Africa

African Court Orders Return of Mau Forest Land to Ogiek People

By: Jordan Broadbent

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

NAIROBI, Kenya — On July 4, 2019, the Kenyan government and the Ogiek people submitted arguments to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights for the compensation paid to the Ogiek people for violations of their rights and interference with their land.

Ogiek women in Kenya. Photo Courtesy of Minority Rights Group International.

On May 26, 2017, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights ordered the Kenyan Government to return ownership of the Mau Forest lands back to the Ogiek people. The Ogiek are an indigenous tribe that have inhabited roughly 500 square miles of the Mau Forest in Kenya for centuries. The Ogiek people consider the land their ancestral ground, and have battled for centuries with colonizers, and now the Kenyan government, to maintain control of their homeland.

In recent years, the Kenyan government has attempted to evict the Ogiek people and remove them from their land. Under the guise of environmental protection, the Forest Act brought the control, use, and regulation of forest and forest areas under the control of the central government. The Kenyan government has used a two-pronged approach in order to remove the Ogiek people from this land. Using the Forest Act as support, the government first claimed that the Ogiek actually moved from the land, constituting a forfeiture of their land, ancestral or not. The second argument laid in an environmental issue, that the area is a water catchment zone and the Act gives the government power to take control of the land to protect the water catchments. The Kenyan government issued a 30-day eviction notice and allowed logging companies into the Mau Forest.

The Ogiek people brought the Kenyan government before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights after a 15-year fight through the Kenyan Courts with the concern that the government’s actions endangered their community and culture. The Ogiek advocated for the Court to halt the eviction, recognize their legal rights to the land, and order the government to compensate the Ogiek people. The Provisional order declared the Kenyan Government to immediately reinstate all land transaction restrictions in the Mau Forest and report back to the Court in 15 days. On May 26, 2017 the Court ruled that the Kenyan government violated 7 sections of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right and that the land was ancestral and belonged to the Ogiek, giving the indigenous people a historic win.

The victory signifies an important case for indigenous people in Africa. The Court overturned a government’s actions and ordered compensation to be paid to a group of the 20,000 individuals that make up the Ogiek. Ogiek were at risk of becoming “conservation refugees,” a term used for indigenous people who are forced off their land via conservation methods. This case marks a turning point to fight for the rights of indigenous groups to remain on their land.

In Kenya, the wait remains for the government to take tangible steps in restoring the Ogiek to their land.

For further information, please see:

African Court – African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights Order 006/2012 – 4 July 2019

Minority Rights Group International – Two Years on, Kenya has yet to implement judgement in Ogiek case – 5 June 2019

Ogiek.org – Ogiek People – 2004

 

 

 

 

 

Bosco Ntaganda Convicted: A Long-Awaited Victory by the ICC

By: Madison Kenyon

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

KINSHASA, Congo — On July 8, 2019, the International Criminal Court (ICC) found Bosco Ntaganda guilty. The Court convicted him of 13 counts of war crimes, including: murder and attempted murder, intentionally directing attacks against civilians, rape, sexual slavery, ordering the displacement of the civilian population, conscripting and enlisting children under the age of 15 years into an armed group and using them to participate actively in hostilities, intentionally directing attacks against protected objects, and destroying the adversary’s property; and five counts of crimes against humanity, including: murder and attempted murder, rape, sexual slavery, persecution, and forcible transfer and deportation. Ntaganda is only the fourth person to be convicted by the ICC and the first person to be convicted of sexual slavery.

Bosco Ntaganda in the International Criminal Court. Photo Courtesy of AP.

Ntaganda’s crimes date back to before 2003. These crimes specifically arise from his involvement with the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC), of which he was the Deputy Chief of Staff and commander of operations. Despite the ICC’s prosecutor beginning her investigation on June 21, 2004, an arrest warrant was not issued until August 22, 2006. The first warrant charged Ntaganda with the war crime of recruiting and using child soldiers. The ICC did not issue a second arrest warrant until July 13, 2012, which was amended to include four additional counts of war crimes and three additional counts of crimes against humanity. The prosecutor later added more crimes.

Even with the addition of these charges to his arrest warrant, the investigative organization, Human Rights Watch, argued that additional charges should have been added for the alleged crimes he committed after 2003. Specifically, Human Rights Watch argued that he should be charged for his actions while he was military chief of staff of the National Congress for the Defense of the People, a military group located in the North Kivu Province in eastern Congo. While in this position, Human Rights Watch documented Ntaganda’s involvement in ethnic massacres, killings, rape, torture, and recruitment of child soldiers. Despite this documentation and the urge by Human Rights Watch, the court did not include these crimes.

In 2012, Ntaganda broke away from the National Congress for the Defense of the People and formed his own coalition, the March 23 Movement (also referred to as M23). During this time, he continued to live freely and visibly in front of the Congolese government. President Joseph Kabila refused to arrest him because he did not want to disrupt the peace of DR Congo. Thus, Ntaganda would have remained free if he had not turned himself over to the ICC on March 22, 2013. He surrendered because he feared the turmoil currently occurring within M23.

After the ICC brought Ntaganda into custody, the judicial process took six years to reach the July verdict due to extensive investigations by both parties, resulting in approximately 69,000 pages worth of evidence. The trial, which took place over the course of 248 hearings, included testimony from 80 witnesses and experts called by the prosecutor, and 19 witnesses called by the defense team. The court also authorized 2,129 victims to partake in the trial.

Although many are celebrating this judgment, this conviction sheds light on some flaws of the ICC. One flaw in particular is highlighted by the view that this conviction may have never occurred if Ntaganda did not surrender himself to the ICC. This situation could prompt the ICC and the international community to consider another means to bring war criminals within its jurisdiction. Solutions to these issues may expedite a path to justice as the court cannot start a trial without the defendant present.

For further information, please see: 

International Criminal Court – Case Information Sheet: Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo – 8 July 2019 

BBC – DR Congo’s Bosco Ntaganda Convicted of War Crimes by ICC – 8 July 2019 

BBC – Bosco Ntaganda: The Congolese ‘Terminator’ – 8 July 2019

Human Rights Watch – Q&A: Bosco Ntaganda, DR Congo, and the ICC – 2 July 2019

African Court Dismisses Unemployment Case Against Rwanda

By: Hannah Gabbard
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

ARUSHA, Tanzania – On May 11, 2018, the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) dismissed Chrysanthe Rutabingwa’s claim against the government of Rwanda as invalid.

Spectators at the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights. Photo Courtesy of AfCHPR on Twitter.

In 2001, Rutabingwa was fired from his position as an Audit and Evaluations Expert at the Ministry of Finance for allegedly disclosing confidential documents. Rutabingwa claimed that his dismissal was unfair and unconstitutional. In particular, Rutabingwa claimed that the Republic of Rwanda, for failing to solve Rutabingwa’s unemployment, violated his right to equality and equal protection, right to be heard, right of access to public services, right to work in equitable conditions and right to equal pay, and right to enjoy favorable work conditions.

Rutabingwa appealed to AfCHPR on November 10, 2014 against the Republic of Rwanda. He sought reimbursement of salaries dating back to 2001, government provided housing, reinstatement of public service employment, and $1,000,000 U.S. dollars for damages and humiliation.

In Rwanda, Rutabingwa filed in a court of first instance. Following their judgement, the High Court dismissed Rutabingwa’s claim. Rutabingwa never appealed to Rwanda’s highest court, the Supreme Court. AfCHPR dismissed Rutabingwa’s case for failing to exhaust local remedies in Rwanda before appealing to AfCHPR in Tanzania.

AfCHPR has ruled on four cases against the Rwandan government. As Rwanda’s withdrawal from the declaration that provides the court with jurisdiction took effect in 2017, AfCHPR can only proceed with cases filed prior to 2017.

For further information, please see:

African Union – Chrysanthe Rutabingwa vs. Republic of Rwanda Order – 11 May 2018

African Union – Chrysanthe Rutabingwa vs. Republic of Rwanda Judgement – 11 May 2018

The East African – Rwanda government wins longstanding court feud with sacked employee – 16 May 2018

African Court and United Nations to Strengthen Relationship

By: Skylar Salim
Impunity Watch News, Africa

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — On February 9, 2019, an agreement was signed between the United Nations and the African Court on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) at the 32nd Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of African States in Addis Ababa. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, and the president of the African court, Sylvain Oré, met and signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

Sylvain Oré and Michelle Bachelet at the signing the MoU at the African Union‘s 32nd Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of African State and Government. Photo courtesy of CaptialFM.

In September, 2018, ACHPR judges and UN human rights experts met to discuss the issue of the death penalty. This meeting in September drove the UN and the Court to negotiate and sign the MoU. The agreement is designed to strengthen the working relationship between the United Nations and the African Court. The African Court is an institution composed of judges from the African Union that meets four times a year.  The court works to enhance and protect human rights in Africa. Bachelet has noted that, “The Court is a critically important mechanism for the promotion and protection of peoples’ and human rights in Africa, and it is an invaluable partner in the region”. During the signing ceremony for the MoU, Oré stated, “The Court and the UN Office share common values on humanity, including the culture of promoting and protecting human rights.”

Through the agreement, the UN and the court will work toward supporting each other on international and regional levels. The agreement indicates that the institutions will work together when it comes to conceiving and implementing human rights standards in Africa, and what practices are best suited for regional courts such as the ACHPR. Possible activities discussed in the agreement include the UN increasing their knowledge of the practice and jurisprudence of the ACHPR, while the Court will work to understand the work done by the UN Treaty Bodies. Bachelet observed that, “[the UN] already had a good relationship with African human rights system as a whole.” She went on to note that, “however, with this agreement, we are taking it to another level. It will enable us to improve the synergies between the two organizations. The Court is a critically important mechanism for the promotion and protection of peoples’ and human rights in Africa, and it is an invaluable partner in the region.”

For further information, please see:

CapitalFMKenya — African Court Signs MoU with UN to Strengthen Relations — 11 February 2019

CNBC Africa — UN Human Rights Office and African Court on Human and People’s Rights Sign Cooperation Agreement — 11 February 2019

IPP Media — African Court and UN Rights Office Sign MoU to Strengthen Relations — 11 February 2019

African Court Upholds Tanzanian Court Sentence

By: Hannah Gabbard
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

ARUSHA, Tanzania – On May 11, 2018, the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) unanimously ruled that the United Republic of Tanzania did not violate George Maili Kemboge’s right to equality or the right to enjoy the best attainable state of mental and physical health pursuant to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights. Photo Courtesy of AfCHPR.

In August 2006, Kemboge was convicted by the District Court of Tarime for the rape of a fifteen year old girl. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison, twelve cane strokes, and a fine of five hundred thousand Tanzania Shillings.

In 2013 the High Court of Tanzania upheld the sentence and the Court of Appeal of Tanzania affirmed in 2014. Kemboge filed an appeal with the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights in 2016 alleging that his right to equal protection of the law and right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health had been violated. Kemboge appealed to the Court to quash the conviction and sentence and grant reparations.

On the merits, Kemboge argued that the Court of Appeal only considered procedural matters and did not consider the “interests of justice” and that equal protection of the law was violated. Kemboge presented three arguments he alleged the Court of Appeals did not consider. Here, the Court ruled that Kemboge’s allegation of a equal rights protection was dismissed because Kemboge did not demonstrate how the arguments were not properly raised before the lower courts.

Secondly, Kemboge alleged that his right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health was violated because he was not recognized as married to the victim. The Court ruled that state’s refusal to recognize an alleged marriage to the victim does not violate his right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health and therefore, dismissed the allegation.    

The Court did not find any violation of rights and dismissed Kemboge’s appeal for reparations.

For further information, please see:

African Union – The Matter of George Maili Kemboge v. the United Republic of Tanzania – 11 May 2018

African Governance Architecture – Press Release: African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights to Render Six Judgements – 09 May 2018

African Union – Executive Summary of the Application – 3 November 2015