LHR details incidents of alleged abuse and torture against 16 inmates by correctional officials.
Allegations of severe torture against 16 inmates who allegedly witnessed the murder of another inmate by wardens at the Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre in Pretoria, have surfaced.
Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) have now requested the Pretoria Central Police station to investigate the allegations.
In a letter sent to the station commander, LHR details incidents of alleged abuse and torture against 16 inmates by correctional officials.
Clare Ballard, head of LHR’s Penal Reform Programme, said they were prompted to call for the investigation after receiving an increasing number of complaints of severe assault.
It appears that the alleged incidents of assault have, for the most part, occurred during purported search and seizure operations.
“If we are to prevent incidents of assault and torture, which our international obligations indeed require of us, then the criminal prosecution of those responsible for assaults and torture is vital,” said Ballard.
Source: The Citizen
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Thursday, September 6, 2012
US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya
Delivered Into Enemy Hands
When rebel forces overtook Tripoli in August 2011, prison doors were opened and office files exposed, revealing startling new information about Libya’s relations with other countries. One such revelation, documented in this report, is the degree of involvement of the United States government under the Bush administration in the arrest of opponents of the former Libyan Leader, Muammar Gaddafi, living abroad, the subsequent torture and other ill-treatment of many of them in US custody, and their forced transfer to back to Libya.
The United States played the most extensive role in the abuses, but other countries, notably the United Kingdom, were also involved.
This is an important chapter in the larger story of the secret and abusive US detention program established under the government of George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the rendition of individuals to countries with known records of torture.
This report is based mostly on Human Rights Watch interviews with 14 former detainees now residing freely in post-Gaddafi Libya and information contained in Libyan government files discovered abandoned immediately after Gaddafi’s fall (the “Tripoli Documents”). It provides detailed evidence of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in US custody, including a credible account of “waterboarding,” and a similar account of water abuse that brings the victim close to suffocation. Both types of abuse amount to torture. The allega-tions cast serious doubts on prior assertions from US government officials that only three people were waterboarded in US custody. They also reflect just how little the public still knows about what went on in the US secret detention program.
The report also sheds light on the failure of the George W. Bush administration, in the pursuit of suspects behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, to distinguish between Islam-ists who were in fact targeting the United States and those who may simply have been engaged in armed opposition against their own repressive regimes. This failure risked aligning the United States with brutal dictators and aided their efforts to dismiss all political opponents as terrorists.
The report examines the roles of other governments in the abuse of detainees in custody and in unlawful renditions to Libya despite demonstrable evidence the detainees would be seriously mistreated upon return. Countries linked to these accounts include: Afghanistan, Chad, China and Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sudan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
Finally, the report shows that individuals rendered to Libya were tortured or otherwise ill-treated in Libyan prisons, including in two cases where the Tripoli Documents make clear the United States sought assurances that their basic rights would be respected. All were held in incommunicado detention—many in solitary confinement— for prolonged periods without trial. When finally tried, they found that the proceedings fell far short of international fair trial standards.
Source: Human Rights Watch
All we seek is justice.… We hope the new Libya, freed from its dictator, will have positive relationships with the West. But this relationship must be built on respect and justice. Only by admitting and apologizing for past mis-takes … can we move forward together as friends. —Abdul Hakim Belhadj, military commander during the Libyan uprising who had been forcibly returned to Libya in 2004 with US and UK involvement, Libya, April 12, 2012
When rebel forces overtook Tripoli in August 2011, prison doors were opened and office files exposed, revealing startling new information about Libya’s relations with other countries. One such revelation, documented in this report, is the degree of involvement of the United States government under the Bush administration in the arrest of opponents of the former Libyan Leader, Muammar Gaddafi, living abroad, the subsequent torture and other ill-treatment of many of them in US custody, and their forced transfer to back to Libya.
The United States played the most extensive role in the abuses, but other countries, notably the United Kingdom, were also involved.
This is an important chapter in the larger story of the secret and abusive US detention program established under the government of George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the rendition of individuals to countries with known records of torture.
This report is based mostly on Human Rights Watch interviews with 14 former detainees now residing freely in post-Gaddafi Libya and information contained in Libyan government files discovered abandoned immediately after Gaddafi’s fall (the “Tripoli Documents”). It provides detailed evidence of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in US custody, including a credible account of “waterboarding,” and a similar account of water abuse that brings the victim close to suffocation. Both types of abuse amount to torture. The allega-tions cast serious doubts on prior assertions from US government officials that only three people were waterboarded in US custody. They also reflect just how little the public still knows about what went on in the US secret detention program.
The report also sheds light on the failure of the George W. Bush administration, in the pursuit of suspects behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, to distinguish between Islam-ists who were in fact targeting the United States and those who may simply have been engaged in armed opposition against their own repressive regimes. This failure risked aligning the United States with brutal dictators and aided their efforts to dismiss all political opponents as terrorists.
The report examines the roles of other governments in the abuse of detainees in custody and in unlawful renditions to Libya despite demonstrable evidence the detainees would be seriously mistreated upon return. Countries linked to these accounts include: Afghanistan, Chad, China and Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sudan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
Finally, the report shows that individuals rendered to Libya were tortured or otherwise ill-treated in Libyan prisons, including in two cases where the Tripoli Documents make clear the United States sought assurances that their basic rights would be respected. All were held in incommunicado detention—many in solitary confinement— for prolonged periods without trial. When finally tried, they found that the proceedings fell far short of international fair trial standards.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Bradley Manning defense files motion to dismiss charges over pre-trial abuse
The defense attorney of accused Army whistleblower Bradley Manning filed a 110-page motion on July 27 requesting that all charges against the soldier be dismissed. The motion was made on the basis of Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which bans “punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against [a detainee].”
Manning’s lead attorney, David Coombs, wrote that “[t]he defense does not believe that there has ever been such an egregious case of unlawful pretrial punishment in Army history. This court needs to send a message that an unlawful order to keep a pretrial detainee in the equivalent of solitary confinement for almost nine months cannot—and will not—be tolerated."
Article 13 states that unnecessary pre-trial punishment is grounds for dismissal of charges.
Coombs also filed a motion of continuance based on the government’s withholding of 84 emails that reveal high-ranking Armed Forces complicity in ordering the mistreatment of Manning. The emails reveal that at least one three-star general specifically ordered Manning’s unbearable conditions, which some argue violate the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
As Coombs points out in his continuance filing, government officials withheld the emails until 9:15 p.m. on the night of July 26—less than three hours before the deadline to file an Article 13 motion—despite the court’s previously elaborated requirement that all documentation that is “obviously material to the preparation of the defense” be made available.
The military judge overseeing the hearings will almost certainly not dismiss the charges. Regardless of legal precedent, the Obama administration is determined to ruin Manning’s life for helping make public over 700,000 files that serve as evidence to the crimes of US imperialism.
The force with which the government is attacking Manning expresses its nervousness, as well as its resolve to prevent future leaks that may jeopardize attempts to maintain and expand its geo-political domination. Prosecutors are seemingly using any archaic, anti-democratic charge on the books in an attempt to destroy the young man.
The 34 counts being brought against Manning read as a laundry list of state despotism, from “treason”, “aiding the enemy” and “embezzlement and theft”, to “sedition”, and “espionage”. Government prosecutors are backing up these absurd claims with some of the most anti-democratic legal precedents of the past century, including the Espionage Act of 1917, the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the PATRIOT Act.
All the while, Manning remains in military custody. Though it has been over two years since he was arrested in May, 2010, the court has denied previous motions filed by the defense claiming that Manning’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated.
The Article 13 motion filed in July highlights the terrible conditions Manning has faced while in military custody.
The motion quotes UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez, who strongly criticized the US government’s treatment of Manning in an interview with the Guardian in March. “I conclude that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement,” Mendez said, “…constitutes at minimum cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in violation of Article 16 of the [UN] Convention Against Torture.”
Mendez was referring to the nearly one year that Manning spent in Quantico, Virginia, from July 2010 to April 2011. During this period, Manning was kept in a six- by eight-foot cell for 23 to 24 hours a day.
Forced by guards to stay awake between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. each day, Manning was also denied the right to exercise in his cell, use the cell walls as a backrest, or lie down at any point during the daytime.
For six months, Manning was given only 20 minutes of “sunshine call” per day, during which time he was told to walk in lace-less shoes, with shackles on his ankles and wrists and a guard’s hand on his back.
Manning was also forced to sleep naked and to stand naked in front of multiple guards at parade rest position. Guards sometimes took away Manning’s glasses and forced him to reply in the affirmative when they “checked on him” at five-minute intervals.
Manning’s overseers justified this cruel treatment as necessary to prevent Manning from inflicting harm upon himself or others. This argument carries no weight, as several military psychologists and hundreds of law professors have explained.
The Article 13 motion highlights the baseless nature of this claim by quoting interactions between psychiatrists and military officials.
When military psychiatrists recommended better treatment for Manning, an official reportedly replied, “We’ll do whatever we want to do. You [the psychiatrists] make your recommendation and I have to make a decision based on everything else.”
The psychiatrist responded, “Then don’t say it’s based on mental health. You can say it’s MAX [maximum] custody, but just don’t say that we’re somehow involved in this,” to which the senior officer said, “That’s what we’re going to do.”
Multiple military psychiatrists had been recommending that Manning be downgraded from POI [prevention of injury] status for months, according to the motion. Psychiatrists tried to explain to overseers that “[Manning] did not present a risk to himself and that the POI status was actually causing PFC Manning psychological harm.”
Furthermore, there is little legal framework to support Manning’s POI status, according to a letter written by 300 law professors in 2011.
“The administration has provided no evidence that Manning’s treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates,” the letter states. “Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.”
The trial has been wrought with possible grounds for dismissal of charges. In April of 2011, president Obama made comments that provided grounds for dismissal based on Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which protects against Unlawful Command Influence.
The president, revealing his disdain for the legal process, explained to a crowd that he did not need to wait for the verdict to pronounce guilt: “We’re a nation of laws,” the president said. “We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate… [Manning] broke the law.”
The comments are not only hypocritical coming from a president that has established his “right” to indefinitely detain and assassinate anyone, including American citizens, without a warrant. They may also serve as a basis for an argument for dismissal of charges against Manning.
According to Article 37 of UCMJ, “Unlawful Command Influence occurs when senior personnel, wittingly or unwittingly, have acted to influence court members, witnesses, or others participating in military justice cases. Such unlawful influence not only jeopardizes the validity of the judicial process, it undermines the morale of military members, their respect for the chain of command, and public confidence in the military.”
The court, however, has failed to dismiss charges based on Unlawful Command Influence.
Manning’s prosecution is being carried out in flagrant violation of basic constitutional rights and to legal precedent that does not serve the Obama administration. The information revealed in the Article 13 and continuance motions of July 26 serve as further proof that the minds of the decision makers have already been made up and that the trial is little more than an anti-democratic witch-hunt.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Manning’s lead attorney, David Coombs, wrote that “[t]he defense does not believe that there has ever been such an egregious case of unlawful pretrial punishment in Army history. This court needs to send a message that an unlawful order to keep a pretrial detainee in the equivalent of solitary confinement for almost nine months cannot—and will not—be tolerated."
Article 13 states that unnecessary pre-trial punishment is grounds for dismissal of charges.
Coombs also filed a motion of continuance based on the government’s withholding of 84 emails that reveal high-ranking Armed Forces complicity in ordering the mistreatment of Manning. The emails reveal that at least one three-star general specifically ordered Manning’s unbearable conditions, which some argue violate the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
As Coombs points out in his continuance filing, government officials withheld the emails until 9:15 p.m. on the night of July 26—less than three hours before the deadline to file an Article 13 motion—despite the court’s previously elaborated requirement that all documentation that is “obviously material to the preparation of the defense” be made available.
The military judge overseeing the hearings will almost certainly not dismiss the charges. Regardless of legal precedent, the Obama administration is determined to ruin Manning’s life for helping make public over 700,000 files that serve as evidence to the crimes of US imperialism.
The force with which the government is attacking Manning expresses its nervousness, as well as its resolve to prevent future leaks that may jeopardize attempts to maintain and expand its geo-political domination. Prosecutors are seemingly using any archaic, anti-democratic charge on the books in an attempt to destroy the young man.
The 34 counts being brought against Manning read as a laundry list of state despotism, from “treason”, “aiding the enemy” and “embezzlement and theft”, to “sedition”, and “espionage”. Government prosecutors are backing up these absurd claims with some of the most anti-democratic legal precedents of the past century, including the Espionage Act of 1917, the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the PATRIOT Act.
All the while, Manning remains in military custody. Though it has been over two years since he was arrested in May, 2010, the court has denied previous motions filed by the defense claiming that Manning’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated.
The Article 13 motion filed in July highlights the terrible conditions Manning has faced while in military custody.
The motion quotes UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez, who strongly criticized the US government’s treatment of Manning in an interview with the Guardian in March. “I conclude that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement,” Mendez said, “…constitutes at minimum cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in violation of Article 16 of the [UN] Convention Against Torture.”
Mendez was referring to the nearly one year that Manning spent in Quantico, Virginia, from July 2010 to April 2011. During this period, Manning was kept in a six- by eight-foot cell for 23 to 24 hours a day.
Forced by guards to stay awake between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. each day, Manning was also denied the right to exercise in his cell, use the cell walls as a backrest, or lie down at any point during the daytime.
For six months, Manning was given only 20 minutes of “sunshine call” per day, during which time he was told to walk in lace-less shoes, with shackles on his ankles and wrists and a guard’s hand on his back.
Manning was also forced to sleep naked and to stand naked in front of multiple guards at parade rest position. Guards sometimes took away Manning’s glasses and forced him to reply in the affirmative when they “checked on him” at five-minute intervals.
Manning’s overseers justified this cruel treatment as necessary to prevent Manning from inflicting harm upon himself or others. This argument carries no weight, as several military psychologists and hundreds of law professors have explained.
The Article 13 motion highlights the baseless nature of this claim by quoting interactions between psychiatrists and military officials.
When military psychiatrists recommended better treatment for Manning, an official reportedly replied, “We’ll do whatever we want to do. You [the psychiatrists] make your recommendation and I have to make a decision based on everything else.”
The psychiatrist responded, “Then don’t say it’s based on mental health. You can say it’s MAX [maximum] custody, but just don’t say that we’re somehow involved in this,” to which the senior officer said, “That’s what we’re going to do.”
Multiple military psychiatrists had been recommending that Manning be downgraded from POI [prevention of injury] status for months, according to the motion. Psychiatrists tried to explain to overseers that “[Manning] did not present a risk to himself and that the POI status was actually causing PFC Manning psychological harm.”
Furthermore, there is little legal framework to support Manning’s POI status, according to a letter written by 300 law professors in 2011.
“The administration has provided no evidence that Manning’s treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates,” the letter states. “Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.”
The trial has been wrought with possible grounds for dismissal of charges. In April of 2011, president Obama made comments that provided grounds for dismissal based on Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which protects against Unlawful Command Influence.
The president, revealing his disdain for the legal process, explained to a crowd that he did not need to wait for the verdict to pronounce guilt: “We’re a nation of laws,” the president said. “We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate… [Manning] broke the law.”
The comments are not only hypocritical coming from a president that has established his “right” to indefinitely detain and assassinate anyone, including American citizens, without a warrant. They may also serve as a basis for an argument for dismissal of charges against Manning.
According to Article 37 of UCMJ, “Unlawful Command Influence occurs when senior personnel, wittingly or unwittingly, have acted to influence court members, witnesses, or others participating in military justice cases. Such unlawful influence not only jeopardizes the validity of the judicial process, it undermines the morale of military members, their respect for the chain of command, and public confidence in the military.”
The court, however, has failed to dismiss charges based on Unlawful Command Influence.
Manning’s prosecution is being carried out in flagrant violation of basic constitutional rights and to legal precedent that does not serve the Obama administration. The information revealed in the Article 13 and continuance motions of July 26 serve as further proof that the minds of the decision makers have already been made up and that the trial is little more than an anti-democratic witch-hunt.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Monday, April 2, 2012
Contempt for court as SA tries to sneak foreigners out
Controversy continues to stalk the Lindela Repatriation Centre amid claims that the state, which refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing, is illegally keeping foreigners locked up -- and even trying to deport them before their cases have been decided by the courts. Last week, the state tried to subvert the justice system by arranging to deport foreigners held at Lindela before their cases had been finalised by the courts -- which later ordered their immediate release.
Yakubi Adeyemi* was placed on a plane bound for Nigeria in the early hours of March 28 -- but the flight was halted after an urgent court order was obtained by the Legal Resource Centre (LRC). Adeyemi is one of 22 men and women who had been held at Lindela for longer than the 120-day limit allowed for by the Immigration Act of 2002. After the failed bid to deport him, the department of home affairs was ordered by the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg to release the entire group, in accordance with the legislation. According to section 34 of the Act, an immigration officer may arrest an illegal foreigner without the need for a warrant and detain them for a period of no longer than 30 days, after which a subsequent 90-day order must be confirmed through a warrant issued by a magistrate. After 120 days of incarceration has elapsed, the Act stipulates all detainees should be released regardless of their official residence status. Additionally the Constitution states "everyone has the right not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause" -- a right afforded both to South Africans and foreigners.
"The department's behaviour [in trying to deport foreigners before the conclusion of the legal process] smacks of arrogance and indicates they are merely trying to prove a point as to who is in charge while people's dignity is violated and their livelihood is being put at risk," LRC attorney Naseema Fakir told the Mail & Guardian.
The LRC had on March 20 asked the court to order the state to release the group of foreigners. After earning a postponement in the case, the department of home affairs failed to appear in court on Thursday March 29, after which the court ordered the state to immediately release all applicants in the matter. However, in between court appearances the department had arranged to deport several applicants in the case. The LRC said it appeared that the haste with which the state tried to deport Adeyemi, who has two young children with his South African partner, was due to the fact that the department had already paid for his airline ticket -- before his case arrived in court.
"The department may look at this from a monetary point of view, but it is ridiculously traumatic for the individuals involved. There is no dignity in simply putting a person on a plane in order to get rid of them," Fakir said.
But the department of home affairs said it had been well within its rights to deport Adeyemi.
"There was no court order at the time the applicants were taken to OR Tambo International Airport to be deported. The order was granted at 5am on 29th March 2012. There was therefore no violation of the court order," the department said.
Ignoring court orders
But even after the court order stipulating immediate released was issued, another Nigerian detainee, Mogeni Oni*, was placed on a bus at Lindela ahead of a planned deportation. After emergency enquiries were made by the LRC as to why Oni was in the process of being deported, he was returned to the confinement area at Lindela. The 22 men and women were eventually released at 7pm on March 30 -- nearly 30 hours after the court order instructing immediate release was issued. The department of home affairs acknowledged that the 120-day limit for extended detention applied, but would not shoulder any blame for exceeding this period.
"The department works with resident embassies and high commissions in South Africa to verify the nationality of deportees and to process their travel documents. This process sometimes takes longer than 120 days," the department said.
The latest events follow a reported uprising at Lindela in which detainees, mainly of Nigerian and Ethiopian descent, were understood to have demanded a meeting with immigration officials after some were kept at the facility for more than nine months. After a violent confrontation, several internees were reported to have sustained serious injuries, with one understood to have been taken to hospital after the incident. After initially failing to respond to questions posed by the M&G on the unrest, the department eventually conceded that an "altercation" had occurred at Lindela but was "quickly brought under control" by officials at the centre. Earlier in March the LRC secured the release of a Nigerian and an Angolan who were unlawfully detained as illegal immigrants. The Nigerian, who had a valid work permit, was held for 114 days, while the Angolan was detained for 132 days without a warrant. The department has been accused of regarding deportation procedures with contempt.
"It seems as though they are truly a law unto themselves and court orders and the like have little effect on them," said Douglas Leresche, a project co-ordinator at People Against Suffering, Oppression and Poverty (PASSOP), an NGO working to protect and promote the rights of all refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in South Africa.
While some of 22 foreigners involved in last week's incident are illegal immigrants, others say they have documents proving their stay in South Africa is legitimate. Damurah Mekonen* an Ethiopian national, businessman and resident of Durban for the past 11 years says he was arrested in late October while trying to have his residence permit renewed at Home Affairs offices in Glenwood. Mekonen said he was kept in Durban Westville prison for over a month before being transferred to Lindela, where he was kept for four months. He said no answers about his continued detention were forthcoming.
"These people know nothing. They simply arrest you and ask questions later. If you ask where they are taking you or why, they laugh at you," said Mekonen. "I am not a criminal and I have done nothing wrong. I am here legally and I pay taxes so I don't understand their problem," Merkonen added.
Merkonen, Adeyemi, Oni and the 19 other applicants now have two weeks to sort out the legalities of their stay in South Africa. After that, should they fail to secure the correct documentation, they will again face deportation. The process of organising visas and permits has been criticised as overly complex, with many immigrants saying it takes up to three days of constant queuing simply to renew a visa. The constant delays have led to a number of instances of immigration companies and individuals taking the department of home affairs to court. Some of those being held at Lindela say they ended up there because of reasons that were beyond their control.
Nadine Nzapa, a security guard from the Democratic Republic of Congo who has been in South Africa for six years, has been kept at Lindela for three weeks, after she was arrested for not having a valid work permit. Nzapa says she had not renewed her papers because her employer had threatened to fire her if she took time off to sort out her visa.
"There was nothing I could do. I need money to feed my children and I could not take off work," a tearful Nzapa told the M&G. As a result of her detention, Nzapa's six children, the oldest of which is 13, have been left to fend for themselves at her home in Yeoville.
"I don't know if they are going to school or looking after themselves. My children sometimes phone me and say they were given food, from who I don't know," Nzapa said.
*Names changed for fears of victimisation
Source: Mail & Guardian
Yakubi Adeyemi* was placed on a plane bound for Nigeria in the early hours of March 28 -- but the flight was halted after an urgent court order was obtained by the Legal Resource Centre (LRC). Adeyemi is one of 22 men and women who had been held at Lindela for longer than the 120-day limit allowed for by the Immigration Act of 2002. After the failed bid to deport him, the department of home affairs was ordered by the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg to release the entire group, in accordance with the legislation. According to section 34 of the Act, an immigration officer may arrest an illegal foreigner without the need for a warrant and detain them for a period of no longer than 30 days, after which a subsequent 90-day order must be confirmed through a warrant issued by a magistrate. After 120 days of incarceration has elapsed, the Act stipulates all detainees should be released regardless of their official residence status. Additionally the Constitution states "everyone has the right not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause" -- a right afforded both to South Africans and foreigners.
"The department's behaviour [in trying to deport foreigners before the conclusion of the legal process] smacks of arrogance and indicates they are merely trying to prove a point as to who is in charge while people's dignity is violated and their livelihood is being put at risk," LRC attorney Naseema Fakir told the Mail & Guardian.
The LRC had on March 20 asked the court to order the state to release the group of foreigners. After earning a postponement in the case, the department of home affairs failed to appear in court on Thursday March 29, after which the court ordered the state to immediately release all applicants in the matter. However, in between court appearances the department had arranged to deport several applicants in the case. The LRC said it appeared that the haste with which the state tried to deport Adeyemi, who has two young children with his South African partner, was due to the fact that the department had already paid for his airline ticket -- before his case arrived in court.
"The department may look at this from a monetary point of view, but it is ridiculously traumatic for the individuals involved. There is no dignity in simply putting a person on a plane in order to get rid of them," Fakir said.
But the department of home affairs said it had been well within its rights to deport Adeyemi.
"There was no court order at the time the applicants were taken to OR Tambo International Airport to be deported. The order was granted at 5am on 29th March 2012. There was therefore no violation of the court order," the department said.
Ignoring court orders
But even after the court order stipulating immediate released was issued, another Nigerian detainee, Mogeni Oni*, was placed on a bus at Lindela ahead of a planned deportation. After emergency enquiries were made by the LRC as to why Oni was in the process of being deported, he was returned to the confinement area at Lindela. The 22 men and women were eventually released at 7pm on March 30 -- nearly 30 hours after the court order instructing immediate release was issued. The department of home affairs acknowledged that the 120-day limit for extended detention applied, but would not shoulder any blame for exceeding this period.
"The department works with resident embassies and high commissions in South Africa to verify the nationality of deportees and to process their travel documents. This process sometimes takes longer than 120 days," the department said.
The latest events follow a reported uprising at Lindela in which detainees, mainly of Nigerian and Ethiopian descent, were understood to have demanded a meeting with immigration officials after some were kept at the facility for more than nine months. After a violent confrontation, several internees were reported to have sustained serious injuries, with one understood to have been taken to hospital after the incident. After initially failing to respond to questions posed by the M&G on the unrest, the department eventually conceded that an "altercation" had occurred at Lindela but was "quickly brought under control" by officials at the centre. Earlier in March the LRC secured the release of a Nigerian and an Angolan who were unlawfully detained as illegal immigrants. The Nigerian, who had a valid work permit, was held for 114 days, while the Angolan was detained for 132 days without a warrant. The department has been accused of regarding deportation procedures with contempt.
"It seems as though they are truly a law unto themselves and court orders and the like have little effect on them," said Douglas Leresche, a project co-ordinator at People Against Suffering, Oppression and Poverty (PASSOP), an NGO working to protect and promote the rights of all refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in South Africa.
While some of 22 foreigners involved in last week's incident are illegal immigrants, others say they have documents proving their stay in South Africa is legitimate. Damurah Mekonen* an Ethiopian national, businessman and resident of Durban for the past 11 years says he was arrested in late October while trying to have his residence permit renewed at Home Affairs offices in Glenwood. Mekonen said he was kept in Durban Westville prison for over a month before being transferred to Lindela, where he was kept for four months. He said no answers about his continued detention were forthcoming.
"These people know nothing. They simply arrest you and ask questions later. If you ask where they are taking you or why, they laugh at you," said Mekonen. "I am not a criminal and I have done nothing wrong. I am here legally and I pay taxes so I don't understand their problem," Merkonen added.
Merkonen, Adeyemi, Oni and the 19 other applicants now have two weeks to sort out the legalities of their stay in South Africa. After that, should they fail to secure the correct documentation, they will again face deportation. The process of organising visas and permits has been criticised as overly complex, with many immigrants saying it takes up to three days of constant queuing simply to renew a visa. The constant delays have led to a number of instances of immigration companies and individuals taking the department of home affairs to court. Some of those being held at Lindela say they ended up there because of reasons that were beyond their control.
Nadine Nzapa, a security guard from the Democratic Republic of Congo who has been in South Africa for six years, has been kept at Lindela for three weeks, after she was arrested for not having a valid work permit. Nzapa says she had not renewed her papers because her employer had threatened to fire her if she took time off to sort out her visa.
"There was nothing I could do. I need money to feed my children and I could not take off work," a tearful Nzapa told the M&G. As a result of her detention, Nzapa's six children, the oldest of which is 13, have been left to fend for themselves at her home in Yeoville.
"I don't know if they are going to school or looking after themselves. My children sometimes phone me and say they were given food, from who I don't know," Nzapa said.
*Names changed for fears of victimisation
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, March 30, 2012
UN expert calls on India to fight impunity for extrajudicial executions
While commending India's generally high level of commitment to human rights, a United Nations expert today urged the Government to continue to fight impunity for extrajudicial executions, and communal and traditional killings. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, said he recognized the size, complexity, security concerns and diversity of India – however, he remains concerned that the challenges with respect to the protection of the right to life in the country are still considerable.
“Evidence gathered confirmed the use of so-called ‘fake encounters’ in certain parts of the country. Where this happens, a scene of a shoot-out is created, in which people who have been targeted are projected as the aggressors who shot at the police and were then killed in self-defence,” he told reporters in New Delhi at the end of a two-week mission to India. He added, “Moreover, in the north-eastern states, and Jammu and Kashmir, the armed forces have wide powers to employ lethal force.”
This is exacerbated, the expert said, by the high level of impunity that the police and armed forces enjoy, due to the requirement that any prosecutions require sanction from the central government – something that is rarely granted. “The main difficulty in my view has been these high levels of impunity,” stressed the Special Rapporteur, who reports to the UN Human Rights Council in an independent and unpaid capacity.
Mr. Heyns also pointed to other areas of concern. These include the prevalence of communal violence, and, in some areas, the killing of so-called witches, as well as dowry and so-called “honour” killings, and the plight of dalits [untouchables] and adivasis [tribal people]. He called for the establishment of a commission of inquiry, consisting of respected lawyers and other community leaders, to further investigate all aspects of extrajudicial executions, as a first step to addressing concerns. He also recommended the immediate repeal of the laws providing for immunity from prosecution of the police and the armed forces, as well as the ratification of a number of international treaties, including those related to torture and enforced disappearance.
The full report of his visit will be submitted to the Geneva-based Council in 2013.
Source: United Nations
“Evidence gathered confirmed the use of so-called ‘fake encounters’ in certain parts of the country. Where this happens, a scene of a shoot-out is created, in which people who have been targeted are projected as the aggressors who shot at the police and were then killed in self-defence,” he told reporters in New Delhi at the end of a two-week mission to India. He added, “Moreover, in the north-eastern states, and Jammu and Kashmir, the armed forces have wide powers to employ lethal force.”
This is exacerbated, the expert said, by the high level of impunity that the police and armed forces enjoy, due to the requirement that any prosecutions require sanction from the central government – something that is rarely granted. “The main difficulty in my view has been these high levels of impunity,” stressed the Special Rapporteur, who reports to the UN Human Rights Council in an independent and unpaid capacity.
Mr. Heyns also pointed to other areas of concern. These include the prevalence of communal violence, and, in some areas, the killing of so-called witches, as well as dowry and so-called “honour” killings, and the plight of dalits [untouchables] and adivasis [tribal people]. He called for the establishment of a commission of inquiry, consisting of respected lawyers and other community leaders, to further investigate all aspects of extrajudicial executions, as a first step to addressing concerns. He also recommended the immediate repeal of the laws providing for immunity from prosecution of the police and the armed forces, as well as the ratification of a number of international treaties, including those related to torture and enforced disappearance.
The full report of his visit will be submitted to the Geneva-based Council in 2013.
Source: United Nations
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Congo: Security Forces Killed 33 in Election Season, U.N. Says
Security forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo committed serious human rights violations, including killings, torture and arbitrary arrests, during the period around national elections last year, according to a United Nations report released Tuesday.
The United Nations Joint Human Rights Office in Congo found that at least 33 people were killed in the capital, Kinshasa, by security forces in November and December, and that at least 83 were wounded. More than 265 were arrested, the report said. “We have heard multiple accounts of Republican Guards shooting live ammunition into crowds and of the torture of arbitrarily detained individuals,” said the United Nations’ top human rights official, Navi Pillay. The report said the government opened an investigation into the violations in December.
Source: New York Times
The United Nations Joint Human Rights Office in Congo found that at least 33 people were killed in the capital, Kinshasa, by security forces in November and December, and that at least 83 were wounded. More than 265 were arrested, the report said. “We have heard multiple accounts of Republican Guards shooting live ammunition into crowds and of the torture of arbitrarily detained individuals,” said the United Nations’ top human rights official, Navi Pillay. The report said the government opened an investigation into the violations in December.
Source: New York Times
Friday, March 9, 2012
South Africa ignores deportee torture claims
"When we landed, the soldiers met us at the airport with shotguns and they put us straight into prison," said Didier Kabange*. One of 52 Congolese deported from the Lindela repatriation centre outside Krugersdorp in mid-February, Kabange then spent two weeks in Kasapa prison in Lubumbashi in the southeast of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) before he was released, with 46 other members of his group, last week.
Kabange, speaking by phone this week from the DRC, said that the deportees were deprived of food and water, threatened, beaten and interrogated about their political affiliations. He also expressed concern for the safety of the five still detained in Kasapa.
"There were too much questions. Too much questions [by the authorities]," he said. "They asked us why we left the Congo and what we were doing in South Africa. They asked whether we were protesting against [President Joseph] Kabila and whether we supported [Union for Democracy and Social Progress leader Étienne] Tshisekedi. We say we don't know anything about the government, about the president -- we don't know nothing. All we know is that our [asylum seeker] papers expired so we were sent back."
Deportation could be fatal
There is growing concern among the Congolese in Cape Town and Johannesburg that deportation to the DRC by the department of home affairs is leading to physical abuse, victimisation and possibly death. Activists claim the "indiscriminate" and "harsh" response of the Kabila government is a reaction to protests that followed the DRC's presidential elections in November last year, which are widely alleged to have been won fraudulently by Kabila. One of the activists, Augey Kitoko, said: "The regime has seen our protests in South Africa [including one at the ANC headquarters in Johannesburg and another at the Congolese embassy in Pretoria] and they are embarrassed. So when our people are deported, the security forces come down heavily on them."
The World Organisation Against Torture's 2007 annual report, which was released in mid-2008, stated that "the Congolese authorities are extremely sensitive to activities that could adversely affect their credibility and image abroad, and denunciation of human rights violations is carried out in an environment that is exceedingly dangerous for defenders". The "Unsafe Return" report by the United Kingdom-based charity, Justice First, which tracked the return of 17 failed asylum seekers, two of whom disappeared after touching down in Kinshasa, from the UK to the DRC between 2007 and last year, suggests little has changed. The deportees interviewed reported being raped, tortured, beaten and separated from their children, and claimed that officials extorted money from them to ensure their safety.
Rape, torture prevalent among returnees
According to the report, of the 15 adult returnees, one was "handcuffed, blindfolded and severely beaten", six were "severely beaten", two were tortured with electric shocks, two of the 10 men were sexually abused and two of the five women were raped. The report states that asylum seekers in the UK are considered to be the "main opponents" of the Kabila regime, much like those who have been protesting against the election results in countries such as South Africa, Belgium and Canada.
The report also contains a chilling interview with a Congolese immigration officer who acknowledges that returnees' files are studied "to establish whether the returnee has a problem with the Congolese state", in which case the security services are contacted. The immigration officer says returnees are interrogated on arrival and, if "political problems" with the regime are confirmed, they are sent to Kinshasa's Kin Mazière prison or to a notorious detention centre, called "Tolerance Zero". The official described the procedure: "In such a case [of detention], the returnee can have no excuse, there will be no pity shown. People are caught and can be killed in Tolerance Zero.
Punishment does not take place at the airport but in secret entre coulisses [behind the scenes] … Those who have a problem with the state will be severely ill treated and duly punished. He or she will run the risk of eliminé [being killed]. Detainees do not have access to a lawyer. Any communication with the outside is very difficult."
SA not taking responsibility
South Africa is washing its hands of any responsibility for what is happening. Modiri Matthews, chief director of the immigration inspectorate of home affairs, said his department's main obligation was to "deport people here illegally" after "a thorough credibility test" to ascertain whether their claims for political asylum were valid. He said South Africa had no way of monitoring the safety of people deported to the DRC. "It is up to the respective governments to monitor the safety of those that we deport … The DRC is a sovereign country so we cannot meddle in their affairs."
Matthews said the South African government was not reviewing its position in the light of the concerns about the safety of those being deported to the DRC. The British government has taken a similar stance. This indifference of foreign governments to human rights abuses taking place in the DRC is leaving deportees at the mercy of the Kabila regime. Also, because their refugee status has been denied, they do not fall under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Hard for human rights groups to do their work
It is hard for human rights groups to operate in the DRC, even though it has ratified the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture that allows UN observers access to places of detention. According to Amnesty International's 2011 annual report, during the UN's universal periodic review, in March last year the Kabila government refused observers access to detention centres, including that of the National Intelligence Agency.
DRC information minister Lambert Mende told the Mail & Guardian that allegations of human rights abuses made by returnees to the country were "just a lie". He said that refugees and asylum seekers were "not good sources for information about the truth" about the political situation in the country as they needed to paint a bad picture of the DRC to ensure they were allowed into countries like South Africa and the UK.** The rows of buildings at the Lindela detention and repatriation centre resemble cages for battery chickens. Inside, a slightly built 40-year-old Congolese, Francis Ongoly,* is waiting to be deported. Fear is in his eyes.
"I've heard that the others [deported in February] have been in Kasapa and I don't want to go there. But I am also scared about going home. Where I live [Uvira in the Sud-Kivu province], the militia are always looking for young men like me to fight. If you refuse, you die. I don't want to fight or die," he said.
Ongoly said conditions at Lindela were terrible and illnesses were "only treated with Panado. Whatever illness you have, there is only one medicine -- Panado." On December 21 last year Martin Mukishi, a Congolese national held at Lindela, died because of "poor treatment and negligence", according to Congolese nationals in the repatriation centre.
"When we tried to find out how he died things escalated. The guards came in with rubber bullets, tear gas and batons and they beat us. All we wanted to know is what happened to our brother," said Didier Fuamba who was detained at Lindela for more than two months and only released in February after legal intervention.
Those in Lindela have written to Human Rights Watch. They claim they are being victimised by the South African government, which they say is in cahoots with the Kabila government, in an attempt to stem anti-Kabila protest in South Africa. They also call for an immediate end to deportations, or a possible relocation to another country. Among Congolese nationals living in South Africa, the fear of victimisation is growing -- they claim that both the police and the home affairs department are intent on arresting and deporting them. More than 10 Congolese nationals, either in Lindela or recently released, said that, while trying to renew their temporary papers, they were arrested and sent to Lindela. Some in Lindela claimed that they were arrested at the border without being afforded an opportunity to apply for refugee status. But Matthews said that no specific nationality was being targeted and denied that anyone, including Congolese nationals, would be detained at Lindela without being given the opportunity to apply for refugee status. He said that only "authentic illegal immigrants" were deported, after a "detailed examination and appeal process". "The only detention that can take place is if people have failed in the system," he said.
But the Congolese said the system was failing them. Blaise Lolele, who spent more than three months in Lindela before being released after a court application by his lawyer, said: "I have been renewing my temporary papers since 2006 and, after I was arrested, I was shown my files by a lawyer in Lindela. It showed that my refugee status application had been rejected in 2007. But I was never notified that my application failed; it never came up on the system whenever I renewed my papers. How is this possible?"
* Not their real names
** Translation by Lionel Faull
Source: Mail & Guardian
Kabange, speaking by phone this week from the DRC, said that the deportees were deprived of food and water, threatened, beaten and interrogated about their political affiliations. He also expressed concern for the safety of the five still detained in Kasapa.
"There were too much questions. Too much questions [by the authorities]," he said. "They asked us why we left the Congo and what we were doing in South Africa. They asked whether we were protesting against [President Joseph] Kabila and whether we supported [Union for Democracy and Social Progress leader Étienne] Tshisekedi. We say we don't know anything about the government, about the president -- we don't know nothing. All we know is that our [asylum seeker] papers expired so we were sent back."
Deportation could be fatal
There is growing concern among the Congolese in Cape Town and Johannesburg that deportation to the DRC by the department of home affairs is leading to physical abuse, victimisation and possibly death. Activists claim the "indiscriminate" and "harsh" response of the Kabila government is a reaction to protests that followed the DRC's presidential elections in November last year, which are widely alleged to have been won fraudulently by Kabila. One of the activists, Augey Kitoko, said: "The regime has seen our protests in South Africa [including one at the ANC headquarters in Johannesburg and another at the Congolese embassy in Pretoria] and they are embarrassed. So when our people are deported, the security forces come down heavily on them."
The World Organisation Against Torture's 2007 annual report, which was released in mid-2008, stated that "the Congolese authorities are extremely sensitive to activities that could adversely affect their credibility and image abroad, and denunciation of human rights violations is carried out in an environment that is exceedingly dangerous for defenders". The "Unsafe Return" report by the United Kingdom-based charity, Justice First, which tracked the return of 17 failed asylum seekers, two of whom disappeared after touching down in Kinshasa, from the UK to the DRC between 2007 and last year, suggests little has changed. The deportees interviewed reported being raped, tortured, beaten and separated from their children, and claimed that officials extorted money from them to ensure their safety.
Rape, torture prevalent among returnees
According to the report, of the 15 adult returnees, one was "handcuffed, blindfolded and severely beaten", six were "severely beaten", two were tortured with electric shocks, two of the 10 men were sexually abused and two of the five women were raped. The report states that asylum seekers in the UK are considered to be the "main opponents" of the Kabila regime, much like those who have been protesting against the election results in countries such as South Africa, Belgium and Canada.
The report also contains a chilling interview with a Congolese immigration officer who acknowledges that returnees' files are studied "to establish whether the returnee has a problem with the Congolese state", in which case the security services are contacted. The immigration officer says returnees are interrogated on arrival and, if "political problems" with the regime are confirmed, they are sent to Kinshasa's Kin Mazière prison or to a notorious detention centre, called "Tolerance Zero". The official described the procedure: "In such a case [of detention], the returnee can have no excuse, there will be no pity shown. People are caught and can be killed in Tolerance Zero.
Punishment does not take place at the airport but in secret entre coulisses [behind the scenes] … Those who have a problem with the state will be severely ill treated and duly punished. He or she will run the risk of eliminé [being killed]. Detainees do not have access to a lawyer. Any communication with the outside is very difficult."
SA not taking responsibility
South Africa is washing its hands of any responsibility for what is happening. Modiri Matthews, chief director of the immigration inspectorate of home affairs, said his department's main obligation was to "deport people here illegally" after "a thorough credibility test" to ascertain whether their claims for political asylum were valid. He said South Africa had no way of monitoring the safety of people deported to the DRC. "It is up to the respective governments to monitor the safety of those that we deport … The DRC is a sovereign country so we cannot meddle in their affairs."
Matthews said the South African government was not reviewing its position in the light of the concerns about the safety of those being deported to the DRC. The British government has taken a similar stance. This indifference of foreign governments to human rights abuses taking place in the DRC is leaving deportees at the mercy of the Kabila regime. Also, because their refugee status has been denied, they do not fall under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Hard for human rights groups to do their work
It is hard for human rights groups to operate in the DRC, even though it has ratified the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture that allows UN observers access to places of detention. According to Amnesty International's 2011 annual report, during the UN's universal periodic review, in March last year the Kabila government refused observers access to detention centres, including that of the National Intelligence Agency.
DRC information minister Lambert Mende told the Mail & Guardian that allegations of human rights abuses made by returnees to the country were "just a lie". He said that refugees and asylum seekers were "not good sources for information about the truth" about the political situation in the country as they needed to paint a bad picture of the DRC to ensure they were allowed into countries like South Africa and the UK.** The rows of buildings at the Lindela detention and repatriation centre resemble cages for battery chickens. Inside, a slightly built 40-year-old Congolese, Francis Ongoly,* is waiting to be deported. Fear is in his eyes.
"I've heard that the others [deported in February] have been in Kasapa and I don't want to go there. But I am also scared about going home. Where I live [Uvira in the Sud-Kivu province], the militia are always looking for young men like me to fight. If you refuse, you die. I don't want to fight or die," he said.
Ongoly said conditions at Lindela were terrible and illnesses were "only treated with Panado. Whatever illness you have, there is only one medicine -- Panado." On December 21 last year Martin Mukishi, a Congolese national held at Lindela, died because of "poor treatment and negligence", according to Congolese nationals in the repatriation centre.
"When we tried to find out how he died things escalated. The guards came in with rubber bullets, tear gas and batons and they beat us. All we wanted to know is what happened to our brother," said Didier Fuamba who was detained at Lindela for more than two months and only released in February after legal intervention.
Those in Lindela have written to Human Rights Watch. They claim they are being victimised by the South African government, which they say is in cahoots with the Kabila government, in an attempt to stem anti-Kabila protest in South Africa. They also call for an immediate end to deportations, or a possible relocation to another country. Among Congolese nationals living in South Africa, the fear of victimisation is growing -- they claim that both the police and the home affairs department are intent on arresting and deporting them. More than 10 Congolese nationals, either in Lindela or recently released, said that, while trying to renew their temporary papers, they were arrested and sent to Lindela. Some in Lindela claimed that they were arrested at the border without being afforded an opportunity to apply for refugee status. But Matthews said that no specific nationality was being targeted and denied that anyone, including Congolese nationals, would be detained at Lindela without being given the opportunity to apply for refugee status. He said that only "authentic illegal immigrants" were deported, after a "detailed examination and appeal process". "The only detention that can take place is if people have failed in the system," he said.
But the Congolese said the system was failing them. Blaise Lolele, who spent more than three months in Lindela before being released after a court application by his lawyer, said: "I have been renewing my temporary papers since 2006 and, after I was arrested, I was shown my files by a lawyer in Lindela. It showed that my refugee status application had been rejected in 2007. But I was never notified that my application failed; it never came up on the system whenever I renewed my papers. How is this possible?"
* Not their real names
** Translation by Lionel Faull
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, March 2, 2012
Britain’s Debate over National Security and the Public’s Right to Know
In February 2009, the U.S. government transferred British resident Binyam Mohamed from the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay home to the United Kingdom. A victim of extraordinary rendition, Mohamed had been imprisoned for seven years—held in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan before his transfer to Guantánamo. After his release, Mohamed took legal action against the British government. He asserted that he had been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment during his detention.
Other British residents held in Guantánamo, including Bisher al-Rawi, have likewise challenged their prolonged and abusive detention and interrogations. Their allegations implicated British intelligence in their interrogations and abuse. Mohamed, for instance, asserted that MI5 provided questions to foreign interrogators to facilitate his interrogations. He and other former detainees sought information from the British government regarding British complicity in their alleged torture.
At every turn, British intelligence challenged the efforts of former detainees, and the public, to shine the light on the abuse and British complicity in it. The government even took the extraordinary step of trying to litigate under “closed material procedures” the civil cases challenging the British government for its role in their abuse. A closed material procedure prevents the public and even the parties and their attorneys from having access to evidence, instead providing sensitive “closed” bundles of evidence only to “special advocates,” and to the court where appropriate. The closed material procedure does not take into account the public interest in disclosure, and information is known to the government lawyers, but not to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawyers.
The British Parliament has statutorily authorized the closed material procedure in only select categories of cases, and not in most civil cases. British courts have curtailed efforts by British state intelligence agencies to keep evidence of abuse secret. In July 2011, the UK Supreme Court rejected the use of the closed material procedure for civil litigation brought by the former detainees challenging their abuse. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it could not depart from the fundamental rules of a common law trial, including open justice—the public conduct of trials and release of judgments—as well as the right of a litigant to confront witnesses and know the evidence held by the government pertinent to his claims.
Rather than litigate the underlying issue of its complicity in the abuse of the British former Guantánamo detainees, the British government settled these civil cases. Yet the story is far from over. In October 2011, the Secretary of State for Justice presented to Parliament a Justice and Security Green Paper proposing a significant expansion of the use of the closed material procedure to “whenever necessary in civil proceedings,” as well as of special advocates, and limiting the categories of cases where a party is entitled to even a summary of the main intelligence documents. The British Parliament is currently considering these proposed modifications to limit access to intelligence information in civil proceedings. These are the wrong messages to draw from the Guantánamo civil cases.
Parliament should reject the Secretary of State’s proposals. Expanding the use of closed material procedures would shift the pendulum too far in the direction of secrecy, for alleged victims of abuse and for the public. In the Supreme Court opinion, Lord Dyson, writing for a majority of the Court’s judges, highlighted the 2010 report by the UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights reviewing the first five years of the operation of the Special Advocates process. In its report, the Committee referenced the notorious Star Chamber—the seventeenth century English court with sessions held in secret and without appeal, and now symbolic of the dangers of a wayward, secretive and illegitimate judicial system unaccountable to the public or the rule of law.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee concluded that the use of special advocates “is a process which is not just offensive to the basic principles of adversarial justice in which lawyers are steeped, but it is very much against the basic notions of fair play as the lay public would understand them.” Other limitations on open judicial processes undermine the central role of open judicial review in democratic accountability. This remains true even and especially when national security is involved.
Where should a democratic society draw the line between what may legitimately be kept secret, and what should be open to litigants and the public? Freedom of information advocates, including the Open Society Justice Initiative and other partners, have drawn up the new Draft Principles on National Security and the Right to Information that could help legislative and regulatory drafters set the balance in a transparent and appropriate manner. These principles provide that certain categories of information are subject to presumptive disclosure, including information concerning treatment and interrogation of detainees, violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, arms sales, and corruption. Further, national security concerns cannot justify undermining the fundamental right of the public to have access to judicial processes, or the rights of victims of torture and other human rights abuses to seek a remedy.
A person credibly asserting that the government committed abuse should be entitled to challenge the government in court, and have access to information material to the case. Importantly the public, and not solely the parties, should have the right to contest restrictions to access, with meaningful and transparent judicial oversight.
In its Green Paper, the Secretary of State complains that the settlement of civil cases with former prisoners undermines the reputation of the intelligence services and leaves important questions unanswered. Yet the solution is not greater secrecy but more light. Litigation has been central to achieving some measure of accountability for national security overreaching, and to public disclosure of information concerning government abuses of power. It is litigation which has begun to uncover the role of the British government in the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo and in a secret web of prisons around the world—and to provide some measure of relief.
Allowing litigation to proceed only under a cloak of secrecy does a disservice to the litigants, but also to the public and the rule of law.
Source: Open Society Foundation
Other British residents held in Guantánamo, including Bisher al-Rawi, have likewise challenged their prolonged and abusive detention and interrogations. Their allegations implicated British intelligence in their interrogations and abuse. Mohamed, for instance, asserted that MI5 provided questions to foreign interrogators to facilitate his interrogations. He and other former detainees sought information from the British government regarding British complicity in their alleged torture.
At every turn, British intelligence challenged the efforts of former detainees, and the public, to shine the light on the abuse and British complicity in it. The government even took the extraordinary step of trying to litigate under “closed material procedures” the civil cases challenging the British government for its role in their abuse. A closed material procedure prevents the public and even the parties and their attorneys from having access to evidence, instead providing sensitive “closed” bundles of evidence only to “special advocates,” and to the court where appropriate. The closed material procedure does not take into account the public interest in disclosure, and information is known to the government lawyers, but not to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawyers.
The British Parliament has statutorily authorized the closed material procedure in only select categories of cases, and not in most civil cases. British courts have curtailed efforts by British state intelligence agencies to keep evidence of abuse secret. In July 2011, the UK Supreme Court rejected the use of the closed material procedure for civil litigation brought by the former detainees challenging their abuse. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it could not depart from the fundamental rules of a common law trial, including open justice—the public conduct of trials and release of judgments—as well as the right of a litigant to confront witnesses and know the evidence held by the government pertinent to his claims.
Rather than litigate the underlying issue of its complicity in the abuse of the British former Guantánamo detainees, the British government settled these civil cases. Yet the story is far from over. In October 2011, the Secretary of State for Justice presented to Parliament a Justice and Security Green Paper proposing a significant expansion of the use of the closed material procedure to “whenever necessary in civil proceedings,” as well as of special advocates, and limiting the categories of cases where a party is entitled to even a summary of the main intelligence documents. The British Parliament is currently considering these proposed modifications to limit access to intelligence information in civil proceedings. These are the wrong messages to draw from the Guantánamo civil cases.
Parliament should reject the Secretary of State’s proposals. Expanding the use of closed material procedures would shift the pendulum too far in the direction of secrecy, for alleged victims of abuse and for the public. In the Supreme Court opinion, Lord Dyson, writing for a majority of the Court’s judges, highlighted the 2010 report by the UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights reviewing the first five years of the operation of the Special Advocates process. In its report, the Committee referenced the notorious Star Chamber—the seventeenth century English court with sessions held in secret and without appeal, and now symbolic of the dangers of a wayward, secretive and illegitimate judicial system unaccountable to the public or the rule of law.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee concluded that the use of special advocates “is a process which is not just offensive to the basic principles of adversarial justice in which lawyers are steeped, but it is very much against the basic notions of fair play as the lay public would understand them.” Other limitations on open judicial processes undermine the central role of open judicial review in democratic accountability. This remains true even and especially when national security is involved.
Where should a democratic society draw the line between what may legitimately be kept secret, and what should be open to litigants and the public? Freedom of information advocates, including the Open Society Justice Initiative and other partners, have drawn up the new Draft Principles on National Security and the Right to Information that could help legislative and regulatory drafters set the balance in a transparent and appropriate manner. These principles provide that certain categories of information are subject to presumptive disclosure, including information concerning treatment and interrogation of detainees, violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, arms sales, and corruption. Further, national security concerns cannot justify undermining the fundamental right of the public to have access to judicial processes, or the rights of victims of torture and other human rights abuses to seek a remedy.
A person credibly asserting that the government committed abuse should be entitled to challenge the government in court, and have access to information material to the case. Importantly the public, and not solely the parties, should have the right to contest restrictions to access, with meaningful and transparent judicial oversight.
In its Green Paper, the Secretary of State complains that the settlement of civil cases with former prisoners undermines the reputation of the intelligence services and leaves important questions unanswered. Yet the solution is not greater secrecy but more light. Litigation has been central to achieving some measure of accountability for national security overreaching, and to public disclosure of information concerning government abuses of power. It is litigation which has begun to uncover the role of the British government in the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo and in a secret web of prisons around the world—and to provide some measure of relief.
Allowing litigation to proceed only under a cloak of secrecy does a disservice to the litigants, but also to the public and the rule of law.
Source: Open Society Foundation
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Senior Congo diplomats claim asylum in UK
Three senior diplomats have resigned from their posts at the Congolese embassy in London and claimed asylum in the UK, accusing their own government of presiding over a "climate of terror". Baby Kazadi Moussonzo, first secretary to the ambassador, Mamie Yaya Efunga, another first secretary, and Kabengele Mamba, second secretary, had between them notched up 14 years' service at the central London embassy. They resigned earlier this month and have issued a lengthy statement denouncing the government that had employed them. They accused it of presiding over a "climate of terror". They claimed the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was guilty of abductions, arrests and assassinations as well as turning the police and Republican Guard into a private militia.
Congo's incumbent president, Joseph Kabila, was re-elected last November but controversy surrounded the results with opposition politicians claiming the ballot was rigged. The Carter Centre, which observed the election, said the results "lacked credibility". Human Rights Watch reported that at least 24 people were killed by police in the aftermath of the disputed vote. The three diplomats said in their statement that there had been substantial election fraud and ballot box stuffing.
The Metropolitan police made 139 arrests last December during a demonstration organised by Congolese people living in the UK who added their voices to those who argued that the outcome of the election was flawed. Anti-Kabila demonstrations have also taken place in South Africa, most recently at the international Mining Indaba in Cape Town earlier this month.
"We had many concerns about the situation in Congo and that is why we resigned. We were accused by the Congolese government of taking part in the London demonstration against the government last December but this is not true," said Moussonzo. "The government said that because we were involved in this demonstration we were being recalled to Congo.
"We believed that our lives would be in danger if we returned to our country in these circumstances and so we had to resign and claim asylum here in the UK."
A spokesperson for the Congolese embassy in London said the embassy was not commenting on the resignations.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Congo's incumbent president, Joseph Kabila, was re-elected last November but controversy surrounded the results with opposition politicians claiming the ballot was rigged. The Carter Centre, which observed the election, said the results "lacked credibility". Human Rights Watch reported that at least 24 people were killed by police in the aftermath of the disputed vote. The three diplomats said in their statement that there had been substantial election fraud and ballot box stuffing.
The Metropolitan police made 139 arrests last December during a demonstration organised by Congolese people living in the UK who added their voices to those who argued that the outcome of the election was flawed. Anti-Kabila demonstrations have also taken place in South Africa, most recently at the international Mining Indaba in Cape Town earlier this month.
"We had many concerns about the situation in Congo and that is why we resigned. We were accused by the Congolese government of taking part in the London demonstration against the government last December but this is not true," said Moussonzo. "The government said that because we were involved in this demonstration we were being recalled to Congo.
"We believed that our lives would be in danger if we returned to our country in these circumstances and so we had to resign and claim asylum here in the UK."
A spokesperson for the Congolese embassy in London said the embassy was not commenting on the resignations.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
US blocks UN torture investigator from seeing Bradley Manning
The US government has blocked the United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture from visiting Army Private Bradley Manning, who has been held in solitary confinement at Quantico Marine base since July.
Manning has yet to appear in court. The 23-year-old faces 34 charges of leaking classified material to the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks, including evidence of numerous US war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the charges is that of “aiding the enemy,” which carries a sentence of life in prison or execution.
In addition to living in solitary confinement 23 hours a day in a small, empty cell, Manning has been subjected to forced nudity, deprived of personal possessions including his glasses, denied the ability to exercise or sleep during the day in his cell, and is continually harassed and intimidated by military guards. The soldier issued a letter through his lawyer last month detailing his abuse.
The severity of his charges and the hellish conditions to which he is being subjected make clear that Manning is being held as a political prisoner by the Obama administration.
The UN envoy, Juan Mendez, said Monday, “I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the US government with regard to my attempts to visit Mr. Manning.” The US “has not been receptive to a confidential meeting with Mr. Manning,” Mendez said in a statement. Military officials stated that the meeting could proceed only with a guard present, meaning that its content could be used against Manning in his court-martial trial.
Mendez issued a reprimand against the US—a measure only rarely undertaken by the UN, and usually in response to the conduct of small, dictatorial regimes—after being repeatedly stonewalled and denied entrance to the Virginia military base by the Obama administration since December.
Commenting to news agency Reuters, Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan insisted that only lawyers were allowed unmonitored meetings with Quantico prisoners. Lapan added that there was “considerable misinformation” about Manning’s treatment, dismissing charges of cruelty and abuse. “There is no such thing at Quantico. … These facts are simply not true.”
Manning’s treatment has drawn condemnations from human rights groups and legal experts around the world. The British government, facing a mounting outcry over the mistreatment of the soldier, whose mother is Welsh, last week announced it would press US officials to moderate Manning’s conditions. (See, “British government presses US over treatment of Bradley Manning”)
On Sunday, the New York Review of Books published an open letter from prominent legal scholars to President Barack Obama describing the young soldier’s confinement as “degrading and inhumane conditions that are illegal and immoral.”
The open letter, written by law professors Bruce Ackerman of Yale and Yochai Benkler of Harvard and published under the headline “Private Manning’s Humiliation,” states that the conditions in which Manning is being held are a violation of both the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual treatment and the Fifth Amendment protection against punishment without trial.
“If continued,” the letter states, Manning’s treatment “may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, ‘the administration or application … of … procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.’…
“The administration has provided no evidence that Manning’s treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates,” the letter states. “Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.”
Nearly 300 lawyers, professors, and authors have signed the letter, including Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who taught constitutional law to Obama and served as an advisor on legal access issues at the Justice Department until three months ago.
Tribe told the British Guardian that Manning’s detention was “not only shameful but unconstitutional … in the way it violates his person and his liberty without due process of law and in the way it administers cruel and unusual punishment of a sort that cannot be constitutionally inflicted even upon someone convicted of terrible offenses, not to mention someone merely accused of such offenses.”
When asked during a press conference last month about Manning’s abuse, Obama asserted that he knew nothing directly about the case but that the soldier was being treated well. “With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are.”
Obama also absurdly presented Manning’s strip-downs and other indignities as matters of personal protection. “I can’t go into details about some of their concerns,” he stated, “but some of this has to do with Private Manning’s safety as well.”
After coming to power in part on the basis of pledges to reverse some of the worst abuses of democratic rights by the Bush administration, the Obama administration has overseen an expansion of these illegal policies, including the recent resumption of military tribunals for Guantánamo detainees. The White House has been particularly cut-throat in its pursuit of whistleblowers inside the government and military.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Manning has yet to appear in court. The 23-year-old faces 34 charges of leaking classified material to the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks, including evidence of numerous US war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the charges is that of “aiding the enemy,” which carries a sentence of life in prison or execution.
In addition to living in solitary confinement 23 hours a day in a small, empty cell, Manning has been subjected to forced nudity, deprived of personal possessions including his glasses, denied the ability to exercise or sleep during the day in his cell, and is continually harassed and intimidated by military guards. The soldier issued a letter through his lawyer last month detailing his abuse.
The severity of his charges and the hellish conditions to which he is being subjected make clear that Manning is being held as a political prisoner by the Obama administration.
The UN envoy, Juan Mendez, said Monday, “I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the US government with regard to my attempts to visit Mr. Manning.” The US “has not been receptive to a confidential meeting with Mr. Manning,” Mendez said in a statement. Military officials stated that the meeting could proceed only with a guard present, meaning that its content could be used against Manning in his court-martial trial.
Mendez issued a reprimand against the US—a measure only rarely undertaken by the UN, and usually in response to the conduct of small, dictatorial regimes—after being repeatedly stonewalled and denied entrance to the Virginia military base by the Obama administration since December.
Commenting to news agency Reuters, Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan insisted that only lawyers were allowed unmonitored meetings with Quantico prisoners. Lapan added that there was “considerable misinformation” about Manning’s treatment, dismissing charges of cruelty and abuse. “There is no such thing at Quantico. … These facts are simply not true.”
Manning’s treatment has drawn condemnations from human rights groups and legal experts around the world. The British government, facing a mounting outcry over the mistreatment of the soldier, whose mother is Welsh, last week announced it would press US officials to moderate Manning’s conditions. (See, “British government presses US over treatment of Bradley Manning”)
On Sunday, the New York Review of Books published an open letter from prominent legal scholars to President Barack Obama describing the young soldier’s confinement as “degrading and inhumane conditions that are illegal and immoral.”
The open letter, written by law professors Bruce Ackerman of Yale and Yochai Benkler of Harvard and published under the headline “Private Manning’s Humiliation,” states that the conditions in which Manning is being held are a violation of both the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual treatment and the Fifth Amendment protection against punishment without trial.
“If continued,” the letter states, Manning’s treatment “may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, ‘the administration or application … of … procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.’…
“The administration has provided no evidence that Manning’s treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates,” the letter states. “Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.”
Nearly 300 lawyers, professors, and authors have signed the letter, including Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who taught constitutional law to Obama and served as an advisor on legal access issues at the Justice Department until three months ago.
Tribe told the British Guardian that Manning’s detention was “not only shameful but unconstitutional … in the way it violates his person and his liberty without due process of law and in the way it administers cruel and unusual punishment of a sort that cannot be constitutionally inflicted even upon someone convicted of terrible offenses, not to mention someone merely accused of such offenses.”
When asked during a press conference last month about Manning’s abuse, Obama asserted that he knew nothing directly about the case but that the soldier was being treated well. “With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are.”
Obama also absurdly presented Manning’s strip-downs and other indignities as matters of personal protection. “I can’t go into details about some of their concerns,” he stated, “but some of this has to do with Private Manning’s safety as well.”
After coming to power in part on the basis of pledges to reverse some of the worst abuses of democratic rights by the Bush administration, the Obama administration has overseen an expansion of these illegal policies, including the recent resumption of military tribunals for Guantánamo detainees. The White House has been particularly cut-throat in its pursuit of whistleblowers inside the government and military.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Hawks' torture cases in limbo
The Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) says it has been waiting for 17 months for the national director of public prosecutions to decide whether to prosecute 14 Cape Town members of the Hawks allegedly involved in 18 cases of torture. Sources said the decision about whether to prosecute has been delayed because many advocates in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) work closely with the Hawks and the cases were passed "from advocate to advocate". The NPA was now considering bringing in an outside advocate, said the sources.
The number of torture complaints against the policemen has risen to 29 since the original charges were laid. "People have come forward to say they were also tortured since these cases received media coverage," said ICD spokesperson Moses Dlamini.
The NPA has denied the claim by the directorate that it has been sitting on the case dockets for 17 months. On Thursday, it alleged it had only received case dockets relating to the murder last year, but that the dockets had been sent back to the directorate for further investigation and had only been received again recently. The other cases had not yet been formally presented to the NPA, it alleged. "I hope this clears up any perceptions that this office has been tardy in dealing with the matter," said NPA Western Cape spokesperson Eric Ntabazalila.
The 14 Hawks members implicated were members of the former organised crime unit in Bellville South, which now falls under the Hawks. They were linked to the case of Sidwell Mkwambi, a 24-year-old New Crossroads resident allegedly tortured to death and driven to the mortuary in a police van.
The ICD's executive head, Francois Beukman, said he had met national prosecutions boss Menzi Simelane to urge a decision on the cases, "but we still await a decision". Beukman and key staffers were in Parliament this week to provide input into the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Bill, designed to give the ICD more teeth. The legislation will give the directorate an extended mandate, focusing on serious and priority crimes committed by police personnel.
Police are expected to be given time frames to respond to the ICD's requests for information and to be compelled to follow its recommendations. In many cases police close ranks to prevent the directorate from doing its job, said Dlamini. "We're hoping the legislation will strengthen us. Police won't be able to ignore our recommendations, as in the past." The 18 cases involve murder, assault, torture and kidnapping. Torture methods allegedly included handcuffing suspects' hands behind their backs before pulling plastic bags over their heads, threatening them with suffocation, pulling inner tubes over their faces and hitting, kicking and slapping them.
Western Cape police commissioner Mzwandile Petros, who it was reported this week will become Gauteng's provincial police commissioner next month, failed to act on the ICD's recommendation in February last year that the 14 Hawks members should be suspended pending its investigation. He said last September that he was still waiting for the cases to be finalised.
The provincial organised crime unit at the time of Mkwambi's alleged murder fell under crack investigator Piet Viljoen, now a senior Hawks member. Mkwambi's sister, Mildred Nopinki, told the M&G last year that Viljoen visited her home in search of her brother after two policemen were shot in New Crossroads. She said police later arrested him and a friend, Siyabulela Njova. In a statement to police, Njova alleged he saw unit members dragging a "limp" Mkwambi down a passage. Dlamini said the ICD was investigating the alleged widespread use of torture on suspects by Hawks members in different provinces.
There are fears that other cases in court may have to be reviewed if one of the implicated Hawks members were to have obtained a confession from the accused.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The number of torture complaints against the policemen has risen to 29 since the original charges were laid. "People have come forward to say they were also tortured since these cases received media coverage," said ICD spokesperson Moses Dlamini.
The NPA has denied the claim by the directorate that it has been sitting on the case dockets for 17 months. On Thursday, it alleged it had only received case dockets relating to the murder last year, but that the dockets had been sent back to the directorate for further investigation and had only been received again recently. The other cases had not yet been formally presented to the NPA, it alleged. "I hope this clears up any perceptions that this office has been tardy in dealing with the matter," said NPA Western Cape spokesperson Eric Ntabazalila.
The 14 Hawks members implicated were members of the former organised crime unit in Bellville South, which now falls under the Hawks. They were linked to the case of Sidwell Mkwambi, a 24-year-old New Crossroads resident allegedly tortured to death and driven to the mortuary in a police van.
The ICD's executive head, Francois Beukman, said he had met national prosecutions boss Menzi Simelane to urge a decision on the cases, "but we still await a decision". Beukman and key staffers were in Parliament this week to provide input into the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Bill, designed to give the ICD more teeth. The legislation will give the directorate an extended mandate, focusing on serious and priority crimes committed by police personnel.
Police are expected to be given time frames to respond to the ICD's requests for information and to be compelled to follow its recommendations. In many cases police close ranks to prevent the directorate from doing its job, said Dlamini. "We're hoping the legislation will strengthen us. Police won't be able to ignore our recommendations, as in the past." The 18 cases involve murder, assault, torture and kidnapping. Torture methods allegedly included handcuffing suspects' hands behind their backs before pulling plastic bags over their heads, threatening them with suffocation, pulling inner tubes over their faces and hitting, kicking and slapping them.
Western Cape police commissioner Mzwandile Petros, who it was reported this week will become Gauteng's provincial police commissioner next month, failed to act on the ICD's recommendation in February last year that the 14 Hawks members should be suspended pending its investigation. He said last September that he was still waiting for the cases to be finalised.
The provincial organised crime unit at the time of Mkwambi's alleged murder fell under crack investigator Piet Viljoen, now a senior Hawks member. Mkwambi's sister, Mildred Nopinki, told the M&G last year that Viljoen visited her home in search of her brother after two policemen were shot in New Crossroads. She said police later arrested him and a friend, Siyabulela Njova. In a statement to police, Njova alleged he saw unit members dragging a "limp" Mkwambi down a passage. Dlamini said the ICD was investigating the alleged widespread use of torture on suspects by Hawks members in different provinces.
There are fears that other cases in court may have to be reviewed if one of the implicated Hawks members were to have obtained a confession from the accused.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, August 5, 2010
New Police Watchdog 'Still Toothless'
Despite claims that new legislation will increase the effectiveness of independent scrutiny of police abuses, a parliamentary researcher has warned that the new investigative directorate will retain the status quo because police will not be compelled to implement its recommendations.
The Independent Investigative Directorate Bill seeks to replace the existing Independent Complaints Directorate with a new body that has an expanded mandate to investigate abuses by police officials. The existing directorate could investigate deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody, or alleged misconduct or offences by police. The new Independent Police Investigative Directorate can also probe rape, torture and corruption.
But parliamentary researcher Mpumelelo Mpisi told Parliament's police committee yesterday that as there was no clause in the bill compelling police top brass to respond to recommendations, it would be business as usual. "There is no obligation to implement the recommendations so this bill does not strengthen the current position of the directorate."
Mr Mpisi also questioned the provision that the new directorate report to the police minister, saying it should instead report directly to Parliament to minimise political interference and promote independence. "(It) is an independent agency and must function like other independent agencies such as the public protector and the Public Service Commission," Mr Mpisi said.
This position has been echoed by Gareth Newham of the Institute for Security Studies, who said the relatively weak level of compliance with the existing directorate found in research "clearly undermined" the reasons for its existence as an independent complaints mechanism and compliance body.
The lack of police response to or co-operation with it undermined its confidence. Mr Newham suggested police should respond in writing to both the civilian secretary of police and the new directorate within 30 days of a recommendation being made, to tell them what action had been taken. If police disagreed with the directorate's findings, they should explain their position within 30 days.
Adele Kirsten from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation suggested an even more stringent clause requiring police to acknowledge receipt of recommendations within 24 hours and say within a month what actions will be taken or why the recommendations could not be followed.
There was also considerable discussion over the issue of torture in police custody. It was pointed out that torture is not defined in South African law. The degree to which the committee takes these suggestions on board will be revealed in the weeks ahead as it continues to debate the bill.
As there is no clause compelling police top brass to act on recommendations, it will be business as usual.
Source: All Africa
The Independent Investigative Directorate Bill seeks to replace the existing Independent Complaints Directorate with a new body that has an expanded mandate to investigate abuses by police officials. The existing directorate could investigate deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody, or alleged misconduct or offences by police. The new Independent Police Investigative Directorate can also probe rape, torture and corruption.
But parliamentary researcher Mpumelelo Mpisi told Parliament's police committee yesterday that as there was no clause in the bill compelling police top brass to respond to recommendations, it would be business as usual. "There is no obligation to implement the recommendations so this bill does not strengthen the current position of the directorate."
Mr Mpisi also questioned the provision that the new directorate report to the police minister, saying it should instead report directly to Parliament to minimise political interference and promote independence. "(It) is an independent agency and must function like other independent agencies such as the public protector and the Public Service Commission," Mr Mpisi said.
This position has been echoed by Gareth Newham of the Institute for Security Studies, who said the relatively weak level of compliance with the existing directorate found in research "clearly undermined" the reasons for its existence as an independent complaints mechanism and compliance body.
The lack of police response to or co-operation with it undermined its confidence. Mr Newham suggested police should respond in writing to both the civilian secretary of police and the new directorate within 30 days of a recommendation being made, to tell them what action had been taken. If police disagreed with the directorate's findings, they should explain their position within 30 days.
Adele Kirsten from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation suggested an even more stringent clause requiring police to acknowledge receipt of recommendations within 24 hours and say within a month what actions will be taken or why the recommendations could not be followed.
There was also considerable discussion over the issue of torture in police custody. It was pointed out that torture is not defined in South African law. The degree to which the committee takes these suggestions on board will be revealed in the weeks ahead as it continues to debate the bill.
As there is no clause compelling police top brass to act on recommendations, it will be business as usual.
Source: All Africa
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Criminal Force: Torture, Abuse, and Extrajudicial Killings by the Nigeria Police Force
Police in Nigeria commit extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, and extortion with relative impunity. Nigeria Police Force personnel routinely carry out summary executions of persons accused or suspected of crime; rely on torture as a principal means of investigation; commit rape of both sexes, with a particular focus on sex workers; and engage in extortion at nearly every opportunity.
The Nigerian government has acknowledged these problems and promised to address them in the past, but to date, abuses have continued with no real accountability. Nigeria's leadership must pay serious attention to police reform if it hopes to succeed in restoring public safety.
This report's findings are based on independent field monitoring and investigation at over 400 police stations and posts in 14 states and territories in Nigeria from February 2007 to January 2009. Research was augmented by a review of relevant legislation, case law, and official reports, as well as secondary materials, including newspaper articles and NGO reports.
Source: Open Society Justice Initiative / Network on Police Reform in Nigeria
The Nigerian government has acknowledged these problems and promised to address them in the past, but to date, abuses have continued with no real accountability. Nigeria's leadership must pay serious attention to police reform if it hopes to succeed in restoring public safety.
This report's findings are based on independent field monitoring and investigation at over 400 police stations and posts in 14 states and territories in Nigeria from February 2007 to January 2009. Research was augmented by a review of relevant legislation, case law, and official reports, as well as secondary materials, including newspaper articles and NGO reports.
Source: Open Society Justice Initiative / Network on Police Reform in Nigeria
Friday, May 14, 2010
Hawks in new torture scandals
(ICD) is investigating the widespread use of torture on suspects by members of the elite police unit, the Hawks. It appears to be prevalent among some members of the former organised crime unit, which now falls under the Hawks, according to the ICD. The Hawks replaced the Scorpions after the latter were disbanded in January last year.
The Mail & Guardian can reveal that:
* Eleven Hawks, which the ICD claims are former organised crime unit members, in Gauteng are being investigated for assaulting and torturing suspects in a cash-in-transit heist in December 2006.
* In Klerksdorp, Hawks are being investigated for allegedly torturing the girlfriend of a suspect in a criminal case. She claims she was given electric shocks and had a black bag pulled over her head.
* Also in Klerksdorp, six Hawks detectives have been arrested for allegedly torturing bank robbery suspects. The Hawks appeared in the Klerksdorp Magistrate's Court last week and police sources claim senior Hawks officers went to court in a show of support. One of the accused, Captain Tsietsi Mano, is the investigating officer in the Eugene Terre'Blanche murder case. All of those arrested are from the former organised crime unit. Musa Zondi, the Hawks spokesperson, said none of those arrested had been suspended. "Why should they be suspended?" he asked. "They haven't been found guilty of anything. Let the courts decide and we'll take if from there." Other Hawks members in Klerksdorp who came from the organised crime unit are being investigated in 16 other cases, according to Moses Dlamini, the ICD spokesperson.
* The ICD is investigating a case involving Hawks members accused of using torture in KwaZulu-Natal, but no other information was available.
As previously reported, 14 Hawks in the Western Cape were implicated last year in 18 cases involving murder and torture. In particular they were accused of involvement in the brutal murder of Sidwell Mkwambi, a 24-year-old New Crossroads resident.
Although the ICD recommended the suspension of the officers, Western Cape police commissioner Mzwandile Petros has not acted on the matter. Although the ICD investigation of the cases was finalised by September last year, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has not yet decided whether to prosecute them. Those implicated were all organised crime unit members. "The DPP came back to us with queries in January [this year] and we responded by March," said Dlamini. "We're still awaiting its decision."
Methods of torture investigated by the ICD in the Western Cape include handcuffing suspects' hands behind their backs before pulling plastic bags over their heads, threatening them with suffocation, pulling inner tubes over their faces and hitting, kicking and slapping them.
Meanwhile, lawyers for Chumane Maxwele, the Cape Town jogger who was arrested by President Jacob Zuma's VIP protection unit after allegedly showing his middle finger to the president's motorcade, has claimed damages from Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa. Neil O'Brien, Maxwele's lawyer, would not detail the amount of damages being sought, but the M&G understands it is less than R2-million. A letter of demand also points out that the police have not apologised. The 25-year-old claims he was the victim of an unlawful arrest and detention and defamation. According to Maxwele, three men leapt out of a black BMW X5 with AK-47s and arrested him while he was jogging along De Waal Drive in February this year. In an interview shortly after his arrest, Maxwele said he had been shoved into the vehicle and his hands tied with a cable behind his back. "Then they got a big black bag and they pulled it over my face so I couldn't see anything," he said. "It was horrifying and I was paralysed. I felt unable to breathe."
Source: Mail & Guardian
The Mail & Guardian can reveal that:
* Eleven Hawks, which the ICD claims are former organised crime unit members, in Gauteng are being investigated for assaulting and torturing suspects in a cash-in-transit heist in December 2006.
* In Klerksdorp, Hawks are being investigated for allegedly torturing the girlfriend of a suspect in a criminal case. She claims she was given electric shocks and had a black bag pulled over her head.
* Also in Klerksdorp, six Hawks detectives have been arrested for allegedly torturing bank robbery suspects. The Hawks appeared in the Klerksdorp Magistrate's Court last week and police sources claim senior Hawks officers went to court in a show of support. One of the accused, Captain Tsietsi Mano, is the investigating officer in the Eugene Terre'Blanche murder case. All of those arrested are from the former organised crime unit. Musa Zondi, the Hawks spokesperson, said none of those arrested had been suspended. "Why should they be suspended?" he asked. "They haven't been found guilty of anything. Let the courts decide and we'll take if from there." Other Hawks members in Klerksdorp who came from the organised crime unit are being investigated in 16 other cases, according to Moses Dlamini, the ICD spokesperson.
* The ICD is investigating a case involving Hawks members accused of using torture in KwaZulu-Natal, but no other information was available.
As previously reported, 14 Hawks in the Western Cape were implicated last year in 18 cases involving murder and torture. In particular they were accused of involvement in the brutal murder of Sidwell Mkwambi, a 24-year-old New Crossroads resident.
Although the ICD recommended the suspension of the officers, Western Cape police commissioner Mzwandile Petros has not acted on the matter. Although the ICD investigation of the cases was finalised by September last year, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has not yet decided whether to prosecute them. Those implicated were all organised crime unit members. "The DPP came back to us with queries in January [this year] and we responded by March," said Dlamini. "We're still awaiting its decision."
Methods of torture investigated by the ICD in the Western Cape include handcuffing suspects' hands behind their backs before pulling plastic bags over their heads, threatening them with suffocation, pulling inner tubes over their faces and hitting, kicking and slapping them.
Meanwhile, lawyers for Chumane Maxwele, the Cape Town jogger who was arrested by President Jacob Zuma's VIP protection unit after allegedly showing his middle finger to the president's motorcade, has claimed damages from Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa. Neil O'Brien, Maxwele's lawyer, would not detail the amount of damages being sought, but the M&G understands it is less than R2-million. A letter of demand also points out that the police have not apologised. The 25-year-old claims he was the victim of an unlawful arrest and detention and defamation. According to Maxwele, three men leapt out of a black BMW X5 with AK-47s and arrested him while he was jogging along De Waal Drive in February this year. In an interview shortly after his arrest, Maxwele said he had been shoved into the vehicle and his hands tied with a cable behind his back. "Then they got a big black bag and they pulled it over my face so I couldn't see anything," he said. "It was horrifying and I was paralysed. I felt unable to breathe."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Sunday, April 25, 2010
New development in Mpumalanga killings
A Pretoria High Court judge has obtained an affidavit from the Mozambican hitman who was allegedly hired to kill Mbombela municipality speaker Jimmy Mohlala in January last year.
Mohlala was a whistle-blower on the alleged tender corruption involving the building of the R2-billion Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit.
The judge, who cannot be named for his safety, met with the alleged hitman known as ''Josh" in the underworld at the Nerston border post near Piet Retief on Thursday. The border post is between South Africa and Swaziland. Josh, wearing a black tracksuit and white sneakers, made a 15-page hand-written confession before the judge. In the confession, Josh claimed that he had been hired by a senior Mpumalanga politician, a soccer boss and two businessmen. The self-confessed killer's meeting with the judge was witnessed by seven other senior government officials from the Justice Department and police.
The judge will now prepare the statement and submit it to police commissioner General Bheki Cele this week. Cele will then decide when to make an arrest and who must be arrested. Josh was initially telephonically interviewed by senior officials in Cele's office last month. Josh claimed that he and another hitman were responsible for the murder of former defence secretary January "Che" Masilela and made his death appear to have resulted from a car accident. Masilela died near Bronkhorst-spruit in August 2008 after he lost control of his BMW X5. The car caught fire and Masilela was burnt beyond recognition.
Cele yesterday declined to comment on the latest police breakthrough, including developments surrounding the confession made by Josh, saying the matter was at a "sensitive stage". Cele said: "I'd rather not comment on the matter."
Meanwhile, Mohlala's wife, Bonny, yesterday confirmed that she was suing police for R300000 for wrongful arrest and assault. She filed the lawsuit after police allegedly took her and her two children to the bush near KaNyamazane, outside Nelspruit, where they were allegedly tortured. She claims that police tried to force her and her children to make a false confession that they were involved in her husband's murder.
Source: Times Live
Mohlala was a whistle-blower on the alleged tender corruption involving the building of the R2-billion Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit.
The judge, who cannot be named for his safety, met with the alleged hitman known as ''Josh" in the underworld at the Nerston border post near Piet Retief on Thursday. The border post is between South Africa and Swaziland. Josh, wearing a black tracksuit and white sneakers, made a 15-page hand-written confession before the judge. In the confession, Josh claimed that he had been hired by a senior Mpumalanga politician, a soccer boss and two businessmen. The self-confessed killer's meeting with the judge was witnessed by seven other senior government officials from the Justice Department and police.
The judge will now prepare the statement and submit it to police commissioner General Bheki Cele this week. Cele will then decide when to make an arrest and who must be arrested. Josh was initially telephonically interviewed by senior officials in Cele's office last month. Josh claimed that he and another hitman were responsible for the murder of former defence secretary January "Che" Masilela and made his death appear to have resulted from a car accident. Masilela died near Bronkhorst-spruit in August 2008 after he lost control of his BMW X5. The car caught fire and Masilela was burnt beyond recognition.
Cele yesterday declined to comment on the latest police breakthrough, including developments surrounding the confession made by Josh, saying the matter was at a "sensitive stage". Cele said: "I'd rather not comment on the matter."
Meanwhile, Mohlala's wife, Bonny, yesterday confirmed that she was suing police for R300000 for wrongful arrest and assault. She filed the lawsuit after police allegedly took her and her two children to the bush near KaNyamazane, outside Nelspruit, where they were allegedly tortured. She claims that police tried to force her and her children to make a false confession that they were involved in her husband's murder.
Source: Times Live
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Son of Ex-President of Liberia Is Convicted of Torture
A federal jury on Thursday convicted the son of the former president of Liberia of torturing suspected opponents of his father’s government. It was the first case brought under a 1994 law that makes it a crime for United States citizens to commit torture overseas. During the trial, witnesses said the defendant, Charles McArthur Emmanuel, 31, stood by and laughed as soldiers forced prisoners to play “stone football,” kicking large stones until their bare feet were bruised and bleeding. One witness described having flaming plastic melted onto his skin, and another said soldiers had cut his genitals.
Mr. Emmanuel, who was known in Liberia as Chuckie and commanded a military unit known as the Demon Forces, was convicted of conspiracy and torture after two days of jury deliberations. He faces a possible life sentence. The case coincides with the trial of Mr. Emmanuel’s father, Charles Taylor, in a war crimes tribunal in The Hague for atrocities in West Africa during his presidency.
Elise Keppler, senior counsel for the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, said that the verdict was a milestone in the fight against human rights abuses around the world and that she hoped to see more prosecutions like it. “That’s going to be the key here,” Ms. Keppler said. “This can’t be an anomaly in U.S. practice, but should be the beginning of a trend where the United States actively prosecutes human rights violations committed abroad.”
When the case began a month ago, defense lawyers said the witnesses had fabricated their stories for financial gain and to win political asylum. In opening statements, an assistant federal public defender said that if this case were a newspaper headline, it would read, “Desperate and disgruntled Africans accuse American to escape war-torn Liberia.”
The witnesses shared gruesome stories about Mr. Emmanuel. Sulaiman Solo Jusu, a refugee from Sierra Leone who had been living in Liberia for more than a year, described a 1999 attack in the Liberian town of Voinjama and his arrest by security forces at a bridge checkpoint. Mr. Jusu said Mr. Emmanuel accused the prisoners of being rebels sent to overthrow his father’s government, and he described Mr. Emmanuel shooting three men in the head. “I don’t know how to describe that feeling,” Mr. Jusu testified. “You can just think of you being the next one. I was so afraid.”
In court, as the guilty verdict was read aloud, Mr. Emmanuel sat quietly with his hands in his lap. When all 12 jurors agreed he was guilty, he looked over at his lawyer, who gently patted him on the back. He refused to stand when the jury was dismissed and seemed impatient to leave. In a news conference afterward, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta said of Mr. Emmanuel, “The acts of which he was convicted were horrific.”
Born in Boston, Mr. Emmanuel spent most of his life in Orlando, Fla., with his mother, stepfather and older sister. He joined his father in Liberia as a teenager, a few years before Mr. Taylor won the 1997 presidential election. He was arrested on charges of carrying a false passport when he arrived in Miami from Trinidad in March 2006. He will be sentenced in January 2009.
Source: New York Times
Mr. Emmanuel, who was known in Liberia as Chuckie and commanded a military unit known as the Demon Forces, was convicted of conspiracy and torture after two days of jury deliberations. He faces a possible life sentence. The case coincides with the trial of Mr. Emmanuel’s father, Charles Taylor, in a war crimes tribunal in The Hague for atrocities in West Africa during his presidency.
Elise Keppler, senior counsel for the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, said that the verdict was a milestone in the fight against human rights abuses around the world and that she hoped to see more prosecutions like it. “That’s going to be the key here,” Ms. Keppler said. “This can’t be an anomaly in U.S. practice, but should be the beginning of a trend where the United States actively prosecutes human rights violations committed abroad.”
When the case began a month ago, defense lawyers said the witnesses had fabricated their stories for financial gain and to win political asylum. In opening statements, an assistant federal public defender said that if this case were a newspaper headline, it would read, “Desperate and disgruntled Africans accuse American to escape war-torn Liberia.”
The witnesses shared gruesome stories about Mr. Emmanuel. Sulaiman Solo Jusu, a refugee from Sierra Leone who had been living in Liberia for more than a year, described a 1999 attack in the Liberian town of Voinjama and his arrest by security forces at a bridge checkpoint. Mr. Jusu said Mr. Emmanuel accused the prisoners of being rebels sent to overthrow his father’s government, and he described Mr. Emmanuel shooting three men in the head. “I don’t know how to describe that feeling,” Mr. Jusu testified. “You can just think of you being the next one. I was so afraid.”
In court, as the guilty verdict was read aloud, Mr. Emmanuel sat quietly with his hands in his lap. When all 12 jurors agreed he was guilty, he looked over at his lawyer, who gently patted him on the back. He refused to stand when the jury was dismissed and seemed impatient to leave. In a news conference afterward, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta said of Mr. Emmanuel, “The acts of which he was convicted were horrific.”
Born in Boston, Mr. Emmanuel spent most of his life in Orlando, Fla., with his mother, stepfather and older sister. He joined his father in Liberia as a teenager, a few years before Mr. Taylor won the 1997 presidential election. He was arrested on charges of carrying a false passport when he arrived in Miami from Trinidad in March 2006. He will be sentenced in January 2009.
Source: New York Times
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
CIA admit 'waterboarding' al-Qaida suspects
Interrogators used "waterboarding" on three men shortly after the September 11 attacks, the CIA admitted today, naming for the first time the victims of a technique widely perceived as torture.
The men subjected to waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were al-Qaida suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the CIA director, Michael Hayden, told the US Congress. "We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time," Hayden said. "There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al-Qaida and its workings. Those two realities have changed."
Hayden told the senate intelligence committee that Mohammed - the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks - and the other two men were subject to waterboarding in 2002 and 2003. "The circumstances are different than they were in late 2001, early 2002," Hayden said, adding that he opposed limiting the CIA to interrogation techniques permitted in the US Army field manual, which bans waterboarding. Hayden told the committee that fewer than 100 people had been held in the CIA's terrorism detention and interrogation programme, with less than one-third subjected to "coercive" techniques. The CIA said in December that it had destroyed videotapes depicting the interrogations of Zubaydah and Nashiri, prompting a justice department investigation. The tapes were destroyed as Congress moved to pass a ban on inhumane interrogations and a prosecutor is investigating whether US intelligence officials broke the law or violated court orders in destroying the tapes.
In waterboarding, the victim's mouth is covered and water poured over his face, making the victim feel as if they are drowning. "Waterboarding taken to its extreme, could be death - you could drown someone," McConnell acknowledged. He said waterboarding remains a technique in the CIA's arsenal, but it would require the consent of the president and legal approval of the attorney general.
At the same hearing, the US director of national intelligence said the Taliban, which was overthrown in Afghanistan in late 2001, has expanded its operations into once-peaceful areas of western Afghanistan and around the capital, Kabul, despite the death or capture of three top commanders in the last year. McConnell also said al-Qaida maintains a "safe haven" in Pakistan's tribal areas, where the group is able to stage attacks supporting the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan. The Pakistani tribal areas provide al-Qaida "many of the advantages it once derived from its base across the border in Afghanistan, albeit on a smaller and less secure scale", allowing militants to train for strikes in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa and the US, McConnell said. "Al-Qaida remains the pre-eminent threat against the United States, both here at home and abroad," McConnell said, even though the terror network had suffered setbacks in Iraq. He expressed concern that al-Qaida in Iraq is shifting its focus elsewhere in the region. "They may deploy resources to mount attacks outside the country," McConnell said, although fewer than 100 terrorists have moved to establish cells in other countries. McConnell also told the senate panel that US officials believe that Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas. A report released in London said nearly 400 militant groups now operate around the world and the greatest proliferation has been in the border regions between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
The number of violent "non-state" groups has grown about 10% in the past year, according to the 2008 military balance report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Iraq and India, with more than 30 active guerrilla groups each, are the most volatile countries, the report said, with the Afghan-Pakistan border and the disputed Kashmir region between India and Pakistan the worst-affected areas.
Source: Guardian
The men subjected to waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were al-Qaida suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the CIA director, Michael Hayden, told the US Congress. "We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time," Hayden said. "There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al-Qaida and its workings. Those two realities have changed."
Hayden told the senate intelligence committee that Mohammed - the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks - and the other two men were subject to waterboarding in 2002 and 2003. "The circumstances are different than they were in late 2001, early 2002," Hayden said, adding that he opposed limiting the CIA to interrogation techniques permitted in the US Army field manual, which bans waterboarding. Hayden told the committee that fewer than 100 people had been held in the CIA's terrorism detention and interrogation programme, with less than one-third subjected to "coercive" techniques. The CIA said in December that it had destroyed videotapes depicting the interrogations of Zubaydah and Nashiri, prompting a justice department investigation. The tapes were destroyed as Congress moved to pass a ban on inhumane interrogations and a prosecutor is investigating whether US intelligence officials broke the law or violated court orders in destroying the tapes.
In waterboarding, the victim's mouth is covered and water poured over his face, making the victim feel as if they are drowning. "Waterboarding taken to its extreme, could be death - you could drown someone," McConnell acknowledged. He said waterboarding remains a technique in the CIA's arsenal, but it would require the consent of the president and legal approval of the attorney general.
At the same hearing, the US director of national intelligence said the Taliban, which was overthrown in Afghanistan in late 2001, has expanded its operations into once-peaceful areas of western Afghanistan and around the capital, Kabul, despite the death or capture of three top commanders in the last year. McConnell also said al-Qaida maintains a "safe haven" in Pakistan's tribal areas, where the group is able to stage attacks supporting the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan. The Pakistani tribal areas provide al-Qaida "many of the advantages it once derived from its base across the border in Afghanistan, albeit on a smaller and less secure scale", allowing militants to train for strikes in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa and the US, McConnell said. "Al-Qaida remains the pre-eminent threat against the United States, both here at home and abroad," McConnell said, even though the terror network had suffered setbacks in Iraq. He expressed concern that al-Qaida in Iraq is shifting its focus elsewhere in the region. "They may deploy resources to mount attacks outside the country," McConnell said, although fewer than 100 terrorists have moved to establish cells in other countries. McConnell also told the senate panel that US officials believe that Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas. A report released in London said nearly 400 militant groups now operate around the world and the greatest proliferation has been in the border regions between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
The number of violent "non-state" groups has grown about 10% in the past year, according to the 2008 military balance report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Iraq and India, with more than 30 active guerrilla groups each, are the most volatile countries, the report said, with the Afghan-Pakistan border and the disputed Kashmir region between India and Pakistan the worst-affected areas.
Source: Guardian
Sunday, November 5, 1989
NAMIBIAN VOTERS DENY TOTAL POWER TO SWAPO
Along this city's well-traveled Talstrasse last week, almost every corner had a large red and blue billboard. `Vote Without Fear,' the signs instructed passing Namibians. Signs on neighborhing streets informed passersby, `Your Vote Is Your Secret.'
Erected by the South African administrator general, who with the United Nations is responsible for the maintenance of Namibia through independence, the signs were designed to calm the fears of Namibian voters as they elected a constituent assembly. In the balloting, the first major step toward independence, the Marxist South West African People's Organization won most of the votes, about 75%, according to unofficial figures. But SWAPO fell short of the two-thirds majority it was predicting and thus was denied total power to write a new constitution.
This is despite the fact that to Namibians, who have been ruled by South Africa since 1915, democracy is a foreign concept. The administrator general and the U.N. Transitional Assistance Group, or UNTAG, had been busy correcting widespread misconceptions about election rules. The unfamiliarity with the voting process, combined with Namibia's 60% illiteracy rate, opened the door for intimidation and deception tactics by many of Namibia's political parties.
For instance, some Namibians were led to believe that political parties would be informed about how their votes were cast and that there would be retribution if they voted for a rival party. Several SWAPO leaders went so far as to threaten that if SWAPO failed to gain 50% of the vote, they might renew the guerrilla war SWAPO has waged for 23 years. This tactic may have been perhaps the most intimidating of all, because it turned the election into a referendum on the war.
Stories abound of political parties spreading deliberate disinformation about the voting. During the campaign, SWAPO reportedly told many Namibians to `put a big `X' on the SWAPO ballot if you support SWAPO, but if you are against us, put a small `x' on the SWAPO ballot.'
Like other African independence elections, Namibia's constituent-assembly elections may have been its last. Though SWAPO now contends that it is prepared, if necessary, to work with other parties to develop a coalition government, it has strong totalitarian inclinations, and fear is widespread that a SWAPO-dominated government would lead Namibia into one-party rule.
There is concern that SWAPO will not respect rival opinions in the prospective coalition, and may use the constituent assembly as a stepping stone to total control in Namibia, similar to the approach used by the Marxist-Leninist factor of the Sandinistas following the overthrow of Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua. Werner Neef, an adviser to the Christian Democratic Action Party, says that the CDA will not join a coalition with SWAPO.
The SWAPO victory could lead to ethnic-based violence. SWAPO's power base is rooted in Namibia's largest tribe, the northern-based Ovambos. Indeed, SWAPO lost Namibia outside of Ovambo territory to the free-market Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, winning overall only because it defeated the Alliance by 197,000 votes to 9,200 in the northern region of Ovambo.
There are fears that an Ovambo-based SWAPO government might persecute other tribes such as the Hereros, Namas and Bushmen. SWAPO has admitted keeping many non-Ovambos in underground pits in its camps in Angola and Zambia and torturing them as `spies.'
SWAPO's win also raises security concerns. Since 1964, SWAPO has received financial and military support from the Soviet Union, and SWAPO leader Sam Nujoma has boasted of his strong alliance with Cuba's Fidel Castro, SWAPO also enjoys close relations with the African National Congress, which sent SWAPO 300 minibuses to assist in getting SWAPO supporters to the polls.
There is deep concern that the SWAPO-dominated government may attempt to model Namibia after its northern neighbor, Angola, by bringing in Cuban troops and Soviet military advisers. There is even deeper concern that SWAPO may cooperate with the Angolan regime in launching military attacks against Jonas Savimbi's National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, which is based in southern Angola. However, South Africa's proximity and may force SWAPO military restraint.
SWAPO's ecomomic vision is no more promising, but its traditional Marxist-Leninist rhetoric moderated considerably during the campaign. SWAPO told foreign investors recently that is does not support wholesale nationalization, and Mr. Nujoma has said that he does not wish the country's 70,000 whites to flee since their technical and management skills are needed. But according to Mishake Muyongo of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, which got 29% of the votes. `SWAPO will say in public `We want whites here,' but then in private they will turn around and say `Get rid of these people.' '
For southern Africa, the outcome of Namibia's independence process will be critical for the strategic and economic composition of the region. With Namibia's mineral wealth and abundant land (the country is twice the size of France), a moderate, free-market approach by the country's new government could lead to strong economic growth, perhaps making Namibia a regional success story among the underdeveloped front-line states. Conversely, a statist, authoritarian approach by Namibia will likely sway the regional political and economic balance in the other direction.
The outcome is equally important for the U.N., which, as the monitor of Namibia's independence process, has embarked on one of its most ambitious missions to date. More than 6,200 members of UNTAG are in the country to oversee the process, and the U.N. brought in more than 1,000 additional personnel to serve as official election observers.
Having funded SWAPO, given it observer status in New York, and recognized it as `the sole, authentic representative of the Namibian people' in General Assembly resolutions, the U.N.'s capability for objectivity is in justifiable doubt. Indeed, several Namibian political parties contend that the U.N.'s longstanding finanical and diplomatic support for SWAPO tipped the scale in SWAPO that is now taking issue with the U.N.'s formal declaration after the polls closed that the five-days elections were `free and fair.'
But perhaps the greatest irony of the Namibian independence process is the composition of the member nations represented in UNTAG. Nondemocratic nations such as Cuba, Libya, Romania, East Germany and the U.S.S.R. have been sent to Namibia to oversee democratic procedures that they forbid in their own countries.
For Namibians, the concern is not merely that many of these countries have their own dubious agenda in southern Africa, but also that the political system of an independent Namibia may soon be shaped in their image.
Source: US Library of Congress
Erected by the South African administrator general, who with the United Nations is responsible for the maintenance of Namibia through independence, the signs were designed to calm the fears of Namibian voters as they elected a constituent assembly. In the balloting, the first major step toward independence, the Marxist South West African People's Organization won most of the votes, about 75%, according to unofficial figures. But SWAPO fell short of the two-thirds majority it was predicting and thus was denied total power to write a new constitution.
This is despite the fact that to Namibians, who have been ruled by South Africa since 1915, democracy is a foreign concept. The administrator general and the U.N. Transitional Assistance Group, or UNTAG, had been busy correcting widespread misconceptions about election rules. The unfamiliarity with the voting process, combined with Namibia's 60% illiteracy rate, opened the door for intimidation and deception tactics by many of Namibia's political parties.
For instance, some Namibians were led to believe that political parties would be informed about how their votes were cast and that there would be retribution if they voted for a rival party. Several SWAPO leaders went so far as to threaten that if SWAPO failed to gain 50% of the vote, they might renew the guerrilla war SWAPO has waged for 23 years. This tactic may have been perhaps the most intimidating of all, because it turned the election into a referendum on the war.
Stories abound of political parties spreading deliberate disinformation about the voting. During the campaign, SWAPO reportedly told many Namibians to `put a big `X' on the SWAPO ballot if you support SWAPO, but if you are against us, put a small `x' on the SWAPO ballot.'
Like other African independence elections, Namibia's constituent-assembly elections may have been its last. Though SWAPO now contends that it is prepared, if necessary, to work with other parties to develop a coalition government, it has strong totalitarian inclinations, and fear is widespread that a SWAPO-dominated government would lead Namibia into one-party rule.
There is concern that SWAPO will not respect rival opinions in the prospective coalition, and may use the constituent assembly as a stepping stone to total control in Namibia, similar to the approach used by the Marxist-Leninist factor of the Sandinistas following the overthrow of Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua. Werner Neef, an adviser to the Christian Democratic Action Party, says that the CDA will not join a coalition with SWAPO.
The SWAPO victory could lead to ethnic-based violence. SWAPO's power base is rooted in Namibia's largest tribe, the northern-based Ovambos. Indeed, SWAPO lost Namibia outside of Ovambo territory to the free-market Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, winning overall only because it defeated the Alliance by 197,000 votes to 9,200 in the northern region of Ovambo.
There are fears that an Ovambo-based SWAPO government might persecute other tribes such as the Hereros, Namas and Bushmen. SWAPO has admitted keeping many non-Ovambos in underground pits in its camps in Angola and Zambia and torturing them as `spies.'
SWAPO's win also raises security concerns. Since 1964, SWAPO has received financial and military support from the Soviet Union, and SWAPO leader Sam Nujoma has boasted of his strong alliance with Cuba's Fidel Castro, SWAPO also enjoys close relations with the African National Congress, which sent SWAPO 300 minibuses to assist in getting SWAPO supporters to the polls.
There is deep concern that the SWAPO-dominated government may attempt to model Namibia after its northern neighbor, Angola, by bringing in Cuban troops and Soviet military advisers. There is even deeper concern that SWAPO may cooperate with the Angolan regime in launching military attacks against Jonas Savimbi's National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, which is based in southern Angola. However, South Africa's proximity and may force SWAPO military restraint.
SWAPO's ecomomic vision is no more promising, but its traditional Marxist-Leninist rhetoric moderated considerably during the campaign. SWAPO told foreign investors recently that is does not support wholesale nationalization, and Mr. Nujoma has said that he does not wish the country's 70,000 whites to flee since their technical and management skills are needed. But according to Mishake Muyongo of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, which got 29% of the votes. `SWAPO will say in public `We want whites here,' but then in private they will turn around and say `Get rid of these people.' '
For southern Africa, the outcome of Namibia's independence process will be critical for the strategic and economic composition of the region. With Namibia's mineral wealth and abundant land (the country is twice the size of France), a moderate, free-market approach by the country's new government could lead to strong economic growth, perhaps making Namibia a regional success story among the underdeveloped front-line states. Conversely, a statist, authoritarian approach by Namibia will likely sway the regional political and economic balance in the other direction.
The outcome is equally important for the U.N., which, as the monitor of Namibia's independence process, has embarked on one of its most ambitious missions to date. More than 6,200 members of UNTAG are in the country to oversee the process, and the U.N. brought in more than 1,000 additional personnel to serve as official election observers.
Having funded SWAPO, given it observer status in New York, and recognized it as `the sole, authentic representative of the Namibian people' in General Assembly resolutions, the U.N.'s capability for objectivity is in justifiable doubt. Indeed, several Namibian political parties contend that the U.N.'s longstanding finanical and diplomatic support for SWAPO tipped the scale in SWAPO that is now taking issue with the U.N.'s formal declaration after the polls closed that the five-days elections were `free and fair.'
But perhaps the greatest irony of the Namibian independence process is the composition of the member nations represented in UNTAG. Nondemocratic nations such as Cuba, Libya, Romania, East Germany and the U.S.S.R. have been sent to Namibia to oversee democratic procedures that they forbid in their own countries.
For Namibians, the concern is not merely that many of these countries have their own dubious agenda in southern Africa, but also that the political system of an independent Namibia may soon be shaped in their image.
Source: US Library of Congress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)