The State’s ineptitude or indisposition to deal with Eastern Cape education is a continuous violation of children’s rights
Posted: 16 May, 2013 Filed under: Akho Ntanjana | Tags: ACERWC, children's rights, constitution, Constitutional Court, CRC, Eastern Cape, education, empowerment, human rights, ICESRC, Kenya, Nubian children, President Zuma, right to education, schools, Section 100, Section 26, South Africa, UNICEF, United Nations, women Leave a comment »
Author: Akho Ntanjana
Legal intern, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), Banjul, The Gambia
Without citing any empirical evidence, it is known that the quality of school facilities has an indirect effect on learning and ultimately on its output. For instance, in a study carried out in India (1996), out of 59 schools in a region, only 49 had structures. Of these 49 schools, 25 had a toilet, 20 had electricity, 10 had a school library and four had a television set. In this study, the quality of the learning environment was strongly correlated with pupils’ achievement in Hindi and mathematics.
Further, a research study was conducted in Latin America that included 50 000 students in grades 3 and 4, it was found that learners whose schools lacked classroom materials and had inadequate libraries were significantly more likely to show lower test scores and higher grade repetition than those whose schools were well equipped (see the United Nations Children’s Fund’s paper ‘Defining Quality Education’). There are many other studies done even in Africa, for example in Botswana, Nigeria and Papua New Guinea, indicating similar outcomes.
There seem to be a correlation between good school infrastructures, other quality dimensions (inter alia the quality of content, psychological aspects, quality processes involved) and the achievement of higher grades by learners. In this opinion piece, I examine the state of education in the Eastern Cape, and the failure by the South Africa government to meet its constitutional and international obligations to provide basic education.
Education for all, even for children with disabilities in Kenya
Posted: 5 April, 2013 Filed under: William Aseka | Tags: African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Children with disabilities, Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Constitution of Kenya, Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities, education, human rights, international human rights, Kenya, United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child, Universal Declaration of Human Rights Leave a comment »
Author: William Aseka
Program Assistant (Human Rights Advocacy for Children with Disabilities), Governance Consulting
There is no outright definition of what education means, however commentators such as Milter has defined it as, an act, process or experience that systematically promotes learning, knowledge and development. By the same token, writers such as Mialeret have defined education from a much narrower view than the above stated, to mean formal instruction of knowledge within recognised and well-structured system of institutions and programmes. This definition by Mialeret is also seen in the 1997 International Standard Classification of Education. Therefore, having known what education means, then the question that comes next is: what is the right to education?
General Comment No. 13 of the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Right (CESR) defines education as both a human right itself and an indispensable means of realising other human rights. The committee goes further to state that as an empowerment right, education is the primary vehicle by which economically and socially marginalised adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their communities. These economically and socially marginalised groups include children with disabilities in Kenya and all over the world. This essentially means that children with disabilities are well protected and are entitled to education and it is not a favour that any government would be doing to these groups.
Prisoners too have a right to determine the government of their choice
Posted: 6 February, 2013 Filed under: William Aseka | Tags: constitution, disenfranchisement, elections, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, Kenya, prisoners, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, voting 7 Comments »Author: William Aseka
Program Assistant (Human Rights Advocacy for Children with Disabilities), Governance Consulting
One of the most critical ways that individuals can influence governmental decision-making is through voting. Voting is a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. Voting generally takes place in the context of a large-scale national or regional election, however, local and small-scale community elections can be just as critical to individual participation in government.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, recognizes the integral role that transparent and open elections play in ensuring the fundamental right to participatory government. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly stipulates under Article 21:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his/her country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot or by equivalent free voting procedures. (Emphasis mine)
In fact just five years after the end of the reign of the apartheid government of South Africa, the country’s constitutional court addressed one of the most profound issues facing the new democracy. The case involved a challenge to the denial of voting rights for citizens incarcerated in South African prisons and raised the fundamental issue of the meaning of democracy, one that was particularly poignant in a society in which such questions had been restricted from public debate. In his written decision for the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Justice Albie Sachs declared, “Rights may not be limited without justification and legislation dealing with the franchise must be interpreted in favor of enfranchisement rather than disenfranchisement.”
Human rights are inherent to all, criminals or not – even in Kenya
Posted: 8 November, 2012 Filed under: Humphrey Sipalla | Tags: constitution, crime, human rights, Kenya, Marikana, police, separatist, use of force, violence 1 Comment »
Author: Humphrey Sipalla
Publications and Communications Officer at the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA)
The whole world watched with horror the events in Marikana, South Africa and even worse, the manner in which the police defended their actions ultimately including the arrest and charging of some of the striking mine workers.
South Africa is not alone in these twisted perceptions of the morality of state monopoly of violence. Kenya is witnessing the re-awakening of a state-centric oxymoronic violent morality. In the last few weeks, after a High Court decision declared illegal the proscription of the Mombasa Republican Council (MRC), this separatist movement, misguidedly revived and threatened to disrupt national school leaving exams among other separatist acts. A police crackdown ensued, culminating on 15 October 2012 with the arrest of 38 persons at the house of the MRC Chairman, Omar Mwamnuadzi. Two people were killed, a gun and 15 rounds of ammunition recovered together with several petrol bombs, including one that was hurled at the officers conducting the raid.
Leading the way for other African Judiciaries: A Kenyan Case Study
Posted: 8 May, 2012 Filed under: Ivy Kihara | Tags: executive, International Criminal Court, judiciary, Kenya, Omar Al-Bashir, rule of law, separation of power 3 Comments »
Author: Ivy Kihara
Operations Manager, InformAction; Advocate of the High Court of Kenya
In November 2011 a Kenyan High Court Judge made history. Justice Nicholas Ombija made a controversial ruling issuing an arrest warrant for President Omar Al- Bashir of Sudan in the event he visits the Republic of Kenya. The arrest warrant was held as valid pending a full Appeal on Tuesday 20 December 2011 by the Kenya Court of Appeal after the Attorney General, Githu Muigai, rushed to court claiming that Judge Ombija’s ruling was creating ‘international anxiety in International circles’. The Attorney General of Kenya appealed the ruling on the arrest warrant and also applied for a stay on the arrest. The stay was denied pending hearing of the appeal. ICJ-Kenya has raised a preliminary objection citing that the Attorney General of Kenya under the 2010 constitution is not the competent representative of the Kenya Government in criminal cases like the All Bashir case. His decision upheld, Justice Ombija issued a provisional arrest warrant for President Bashir on Monday 23 January 2012. It was served on the Minister of Internal Security, Geroge Saitoti, ordering him to arrest President Bashir and hand him over to the ICC if he steps on Kenyan soil.
Will Nubian children have to go to the African Court?
Posted: 13 April, 2012 Filed under: Ayalew Getachew Assefa | Tags: ACERWC, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Kenya, Nubian children, right to education 4 Comments »
Author: Ayalew Getachew Assefa
Lecturer in Law, Makelle University, Ethiopia
Reflections on the Decision of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child concerning the violation of the rights of Nubian children in Kenya
The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (the Committee) has recently made a decision on the communication concerning the violation of the rights of Nubian children in Kenya. (Communication 002/2009 Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa and Open Society Justice Initiative on behalf of children of Nubian descent in Kenya v Kenya). This body’s first ever decision tells much about the avowed intent of the Committee to address the challenges of the Nubian children as it goes a great length despite the continuous disregard of cooperation from the government of Kenya. In its well-articulated decision, the Committee finds the Government of Kenya in violation of the right to non-discrimination, nationality, health and health services, protection against statelessness and education of Nubian Children living in Kenya. Addressing a wide range of issues, the Committee even goes beyond what was requested by the applicant and interpreted Article 31 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (African Children’s Charter) in the light of the issues raised (para 66).
