Mozambique’s struggle for the freedom of peaceful assembly: A complex reality that reaps lives
Posted: 18 September, 2024 Filed under: Denise Ivone Mboana | Tags: Amnesty International, Azagaia, civil war, economic development, excessive force, Excessive Use of Force, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, human rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Intimidation of victims, lack of transparency, Mozambican National Resistance, Mozambique, multiparty system, peaceful assembly, peaceful protests, police suppression, Regional and International Human Rights Instruments, Restrictive Legal Framework, street protests, The Civicus Monitor, Universal Declaration on Human Rights, unrest, violence 8 Comments
Author: Denise Ivone Mboana
LLM Student, University of Sussex
Introduction
This article aims to provide a brief analysis of the freedom of peaceful assembly in Mozambique. Nestled along Africa’s southeastern coast, Mozambique has a vibrant cultural history. Nevertheless, the nation has confronted substantial challenges rooted in its colonial past and internal conflicts, notably the “16 years’ war” involving the ruling Frelimo party (in power since independence) and the main opposition Mozambican National Resistance (Renamo) party. Following the 1994 peace agreement that concluded the civil war, Mozambique transitioned to a multiparty system, enabling other political parties to participate in elections; after this period of turbulence, the country has made significant progress in recent years towards political stability and economic development.[1] However, in terms of civil participation and freedoms, The Civicus Monitor, a reputable global civil society alliance, ranks Mozambique’s status as “oppressed”[2] and recent events and the current pre-election scenario confirm this assessment. The restrictions on civil liberties, limited freedom of expression, and suppression of dissent are indicative of the challenges faced by Mozambican citizens in exercising their democratic rights.
Challenging anti-terrorism laws in Swaziland: When the judiciary becomes the stumbling block
Posted: 11 May, 2016 Filed under: Kudzani Ndlovu | Tags: Amnesty International, colonial legacy, constitution, democracy, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and information, human rights, monarchy, Peoples United Democratic Movement, repression, Sediction Act, STA, Swaziland, Swaziland Solidarity Network, Swaziland Youth Congress, terrorism, Thulani Maseko 1 Comment
Author: Kudzani Ndlovu
Part-time lecturer, Lupane State University, Zimbabwe
On 8 and 9 February 2016 the pro-democracy movement in Swaziland converged at the High Court in Mbabane to attend a hearing on the constitutionality of the country’s two draconian and repressive laws – the Suppression of Terrorism Act No. 3 of 2008 (STA) and the British colonial era 1938 Sedition and Subversive Activities Act (Sedition Act) – which continue to be used by the state to stifle opposition and silence critics of the authoritarian monarchy.
Many, especially those outside Africa’s last absolute monarchy, had labelled this hearing as ‘historic’ but local activists remained less optimistic knowing that most of the country’s judges have sold their independence for thirty pieces of silver. The King’s influence in the appointment of judges has seriously undermined the independence of the judiciary. The Constitution of Swaziland provides that the judges are appointed by the King after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Judges are answerable to the King and hence they can never claim to be independent. It will only take rabid denialists and anarchists to argue that there is hope of an independent judiciary in Swaziland under the current system.
Suppressing dissent: The Gambian reality
Posted: 19 April, 2016 Filed under: Satang Nabaneh | Tags: 1997 Constitution, Abubacarr Saidykhan, Amnesty International, Babucarr Ceesay, Ban Ki-moon, deprivation of life, detention, Ebrima Barry, Gambia Students Union (GAMSU), human rights violations, Human Rights Watch, immunity, insurrection, Lasana Jobarteh, law enforcement, mutiny, Ousainou Darboe, peaceful protests, President Jammeh, Public Order Act, right to protest, riot, rule of law, Solo Sandeng, The Gambia, United Democratic Party (UDP), United Nations, unlawful arrests, use of force 3 Comments
Author: Satang Nabaneh
Gambian Reporter to the Oxford Constitutions Online Project
The right to freedom of assembly as guaranteed by the 1997 Constitution includes the right to take part in peaceful demonstrations. However, people are deterred from organising and participating in such demonstrations. Section 18(4)(C) allows for the use of force and the deprivation of life in the ‘suppression of a riot, insurrection or mutiny’. This gives law enforcement officials with immunity when a person dies under circumstances in which reasonable force was used.
On Thursday, 14 April 2016, Mr. Solo Sandeng, National Organising Secretary and other members of the main opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) were arrested for leading a peaceful protest for electoral reforms and demanding for the resignation of President Jammeh. Two days after the arrest, senior members of the UDP, including the leader Ousainou Darboe, confirmed in a press conference the death of Solo Sandeng while in detention. Lawyer Darboe also stated that two detained female protesters were also in a coma following their arrest and alleged brutal torture by the security agents. Angered by the harsh treatment meted on the detainees, Darboe and a group of UPD stalwarts led began a protest march but were swiftly rounded up by Gambia’s security force and arrested. Eyewitnesses said the security agents fired tear gas at the crowd to disperse it.
Nine Judicial Executions in The Gambia Undermine the Rule of Law
Posted: 30 August, 2012 Filed under: Andrew Novak | Tags: Amnesty International, constitution, coup, death penalty, death row, executions, rule of law, The Gambia, treason 6 Comments
Author: Andrew Novak
Adjunct Professor of African Law, American University Washington College of Law
Late at night on 23 August2012 the President of The Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, ordered the executions of nine death row inmates despite international condemnation and even division in his own cabinet. At least three of the death sentences were for the crime of treason; the remaining cases involved murder. Two of the nine were Senegalese nationals, and at least one had been on death row since before the current death penalty law entered into force. These cases are constitutionally troubling and may erode the rule of law in The Gambia, Sub-Saharan Africa’s smallest mainland country with a population of 1,3-million.
AfricLaw 