Time to consider decriminalising homosexuality in Ethiopia
Posted: 1 October, 2021 Filed under: Rehim Baharu Elala | Tags: anti-gay sentiment, child abusers, consensual same sex relations, conversation, decriminalise, Dr. Daniel Bekele, Ethiopia, Ethiopian values, federal legislation, freedom of expression, gender identity, harassment, homosexuality, Human Rights Watch, imprisonment, no study, political leaders, religion, religious influences, societal influences, societal norms, stigmatisation, violence, Zenebu Tadesse 1 Comment
Author: Rehim Baharu Elala
Intern, Ethiopian Community Development Council
LGBT data in Ethiopia
Ethiopia revised its Criminal Code in 2004 and criminalised homosexual or indecent acts both between men and women, with those convicted facing terms of imprisonment.[1] Same-sex acts will be punished with imprisonment of not less than a year, or in ‘grave’ cases, rigorous imprisonment of up to 15 years.[2] The justifications for criminalising the acts are mostly associated with the strict societal norms and religion.
There is no study or research conducted to know the exact number of LGBTQ people in Ethiopia. I interviewed two members of the LGBTQ in Ethiopia who are working in legal and health professions when I was writing a Seminar Paper for my LGBTQ Health Law and Policy class.[3] My informants told me that the estimate data shows that there are around 50,000-60,000 people who identify themselves as LGBTQ in the capital Addis Ababa alone.[4] They also stated that the major source of the anti-gay sentiment originates from the religious authorities.[5] This is because homosexuals are always portrayed in a dangerous manner by the religious institutions as child abusers and destroyers of Ethiopian values.[6] An Ethiopian law professor states the influence of religious groups in the following words:
“There is complete silence around LGBT experiences because there is no forum for stories about the violence meted out by the state and family members on a day-to-day basis… My biggest fear is that these religious organisations are monopolising the conversation and perpetuating a fear that is becoming impossible to combat.”[7]
COVID-19, Darfur’s food security crisis and IDPs: From ruins to ruins
Posted: 4 August, 2020 Filed under: Gursimran Kaur Bakshi | Tags: chemical attacks, children, conflict, COVID-19, crimes against humanity, Darfur, displacement, famine, Human Rights Watch, human tragedy, IDPs, internally displaced persons, International Criminal Court, Kampala Convention, Land of Killing, London Declaration, Omar Al-Bashir, pandemic, State-Sponsored Terrorist(SST), Sudan, war 1 Comment
Author: Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
Student, National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, India
Background
Darfur, a region in the west of Sudan is known as a ‘Land of Killing’. Since 2003, more than 300 000 people have been killed, and over 2.7 million have been forcibly displaced as a result of a genocide that has left the legacy of displacement and destitution. The war was initiated by the government-backed armed groups known as ‘Janjaweed’ militants in 2003, who have been accused of systematic and widespread atrocities, such as murdering and torturing of the civilian population, including raping their women and intentionally burning their villages.
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.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Call for an African Union resolution on the use of drones in Africa
Posted: 5 August, 2013 Filed under: Benjamin Ng’aru | Tags: Africa, African Charter, African Union, Al-Qaeda, Ben Emmerson QC, CIA, CIA's angry birds, constitutive act, Djibouti, drone strikes, Ethiopia, extra-judicial killings, Glomar response, human rights, Human Rights Watch, humanitarian law, International Court of Justice, international human rights, international law, right to fair trial, right to life, right to privacy, Seychelles, Somalia, UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions, United States of America, unmanned aerial vehicles 4 Comments
Author: Benjamin Ng’aru
Legal Assistant, Local Authorities Pensions Trust; Volunteer Programmes Assistant, Legal Exchange Centre, Nairobi, Kenya
On 15 March 2013 Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the United States (US) Court of Appeals Circuit in American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) dismissed the CIA’s standard Glomar response to its expanded and clandestine programme to carry out targeted killings on suspected terrorist. Barely two months later, a High Court in Peshawar, Pakistan, held that drone strikes (and their continued use) “are a blatant violation of Basic Human Rights and are against the [United Nations] (UN) Charter, the UN General Assembly Resolution …and a violation of the sovereignty [of Pakistan]”. Whereas not fully specific on the human rights instruments violated, these judicial pronouncements point to an increasing dissatisfaction by the international community on the lack of a concise and regulated use of the “CIA’s angry birds”.
This note seeks to merely highlight possible violations of various rights including the right to life, right to fair trial as well as the right to privacy, which are all enshrined in the African Charter; and call upon the African Union (AU), through its various organs, to promote more transparency on the use of drones and foster the enactment of a continental regulatory framework to govern the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by western nations on African soil.
The use of drones in African’s airspace has been on a steep rise. The latest documented incident was on 27 May 2013 when Al-Shabaab allegedly shot down a UAS Camcopter S-100 near the town of Buulo Mareer, southern Somalia. The London based Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that over 200 persons, mostly non-combatants, have been killed by drone strikes in Somalia since 2003. American drone support bases have been reportedly set up in Arba Minch (Ethiopia), Seychelles, Camp Lemonnier (Djibouti) and recently in Somali’s shell-crated international airport in Mogadishu. A 2012 study by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law indicated that there were more civilians and innocent residents killed in the drone strikes than militants throughout the period of the drone program.
AfricLaw 