A critique of the Resolution (PAP-Res. 06(VI)/06) and Recommendation (PAP-Rec. 08(VI)/06) of the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) on migration in Africa.
Posted: 14 November, 2022 Filed under: Eva Abugabe | Tags: Africa, African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, African migrants, AU Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons, dangerous journeys, demographic distributions, governance, human rights, IDPs, international human rights instruments, International Organisation for Migration, Kampala Convention, Mediterranean Sea, migration, Pan-African Parliament, PAP, PAP-Rec. 08(VI)/06, PAP-Res. 06(VI)/06, SADC, Southern African Development Community, Sub-Saharan African countries, unapproved avenues, xenophobia 1 Comment
Author: Eva Abugabe
MPhil candidate, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
Introduction
The PAP[1] in its sixth session of the First Parliament in 2006 resolved to ending migration in Africa.[2] Based on PAP-Rec(08(VI)06), the PAP acknowledged migration as a regional priority due to increasing refugee crisis, migrant remittances, movement of labour, the African Diaspora and brain drain, feminisation of migration, xenophobia and human trafficking.[3] In PAP-Res (06(VI)06), the PAP furthermore demanded continuous agenda setting in its debate, regional and national collaborations in learning best practices including encouraging governments to address the challenges by observing good governance and promoting investment in economies, infrastructure and creating employment.[4]
The article[5] critically analyses the PAP’s resolutions and recommendations against regional and international human rights instruments. It aims to position the PAP as an active protector of human rights while making it more visible to Africans, its primary constituents. Its thrust is to also evoke deliberate interventions and broadly contribute to the actualisation of the Africa We Want Agenda, Agenda 2063[6] and to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development[7] specifically target 10.7 of Goal 10.[8]
Concurrent military deployments in Mozambique and their permissibility under SADC treaty law
Posted: 28 July, 2021 Filed under: Marko Svicevic | Tags: Cabo Delgado, deployment, Extraordinary Summit, military, military assistance, Military Veterans, Mozambique, peace, President Filipe Nyusi, RDF, RNP, Rwanda, Rwanda National Congress, SADC, SADC Protocol, SADC Standby Force, SADC Standby Force Mission to Mozambique, SADC Treaty, security, South Africa, treaty law, United Nations Security Council, UNSC, violent extremism Leave a comment
Author: Marko Svicevic
Post-doctoral research fellow, South African Research Chair in International Law (SARCIL), University of Johannesburg
On 23 June 2021, the Extraordinary Summit of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Heads of State and Government approved the deployment of a military force to Cabo Delgado in support of Mozambique’s fight against violent extremism in the province. The approval of the deployment, termed the SADC Standby Force Mission to Mozambique, was a delayed yet surprising response from the bloc to an increasingly volatile situation. The violence in Cabo Delgado is approaching its fourth year now, has resulted in over 3000 deaths, and has internally displaced over 700 000 people.
The SADC deployment seems to be based on the consent of the Mozambican government. What complicates the matter however is that even before SADC was able to deploy, Rwanda has already dispatched some 1000 troops to the province at Mozambique’s request.
Is southern Africa entering its own ‘War on Terror’?
Posted: 6 July, 2021 Filed under: Marko Svicevic | Tags: acts of terrorism, Al-Qaeda, Angola, Ansar al-Sunna, apartheid, Cabo Delgado, conflict, DRC, extremism, foreign fighters, ISIS, Lesotho, military, Mozambique, Namibia, SADC, SADC Deployment, SADC interventions, SADC Standby Force Mission to Mozambique, SADC Summit, South Africa, Southern African Development Community (SADC), Southern African Development Coordination Conference, Tanzania, terror, terrorists, violent extremism, war, war on terror Leave a commentAuthor: Marko Svicevic
Post-doctoral research fellow, South African Research Chair in International Law (SARCIL), University of Johannesburg
What the proposed SADC deployment in Mozambique means for the sub-region
Leaders of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) met again on 23 June 2021 in Maputo to discuss the expanding insurgency in northern Mozambique. It’s the first time the Summit has met since a technical assessment to Mozambique recommended a 3000 strong military deployment. In a communique issued following the meeting, the SADC Summit – its highest decision-making body – endorsed the recommendations made by the technical assessment and approved a mandate for the SADC Standby Force Mission to Mozambique.
From domestic grievances to terrorist acts and foreign aggression
Now approaching its fourth year, the conflict in Mozambique has raged across Cabo Delgado, its northern most province neighboring Tanzania. Initially, the Mozambican government seemed to brush off the violence as local criminality. In the last year and a half however, it has consistently re-framed this narrative as one of ‘foreign aggression.’ Both arguments have merit; there is ample research to suggest the drivers of the conflict are placed with a sense of neglect by the government together with high levels of poverty and unemployment. At the same time, the conflict is being internationalised with some evidence of foreign fighters joining the ‘insurgency’, which has since become known as Ansar al-Sunna. Further yet, the group’s pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State (IS) in 2019 and the US designation of ‘ISIS-Mozambique’ as Specially Designated Global Terrorists may be playing into Maputo’s newfound narrative: that the conflict is not rooted in domestic issues but constitutes an act of aggression against Mozambique’s sovereignty.
The idea of an African passport and the freedom of movement of persons in the continent: Only wishful thinking?
Posted: 22 February, 2016 Filed under: Cristiano d'Orsi | Tags: Africa, African Charter, African passport, African Union, asylum-seekers, AU Executive Council, Declaration on Migration, EAC, ECOWAS, federation, freedom of movement, ICCPR, ICRMW, IDP, International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, migration, Protocol on Facilitation of Movement of Persons, refugees, regional integration, SADC, territory, United States of Africa, USAf 4 Comments
Author: Cristiano d’Orsi
Post-Doctoral Researcher and Lecturer, Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria (South Africa)
“Hail! United States of Africa-free!
Hail! Motherland most bright, divinely fair!
State in perfect sisterhood united,
Born of truth; mighty thou shalt ever be.”
This is the incipit of the poem Hail, United States of Africa, composed in 1924 by M.M. Garvey, a famous Pan-Africanist leader.
This poem is considered to have initiated the concept of United States of Africa (USAf), a federation, extensible to all the fifty-four sovereign states, on the African continent.
In 2002, at the launch of the African Union (AU), President T. Mbeki, its first chairman, proclaimed that: “By forming the Union, the peoples of our continent have made the unequivocal statement that Africa must unite! We as Africans have a common and a shared destiny!”[1]
After that occasion, the concept of USAf has been highlighted in a more concrete way by other African leaders, such as A.O. Konaré in 2006,[2] M. Gaddafi in 2009 –the first to mention the possibility to issue a unique passport for the entire continent-[3] and, more recently, by R. Mugabe.[4]
The SADC Tribunal: Concerted efforts for waves of change we want to see
Posted: 19 June, 2015 Filed under: Patricia Mwanyisa | Tags: 2014 Protocol, access to justice, AEC, African Charter, Campbell Case, civil society, COMESA, ECCAS, ECOWAS, IGAD, justice, lawyers, legal mechanisms, ratification, RECs, SADC, SADC Heads of States, SADC Tribunal, Southern African Development Community, Zimbabwe 5 Comments
Author: Patricia Mwanyisa
Human Rights, Justice and Rule of Law Programme Officer, Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA)
Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe is known for its spectacular and majestic water falls. In August last year it was not just water that was falling at Victoria Falls but the SADC Tribunal as we know it fell spectacularly as leaders from the Southern African Development Community approved a new protocol to reconstitute the SADC Tribunal. The new tribunal has a limited mandate. By adopting a new protocol, the leaders effectively buried the SADC Tribunal which used to operate under the 2000 protocol. They decided to ignore recommendations from their own legal advisors and attorney generals and created a new Tribunal whose mandate is limited only to the adjudication of inter-state disputes. Simply put, under the 2014 Protocol, citizens are deprived of their right to refer a dispute between themselves and their government to the SADC Tribunal. Without a tribunal, justice and redress will remain elusive for people of the region.
It is important to remember that central to the demise of the tribunal is the case of Mike Campbell and Others v Zimbabwe (Campbell Case) in which the Tribunal found in favor of Zimbabwean white farmers whose land had been compulsorily acquired and without compensation by the Zimbabwean government. In retaliation Zimbabwe strategically attacked the jurisdiction and operation of the tribunal, mobilized support for its suspension and ultimately, its eventual disbandment. By succumbing to the demands of Zimbabwe, SADC Heads of state have ultimately eliminated the access of individuals and groups to the Tribunal at the behest of one State [Zimbabwe] and consequently depriving the entire region of the benefits of such an important institution. Discussions and decisions on the utility of the Tribunal should rather surpass the opinion of one State’s argument based on just one case and personal short term gains. Even so, Zimbabweans themselves and particularly politicians and elected MPs who represent the people of that country must objectively review the wisdom in taking such a stance – more so at a time when Zimbabwe chairs the SADC bloc. They must never forget that they too are ordinary individuals who also depend on fair, transparent and accessible judicial mechanisms which they may need at some point in their lives regardless of their political affiliations. That is, at any given time the tide turns, politicians whether in opposition or in power are susceptible to becoming victims of State sanctioned attacks on the dignity of individuals, including political violence.
Rising against the silencing of the SADC Tribunal: Tanzania
Posted: 5 June, 2015 Filed under: Gertrude Mafoa Quan | Tags: democracy, dispute settlement, good governance, human rights, human rights violations, inter-State disputes, President Jakaya Kikwet, Protocol on the SADC Tribunal, rule of law, Rulings of the Tribunal, SADC, SADC Treaty, SADC Tribunal, South African community, Tanzania, watchdog Leave a comment
Author: Gertrude Mafoa Quan
Candidate Attorney; LLM (Multidisciplinary Human Rights) student at the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
‘We have created a monster that will devour us all’.
These were the words of Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete regarding the SADC Tribunal. This is at best an expression that is the epitome of the fear of SADC leaders of an existing and functioning Tribunal.
Like in many other regions, the SADC tribunal served as the mechanism through which the region’s dispute could be settled. One of the goals of the treaty was to establish a tribunal (which it did) and that the “[t]ribunal shall be constituted to ensure the adherence to and the proper interpretation of the provisions of this Treaty and subsidiary instruments and to adjudicate upon such disputes as may be referred to it” ( SADC Treaty, 1992, Article 16.1). Perhaps one of its most striking promises was in Article 4(c) which bluntly states that ‘ SADC and its Member States shall act in accordance with the principles of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law’. The implication is that all member States could indeed be held accountable should any of the said principles in Article 4(c) be violated. According to the Protocol on the SADC Tribunal, subject to the exhaustion of local remedies, all companies and individuals may approach the Tribunal to seek remedy if and when a member State has infringed on their rights (Article 15).
On constitutional values, Marikana and the demise of the SADC Tribunal
Posted: 23 August, 2012 Filed under: Magnus Killander | Tags: African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, criminal procedure, extreme inequalities, human rights, public violence, right to a fair trial, SADC, South African Constitution, unemployment 6 Comments
Author: Magnus Killander
Senior Lecturer & Head of Research, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
Section 1 of the Constitution sets out the founding values of the Republic of South Africa: dignity, equality, human rights, non-racialism, non-sexism, constitutional supremacy, rule of law, regular elections, accountability, responsiveness and openness.
The tragic shootings in Marikana, which took place on 16 August 2012, have led not only to much needed discussion on how equipped and prepared the police are to respond to violent protest, but also discussion about the underlying factors which led to these protests, and why they were so violent. Important questions must be asked about the shootings. Video footage of the incident suggests that it was not a clear cut case of self-defence. Accountability must prevail, both for workers responsible for violence and the police. Hopefully the Commission of Inquiry, established by President Jacob Zuma, will receive a broad mandate to investigate not only the shootings, but also a range of related issues related to what happened before and after.
AfricLaw 