2018, the process had been going on for four years. At that time the fourth session of negotiations, based on the ‘zero draft’, was about to start in Geneva. And I was not yet part of the Working Group. Four more years have passed, and at the eighth session held in October 2022, the third draft, which emerged in advance of the 2021 negotiations, was discussed.

    The pandemic affected the negotiation processes, partly because face-to-face contact was not possible for a long time. Representatives and delegates in Geneva, for example, were unable to meet in person for more than a year, so the possibilities for exchanges were severely limited. In turn, the pandemic affected the participation of civil society and other stakeholders in the discussions. Processes slowed down and therefore were extended.

    Currently, the third draft is still being discussed, and Ecuador, which chairs the Intergovernmental Working Group, has apparently said that it will not bring yet another new draft to the table, but that changes, modifications and additions will continue to be made to this third draft. Eventually, all these adjustments will lead to a final draft.

    The current draft has come a long way on issues such as acknowledging vulnerable groups, women, children and Indigenous peoples. Its scope, which was a very tough issue to negotiate, has also been clarified. In general, civil society’s position is to prioritise transnational corporations, while the current draft proposes that all companies should be under the umbrella of the treaty. The current draft reflects the position shared by our Working Group. A number of issues have been untangled, although there are still many things to be resolved.

    What are the unresolved issues?

    There are many discussions that are more political than technical. Some states and the private sector have said that the text is too prescriptive and rigid. Civil society has expressed that it wants more clarification and specificity on some issues such as the definition of the courts where cases covered by the treaty would be adjudicated and the consideration of the victims’ perspective, as the burden of proof remains a contentious issue. On this point the Working Group has been very clear: states have an obligation to facilitate access to justice and to remove barriers and obstacles for victims to access justice.

    While the European Union (EU) and the USA participate in this process, they lack conviction on the direction of the text. The EU is very active, but I see divergent positions among its member states. Many countries, such as France, support it, but the EU as a whole maintains reservations.

    One of the great triumphs of the early process was that China did not block it, but rather abstained. The same was true of India. This was partly because the treaty was supposed to be about transnational corporations. China has not approved of the extension of the treaty’s scope to all companies and has lately taken a more negative position.

    African states have participated very little in the last two rounds of negotiations. We believe that South Africa, which was co-leader with Ecuador when the resolution that initiated the process was negotiated, is also unhappy with the expanded focus beyond transnational corporations. Ecuador has recently called for the formation of a ‘friends of theChair‘ group and Africa is the only region without participating members.

    Latin America in comparison is participating quite proactively, although the region has experienced many political changes, including in Ecuador itself, which are likely to influence negotiating positions.

    In sum, there are ongoing technical discussions on the draft articles, but most of the outstanding issues are mainly political discussions. For this reason, I think the process will take several more years.

    Do you think that the final version of the treaty will meet civil society expectations?

    My hope is that we will not be left with a treaty that sets out good intentions without establishing clear rules. As is the case in all negotiations of this nature, some of the issues civil society is calling for will probably be left pending. There is a lot to accommodate: the perspectives of states, the expectations of business and the private sector in general, and the demands of civil society and all rights holders.

    I would expect a pretty good text, which in some ways reflects the character of the process, which has included a very strong civil society and social movements. From my perspective, the process has been sustained not only by the commitment of states to negotiate, but also by the impetus of civil society and dialogue among all involved.

    My expectations are intermediate. With some caution as to the scope of the articles, I think the treaty will contain some elements that satisfy civil society, and particularly victims.

    What work will need to be done once the treaty is adopted?

    To begin with, I think there is a long way to go before this treaty is adopted. It may still take several more years. There is a long way to go in the negotiations and regarding the content of the text.

    Once the treaty is adopted, ratification will have to be pushed through. Let us remember that international treaties only enter into force when a certain number of states ratify them, and only those states that ratify them are bound by them. This is where I see a huge challenge ahead. Hopefully, once we get to produce a good, comprehensive text, the process of ratification will not be so slow and cumbersome.

    For this to happen, we will need a strong civil society to push states to ratify the treaty so it enters into force and becomes binding on the signatory parties. Again, I would expect this process to be long and arduous, as the issue of human rights protection in the context of business is a thorny one, given that there are many interests at stake. What lies ahead will be a big challenge for all involved.

     Follow@fernanda_ho and@WGBizHRs on Twitter.

     
  • VENEZUELA: ‘The government wants a civil society aligned with its interests, tamed and silent’

    Alí DanielsCIVICUS discusses the ‘anti-NGO law’ recently passed in Venezuela with Alí Daniels, Co-Director of Acceso a la Justicia, a civil society organisation (CSO) dedicated to monitoring justice administration and the rule of law in Venezuela.

    On 15 August, Venezuela’s National Assemblyapproved a bill known as the ‘anti-NGO law’, which severely restricts freedom of association. The law requires CSOs to declare the origin of their funding, imposes strict reporting obligations, including a requirement to provide sensitive information, and bans organisations deemed to promote ‘fascism, intolerance and hatred’. The measure, proposed some time ago, was finally adopted after the28 July presidential election, which the opposition won by a large margin. The government has ignored the results, violently suppressed democracy protests and sought to stifle all sources of dissent.

    What’s the anti-NGO law, and what’s its place within the ruling regime’s repressive machinery?

    This new law has been presented as an instrument to regulate the exercise of freedoms of association and expression, when in fact it seeks to hinder it. One third of its 39 articles contain severe sanctions such as fines, deregistration, expulsion of foreigners and the dissolution of organisations. Although it claims to seek greater transparency and accountability, it contains only two articles on this issue, which was already regulated by the Civil Code.

    One of the most worrying aspects of the new law is that it obliges CSOs to reregister within 180 days and could leave them in legal limbo if they don’t receive a response from the authorities. It also imposes annual reviews, creating an unnecessary administrative burden even for those lacking financial resources.

    The anti-NGO law is part of a long-standing strategy of repression that includes human rights violations such as enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial executions. It’s another cog in a repressive machine that includes measures such as revoking the passports of human rights defenders and activists, illegal surveillance of phones and social media and censorship of platforms such as WhatsApp and Twitter/X. Senior government officials have already labelled us terrorists, encouraging and justifying the intensification of repression.

    The anti-NGO law can also be seen as a response to international pressure questioning the legitimacy of the 28 July election. With it, the government is doubling down on its willingness to punish anyone who questions its legitimacy.

    What impact could this law have?

    We are very concerned that the new law is very similar to Nicaragua’s, which in just one year has led to more than 3,000 CSOs being made illegal.

    In the medium term, the new law could have a serious impact on the humanitarian situation. The new restrictions could lead to a reduction in the number of CSOs, while those that still operate may be forced to reduce their capacity to implement projects. Many CSOs may end up opting to become informal groups. While this would reduce costs, it would also limit their ability to receive funding, as donors often prefer to work with formal legal entities.

    The damage this could cause is not limited to CSOs – it also affects the people who depend on their services. For political reasons, the Venezuelan government adopts contradictory positions: it forces bankrupt companies to keep operating, allegedly to ‘protect jobs’, but it dissolves CSOs for failing to pay a fine. It claims to protect jobs, but dissolves organisations that create jobs in the humanitarian field.

    The anti-NGO law is designed to limit the independence of civil society, allowing only likeminded CSOs to operate. The government wants a civil society that’s aligned with its interests, tamed and silent.

    How is civil society working for a democratic transition in Venezuela?

    In a context marked by censorship of political expression and press freedom, Venezuelan civil society is playing a crucial role in the struggle for a democratic transition. In the face of restrictions on political parties and government control of the media, CSOs have become reliable sources of information, providing an alternative analysis to the official narrative. We provide data the government would rather hide, such as the rise in child malnutrition. We show reality as it is, and that’s why they want to suppress us.

    CSOs act as monitors and whistleblowers, offering critical analysis and proposing alternatives for Venezuela’s future. We advocate for dialogue and a negotiated transition, but we also set clear ethical and legal boundaries to ensure those responsible for crimes against humanity are brought to justice.

    How can the international community support civil society in Venezuela?

    The international community can help us keep what is happening in Venezuela in the global debate by echoing our condemnation of human rights violations and crimes against humanity. This is extremely important so those more ideologically reticent can recognise that human rights violations have no ideology and torture is unacceptable and must be condemned and punished no matter who commits it.

    It’s important that states with influence over the Venezuelan government, such as Brazil and Colombia, use their position to encourage dialogue. Diplomatic pressure and mediation by friendly countries could facilitate a process of negotiation and peaceful resolution. We have been facing a complex humanitarian emergency for more than two decades; any support to alleviate the crisis is greatly appreciated and will continue to give us hope and strength to face the very serious situation we are in.

    Civic space in Venezuela is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

    Get in touch with Acceso a la Justicia through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@AccesoaJusticia and@alijdaniels on Twitter.
  • Zambia: Immediate drop-off trumped-up charges on Journalist Eric Chiyuka

    CIVICUS calls on the Zambian authorities to immediately drop all the charges against journalist and activist Eric Chiyuka.
  • ZIMBABWE: ‘Election violence is a cover for ideological ambivalence and lack of substantive programmes’

    WellingtonMbofanaCIVICUS speaks about the general election in Zimbabwe and the role of civil society with Wellington Mbofana, former director ofthe Civic Education Network Trust (CIVNET), a civil society organisation (CSO) that recently shut down due to lack of funding, and a former board member of several Zimbabwean CSOs.

    What was at stake in this election?

    It’s difficult to pinpoint a single crucial issue that was at stake. Over a considerable period, Zimbabwean elections, much like those in other parts of Africa, have ceased to revolve around substantive issues and have instead become centred on political parties and personalities. This trend is evident in this election, in which major political parties failed to present their manifestos in a timely manner. The main opposition party, Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), unveiled its programme merely two weeks prior to voting, while the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) didn’t even bother.

    Given the crumbling state of the economy, reflected in record-breaking unemployment, pervasive economic informality, escalating poverty, the world’s second-highest inflation rate and a sense of hopelessness, economic strife remained the most prominent concern for voters. Ideally, the competition should have revolved around two or three contrasting strategies for addressing these economic woes. However, what we observed was a cloud of obfuscation. The ruling party advanced a narrative that conditions are improving and investors are flocking to the country, but progress would be even greater if it weren’t for sanctions imposed by Western states. The opposition pledged to outperform ZANU-PF across all fronts. But neither specified how they would fund their proposed initiatives.

    To deal with Zimbabwe’s predicament effectively the government would need to confront a range of issues, including land reform and productivity, water shortages, electricity generation, infrastructure development and urbanisation and, most importantly, guarantee the required funding.

    It should have been important to ensure the meaningfulness of this election because when elections fail, civil unrest and coups ensue, a truth that Africa has repeatedly witnessed.

    Was there any election-related violence?

    The prevalence of violence in all its manifestations – physical, structural and cultural – remains an unfortunate hallmark of Zimbabwean elections. Lives have been lost, injuries endured and property destroyed as a result.

    It is also important to note that because of its fractured politics, the country is in a perpetual election mode. Over the past five years, we have had multiple recalls from parliament and local authorities, leading to by-elections. Instances of intra-party violence have also occurred during parliamentary and primary elections. The culture upholding the idea that wielding the strongest fist is the key to ascending to power must change. Violence is a cover for ideological ambivalence and lack of substantive programmes. Who needs a manifesto when you can use force?

    What tactics did the government use to stifle dissent in the run-up to the election?

    The ruling party stands accused of engaging in lawfare, a tactic that uses laws to constrain the opposition and human rights defenders. These efforts are facilitated by an allegedly captured judiciary. A prominent CCC legislator, Job Sikhala, along with other political activists and human rights defenders, languish in remand prisons on spurious allegations after being denied bail.

    The government introduced controversial laws aimed at silencing dissent. The Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Act, commonly called the Patriotic Bill, are clearly designed to deal with critics of the government.

    The Patriotic Bill came into force on 14 July 2023. With this bill, the government created a new crime of ‘wilfully injuring the sovereignty and national interest of Zimbabwe’.  The scope and definition of this offence is vague. There are valid concerns that law enforcement agencies will interpret the law broadly and use it to stifle and penalise the work of independent civil society.

    Citizens and permanent residents of Zimbabwe will be found guilty if they participate in meetings aimed at discussing or plotting armed intervention in Zimbabwe, subverting or overthrowing its government and implementing or extending sanctions or trade boycotts against Zimbabwe. A meeting encompasses any form of communication involving two or more people, regardless of whether it takes place offline or online.

    Participating in discussions about armed intervention can result in life imprisonment or the death penalty if the meeting involves planning such an intervention. Discussing subversion or overthrow of the government is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Taking part in meetings discussing sanctions or trade boycotts can lead to a fine of up to US$12,000 or up to 10 years in prison, or both. Aggravated offences may lead to consequences such as the termination of citizenship for those who are not citizens by birth or descent, cancellation of residence permits for non-citizens and disqualification from voting or holding public office for five to 15 years.

    In the hands of overzealous and partisan law enforcement agents, this punitive law is very dangerous. It seems to target not only the opposition and civil society but also factions within the fractured ruling party and the military. It likely seeks to prevent a recurrence of a military-assisted transition, which brought the current government to power in 2017. That coup was willingly accepted by powerful global players, including the African Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which inadvertently endorsed the idea of military change of power.

    How did Zimbabwean civil society engage with the electoral process?

    Civil society was actively involved in electoral activities throughout the electoral cycle. CSOs play a pivotal role in providing voter education, observing elections, advocating for electoral reforms, safeguarding human rights and offering legal, medical and psycho-social assistance to victims of human rights violations.

    Both local and international observers were generally allowed and accredited. However, there were isolated cases, such as the denial of accreditation to Musa Kika, allegedly due to security risks, while some local citizens encountered intimidation, harassment and threats from unidentified people after engaging with international observers.

    But unfortunately, the last couple of years have been very difficult for Zimbabwean. Several CSOs have shut down. CIVNET, a major organisation providing civic education, closed its doors this year due to lack of funding.

    The Zimbabwean economy is too fragile to support a strong civil society, which heavily relies on international donors and solidarity. Further international support should be rendered to all groups promoting development, good governance, human rights, justice and the rule of law. The international community should also amplify local voices and exert pressure on the Zimbabwean government to act in accordance with international human rights and democratic standards.

    What did CIVNET work on?

    CIVNET operated through three main programmes: the Citizen Participation Programme, including two projects on constitutionalism and voter education, the Leadership Development Programme and the Peace Building Programme.

    The Citizen Participation Programme encouraged citizen engagement in governance and development, fostering collaboration between communities and local authorities through participatory workshops and development projects. The Constitution and Constitutionalism Project aimed to raise awareness about the significance of the new constitution and share information on how to use it to exercise human rights and honour obligations as citizens.

    The Leadership Development Programme enhanced leadership skills of people engaged in community projects. Our graduates now lead various Zimbabwean CSOs and work in local authorities and parliament. CIVNET contributed to the formation and development of CSOs such as the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, the Zimbabwe Peace Project and the Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe. It was also a key member of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGOs Forum.

    The Peace Building Programme helped people and communities divided by conflict to reach out to each other and mend broken relations. This was done through creatively designed workshops that provided security and safety to both victims and perpetrators of violent conflicts. Mediators were also trained to address local disputes, resulting in transformed relationships and improved dialogue within previously divided communities.

    To what extent could the election be called free and fair?

    The concept of free and fair elections involves political freedoms and fair processes prior to elections, culminating in the casting of votes by well-informed eligible voters able to vote freely for candidates and parties of their choice. A transparent tally of all valid votes, accurate result announcements and universal acceptance of the election outcomes by all parties are integral components of this concept.

    Past elections in Zimbabwe have been contested at courts and other institutions. For Zimbabwe to uphold its position within the international community, this election would have to gain universal recognition as credible, legitimate and conducted in a free and fair manner. It would be key to ensure the acceptance of its outcome and secure peace and stability to attract investors.

    The 2023 election was disputed in the legal arena even before a single ballot was cast. This may be a harbinger of future developments. On 12 July, the Electoral Court disqualified a presidential candidate, Savior Kasukuwere, whose participation had been previously permitted by the Nomination Court. Then the High Court disqualified 12 CCC parliamentary candidates, ostensibly for late filings, although the Nomination Court had accepted their submissions. Both decisions favoured the ruling party. However, following an appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s verdict on the 12 CCC candidates, leading to their reinstatement on the ballot. On 19 July the electoral court ruled in favour of a leader of the opposition United Zimbabwe Alliance party, Elizabeth Valerio, whose candidacy had been initially rejected by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), also for alleged untimely filing.

    Declaring the election to be free and fair would be unreasonable given the political environment characterised by violence, intimidation and voter suppression, non-transparent processes with the electoral roll and ballot paper printing, pre-voting by security personnel, biased media coverage, opposition rallies barred by the police, vote buying through handouts, influence from traditional and religious leaders on voters, misuse of government resources for party campaigns and indications that some parties will reject any outcome other than their own victory, implying that the ruling party wouldn’t have handed over power if it had lost. Indeed, SADC decided to abandon the term ‘free and fair’ regarding Zimbabwean elections, instead referring to them as ‘legitimate’.

    What electoral reforms are needed?

    Adherence to rule of law and impartial management of elections is essential. The ZEC should enforce the Electoral Code of Conduct, safeguarding the right for all to express their political views and campaign freely. It must also ensure fairness by curbing the misuse of state resources, preventing intimidation, harassment and destruction of campaign materials and improving voter education.

    The police should fulfil their constitutional duties impartially, without bias, fear, or favour. Political parties should adhere to the Code of Conduct for Political Parties and Candidates. This entails refraining from violence, misuse of public resources for partisan ends, coercion and intimidation of the electorate and inciting violence through hate speech and derogatory language.

    Were there any issues with people being prevented from voting, and what do you expect to happen next?

    A high turnout was to be expected given the high stakes. The economy has done its own campaign, motivating people to participate. The ruling party also mobilised people, especially in rural areas, by any means necessary.

    However, many voters might not have been able to locate their names on the register. The polling station-based system is such that people living in a specific neighbourhood can only vote at a certain polling station. In the 2018 election, a lot of people found their names had been removed from their usual stations without a change having been requested, while others who requested changes after moving to other districts saw those changes unimplemented. Following the election, many constituencies and councils had elected representatives recalled by political parties in power. Since there are no guarantees that this won’t happen again, some people may have been discouraged from voting.

    Based on experience, disputes around results and their resolution by the courts are to be expected. Given that the judiciary is perceived to be captured and judges were given significant ‘housing loans’ before the election, judgements against the opposition are also rightly likely to be perceived as unfair.

    Civic space in Zimbabwe is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  • Zimbabwe: Civil society concerned as human rights violations persist after violent reprisal for protests

    Human rights violations continue in Zimbabwe in the aftermath of the violent attacks against protesters on 14 to 16 January 2019. More than 700 people have been detained. The military continues to physically assault citizens and the legal process for many of those who are in detention is seriously flawed. We need to stand in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe and call on the government to address the concerns of its citizens, stop all human rights violations, demilitarise the streets and release all those detained in relation to the protests. Sign the letter below addressed to President Emmerson Mnangagwa with a call for him to address these human rights concerns.

    21 February 2019

    Office of the President and Cabinet

    Munhumutapa Building

    Corner Samora Machel Avenue and Sam Nujoma

    Harare, Zimbabwe

    Tel: 00 263 24270 7091/7

    Email:

     

    Dear Sir,

    Re: Civil society concerned as human rights violations persist after violent reprisal for protests

    We the undersigned civil society organisations, based in different countries across the world, write to you to express our concerns over the continued human rights violations taking place in Zimbabwe, more than a month after the violent reprisal for protests. We are appalled at the ongoing violence targeting ordinary citizens and members of civil society and high levels of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for these actions.

    Mr. President, there is an urgent need for inclusive dialogue in Zimbabwe and for the deep divisions and mistrust fostered by recent events between the government, civil society and citizens to be addressed. Since protests were violently dispersed from 14 to 16 January 2019, the streets in Zimbabwe have been heavily militarised and soldiers have been breaking into homes and subjecting citizens to some of the worst forms of human rights violations that have included shootings, severe assaults and rape. The human cost from the response to the protests is immense. At least seventeen people were killed during the protests or succumbed to injuries from the violations, more than 316 injured, many with gunshot wounds, and at least 700 arbitrarily arrested or detained. The arbitrary arrests and sentencing of many is at variance with Zimbabwe’s Criminal Procedures and Evidence Act. A majority of those detained have been subjected to flawed legal processes including mass trials, and many are been denied bail. Some have been brought to the courts with visible injuries, requiring urgent medical attention and many more subjected to mass trials without proper access to legal representation. There is an urgent need for the respect the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

    We are concerned by reports which indicate that in the aftermath of the protests, security forces raided medical facilities, including the Belvedere Medical Centre in Harare, where some of the injured received medical attention and assaulted them again before whisking them off to detention in police stations. Many human rights defenders and civil society representatives have been targeted and accused of colluding with the political opposition to “unseat” the regime. Some have been forced to go into hiding in Zimbabwe and others have had to flee the country to avoid being subjected to torture or worse. Human rights defender Pastor Evan Mawarire is free on stringent bail conditions and also faces charges of subverting the government while the Secretary General of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) Japhet Moyo has been detained and injured and faces charges of attempting to overthrow a constitutionally elected government.

    Mr. President, before the 30 July 2018 elections, many Zimbabweans – and most of us in the international community – had hoped to see a peaceful political transition that would usher a new dawn where the rule of law was upheld, and the fundamental rights of all citizens respected. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a continuation of violence against citizens who legitimately exercise their discontent over excessive hikes in the prices of basic commodities and a deteriorating economic environment. While we welcome the release of some of those detained, many more remain behind bars unjustly.

    We urge your government to initiate efforts to find a lasting solution to the challenges affecting Zimbabwe.

    We appeal to you to urgently organise a multi-stakeholder dialogue process that will bring together your government, members of civil society, the political opposition, youth, academics, labour representatives and representatives of the religious community and minority groups, to chart a path to peace, in which all Zimbabweans can participate.

    We urge your government to immediately withdraw armed soldiers out of residential and city areas in both urban and rural Zimbabwe and to carry out an independent investigation into the violence and ensure that perpetrators from the Zimbabwe National Army and Zimbabwe police are held accountable.

    Endorsed by

    * indicates required
     
     
     

Page 6 of 7

Sign up for our newsletters

Our Newsletters

civicus logo white

CIVICUS is a global alliance that champions the power of civil society to create positive change.

brand x FacebookLogo YoutubeLogo InstagramLogo LinkedinLogo

 

Headquarters

25  Owl Street, 6th Floor

Johannesburg
South Africa
2092

Tel: +27 (0)11 833 5959


Fax: +27 (0)11 833 7997

UN Hub: New York

CIVICUS, c/o We Work

450 Lexington Ave

New York
NY
10017

United States

UN Hub: Geneva

11 Avenue de la Paix

Geneva

Switzerland
CH-1202

Tel: +41 (0)79 910 3428