PHA-Exchange> New antiterrorist legislation and human rights

[Aviva]

From: <pambazuka-news-admin at pambazuka.org>

> SEPTEMBER 11 - AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR AFRICA
> ROTIMI SANKORE
> (excerpts)
> No one in his or her right mind will deny that the key problems facing
Africa  today are those of economic underdevelopment, poverty, lack of
democracy and
> human rights. The proportions are different in all countries but the
problems  are the same. Without democracy and human rights, the problems of
economic  underdevelopment and poverty in Africa will never be fully
addressed.
> Prior to September 11, the rhetoric from a significant number of African
governments suggested that even if not fully committed to good governance,
human rights and democracy, many of them at least recognised the need to be
seen to walking in that direction. After September 11, such rhetoric did not
necessarily diminish but became qualified with "recognising the need to
fight  terrorism". Many governments which for years have resisted the
pressure from  civil society to enact legislation, or adopt good practice
upholding freedom of
> expression, assembly, association and other key rights, have suddenly
began  rushing through "anti-terrorism legislation" curtailing those same
rights. In  many of cases, the provisions of the laws are so broad that even
peaceful and  legitimate democratic opposition can be targeted as
"terrorists".
>
Some countries have adopted or are at advanced stages of adopting
"antiterrorist" legislation that restricts freedom of expression,
association and assembly,  could define certain peaceful activity as
abetting terrorism, erodes the right
> to a fair and open trial, legitimises arbitrary and prolonged detention,
and  increases powers of surveillance. Many more African countries are
openly  considering similar legislation.  Several Amnesty International
reports document such an  international cover for less democratic
countries. In many cases, some of these laws adopted in Africa could have
been
> borrowed almost directly from US or UK laws.
>
> The direct implication of this is an "unholy and unlikely" alliance of a
variety of governments against civil liberties in the name of fighting
terrorism.
> Add to this the contradiction of key EU governments and the US
administration   turning a blind eye to "allied" undemocratic governments
while condemning  others.
> The war on terrorism should not and cannot be fought outside an ethical
framework. Any policies that sacrifice human rights for this war will only
succeed in fuelling the conditions in which terrorists thrive.
> African civil society needs to make it clear in policy and advocacy that
they  are one hundred percent opposed to terrorism, but also one hundred
percent  committed to democracy. There is no contradiction in this. There is
nothing
> anti-American about upholding democratic rights. There should be
absolutely no  doubt that any laws that curtail freedom of expression,
association, assembly,   and so forth in Africa will be used against
democratic opposition and human
> rights activists.
 It is  therefore important to begin now to call for the immediate repeal of
all  provisions of anti-terrorism legislation that promotes the suppression
of human  rights and for a halt to such legislation in Africa. Not to do so
may plunge  Africa into strife and conflict from which it may never emerge.