CHRR, Cedep Joint Press Statement
CHRR, Cedep Response to Malawi Government’s “intimidation” over
CSOs’ role in UPR and other UN mechanisms: We will not be moved an
inch from fulfilling our human rights and governance obligations as
human rights defenders in the best interest of human rights for all
1.0.
Preamble
We, the Centre for Human
Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR) and Centre for Development of People
(Cedep), have learnt with deep shock and regret the recent “intimidatory”
rants by the Malawi government through the Solicitor General and Secretary
to the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs accusing the Civil
Society Organizations who appeared before the working group during the
recent pre-sessions of the 2nd review of UPR due in May of ambushing government with issues
which were not raised at country level with her government. In both
the media interview and during her “highly emotionally charged”
opening speech at the working session of Malawi’s taskforce on Convention
against torture (CAT) at Lilongwe hotel on 15th April 2015, the Solicitor General took a swipe to label
the CSOs who “frequent” Geneva as unpatriotic who are only hell-bent
at portraying a bad picture of government while neglecting the remarkable
progress made by government in human rights realm. The Secretary to
the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs further alleged that
the CSOs were doing all this just to please their donor masters for
sustainability of their institutions.
2.0.
Our response to “unpatriotism” rants
To begin with, we at
CHRR and Cedep are on one hand not surprised with the “unpatriotic”
accusations levelled against us by the Solicitor General considering
the fact that some other prominent government politicians including
the Minister of Gender Hon. Patricia Kaliati, Minister of Information
Kondwani Nankhumwa and Minister of Health Jean Kalilani have of the
recent past made similar chants especially following our joint anti-NACGATE
advocacy with other 20 Civil Society Organisations in the country with
the climax of it being the 13th January 2015 demonstrations against bad governance and political
abuse and interference in HIV/AIDS funds at National Aids Commission
(NAC) for activities which have nothing to do with HIV/AIDS prevention
and response. Coming
from another highly ranked government official, though a professional
not necessarily a politician, is no surprise but rather confirms the
existing collective philosophy in the current APM’s regime that any
actor/stakeholder who decides to expose the current regime gaffes, especially
on the international scene, is unpatriotic. Patriotism, according to
APM’s regime dictionary is merely singing praise of the current regime
as the best thing to have ever happened to this country even in the
midst of shortfalls requiring urgent national and international response
to remedy the same.
However, what is surprising to us on the other hand is to hear such
ill-advised comments being echoed by a great respected professional
with not only high academic accolades but also well conversant with
the international reporting mechanisms including Universal Periodic
Review (UPR) and other UN mechanisms. This is not only embarrassing
but also retrogressive in as far as the government’s committed efforts
towards protection and promotion of human rights for all in line with
the international human rights instruments to which it is party to are
concerned. We, CHRR and Cedep, would like to reiterate what we
said a month ago that we will never be part of the docile citizenry that tacitly supports
mediocrity in the name of “patriotism”, if patriotism. As human
rights defenders, we will never sacrifice the social accountability
movement, both locally and internationally, at the altar of a professed
“patriotism”. We will never be part of those “hand
clappers” who entertain “evil” under the guise of patriotism.
Malawians of good will are the best judges of who a true patriot is
between the one who conceals his “sins” and die in “iniquity”,
and the one who exposes them, and finds mercy and deliverance. Posterity
will judge us - who a true patriot is.
3.0.
Do/Did CSOs really ambush government with issues in Geneva? Government’s
deliberate distortion of facts as a tool to divert public attention
from real issues requiring its urgent response and accountability
We at CHRR and Cedep
also find wanting the accusations made by the Solicitor General that
government is often ambushed with issues which it has no canal knowledge
of at country level but are presented by CSOs in Geneva. The accusation,
in our view, is one of the current regime’s strategies or propaganda
aimed at diverting the public attention from real issues of human concern
requiring government’s urgent response and accountability.
With reference
to the recent UPR-precession in Geneva attended by government officials
and civil society actors including CHRR, Cedep, IPAs, MISA-Malawi Chapter, NGO Coalition on Child Rights
(NGO CCR), the issues which appeared in the CSOs presentation were not
new, and most of them had been repeatedly raised domestically with government
but with no tangible reaction. It would be naïve and gullible enough
for one to suggest that matters pertaining to access to information,
legal barriers to enjoyment freedom of expression, operationalization
of the Independent Complaints Commission, sexual reproductive health,
the continued underfunding of human rights bodies like Ombudsman, Malawi
Human Rights Commission, Legal Aid bureau, LGBTI, child protection
and rights, access to justice, July 20 saga, people living with albinism,
extrajudicial killings and protection of vulnerable groups, poor prison
conditions, protection of human rights defenders, freedom of assembly
and association, Chasowa and Kalonga Stambuli, cashgate cases, just
to mention a few, came as an ambush to government in the recent Geneva
sessions.
Instead of engrossing itself in baseless intimidatory
antics aimed at suppressing the CSOs voice in UPR and other international
human rights mechanisms, we urge the government to put its house in
order and address the concerns once and for all as part of her human
rights obligations and commitment to international instruments to which
Malawi is party to. Why does the current regime seem to be so concerned and threatened
with our presence in these international human rights platforms when
we have been doing the same under the previous regimes? What are they
hiding from the general public? Where are these donor’s influence
accusations coming from, by the way?
4.0.
Our response to allegations of portraying a bad picture of the current
regime as a fundraising tool to win donor support for sustainability
of our institutions
We, CHRR and Cedep,
do not only perceive the above subject allegations from the government
through the Solicitor General as not only absurd, illogical but also
insensitive. Donors that support government and CSOs work particularly
in human rights and democratic governance need to be applauded for such
a complimentary role in the promotion and protection of human rights
for all.
It is
therefore insensitive for a government to fault those donors who support
CSOs work at international mechanisms, which ironically the country
is party to and hence obliged to fulfil its commitments, in putting
government to task on its continued failure for instance to bring to
conclusion of Kalonga Stambuli mysterious death, Robert chasowa Murder
and government’s continued unfilled promises on the tabling of access
to information bill just to mention a few of issues presented by CSOs.
If anything, such donors should be commended for supporting CSOs initiatives
to see to it that just is attained in the best interest of the victims
and the vulnerable groups. To put the record straight, we at
CHRR and Cedep have no problems with any donor supporting the protection
and promotion of human rights (civil, political, cultural, economic
rights) and good governance through government, civil society or any
other player towards human and economic development. After all, while
strides have to be made for the country to work towards reducing donor
dependence it is a fact at this level we still need such support than
ever to improve attainment and realization of civil, political, economic
and cultural rights for all Malawians.
It is also misleading
on the part of government to suggest that CSOs only dwell on the “negatives”
while deliberately ignoring the “positives” registered by government.
The government and the general republic can be referred to all the shadow
reports and statements we have presented at these international mechanisms
which Malawi is party to alongside other CSOs to appreciate the blend
of “positives” so far registered and areas requiring improvement.
These statements are often shared with key stakeholders including government,
civil society and the media just to appreciate the issues raised, and
some mechanisms even publish them on their websites. However, it is imperative to point out that while some positives have
been registered there is still more work, even outweighing the positives,
in human rights realm that needs government’s attention, and it would
be suicidal on our part as a country (government and civil society included)
to dwell on singing praise on a few registered successes to the extent
of turning a blind eye to areas that require our urgent attention.
This is perhaps the reason why the so-called “negatives” are highlighted
more than the “positives” by these international mechanism particularly
on concluding observations and recommendations with the objective of
improving the human rights situation in a state party.
5.0.
The role of CSOs in UPR and other UN and international mechanisms/treaty
(e.g. ACHPR) bodies in promotion and protection of human rights for
all
We, CHRR and Cedep,
are also disturbed by Solicitor General’s attempts to portray that
CSOs just wake up to go to Geneva and report ill about the current government
in the process downplaying the relevance and importance of CSOs in UPR
and other international mechanisms including those relating to UN, African
Commission on Human and Peoples Rights. Who mandates the CSOs to go to Geneva?
The answer is simple: The
government of Malawi, by virtue of being party to the various UN mechanisms
and treaty bodies, mandates the CSOs to go to Geneva to appear before
the various UN mechanisms including ICCPR, UPR and also other international
forums on the continent like the ACHPR etc. Besides, some of the CSOs
including CHRR, Cedep are part and parcel of government’s constituted
and coordinated taskforces on UPR and other UN mechanisms which partly
speaks volume of Malawi government’s recognition of the importance
of the role of CSOs in these international mechanisms particularly in
providing a comprehensive picture of the human rights situation in the
country.
It is also a fact that Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation
acquired its observer status at African Commission on Human and Peoples
Rights (ACHPR) since 1998, and both CHRR and Cedep continue to champion
their human rights work at UN level through different UN mechanisms
such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). All these are facts which the Solicitor General and her cohorts are
fully conversant with but deliberately chose to ignore them just to
please her “political masters” and evade government’s accountability
on the various human rights issues of public concern like the murder
of Chasowa, July 20 demonstrations saga, Access to Information bill,
dilapidating prison conditions, the continued underfunding of human
rights institutions like Malawi Human Rights Commission just to mention
a few. This is shameful and retrogressive.
The United Nations through
its various mechanisms recognize the vital role the CSOs have in providing
the alternative. For instance, under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
the assessment of the human rights records of the concerned country
are based on three sources of information, namely: information by the
State concerned; a compilation of information prepared by Office of
High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), summarizing information contained
in the reports of the treaty bodies, special procedures of the UN Council,
and other UN
documents that are relevant in examining the record of the concerned
country; and information from stakeholders like NGOs. The basis of the
review of any country’s human rights record under UPR as established
by Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 is the following: UN Charter,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Human Rights instruments
to which the State is Party to, voluntary pledges and commitments by
States and applicable international humanitarian law.
It is also important
to note that besides UPR, under other international mechanism to which
Malawi is party to like ICCPR and ACHPR in addition to the State report
and replies to the list of issues and questions, the treaty bodies also receive additional information from other sources
such as National Human Rights institutions, national, regional or international
NGOs, and other Civil Society actors. Reports from national NGOs/CSOs
are of particular value to the treaty bodies in examining State reports,
as they provide an alternative source of information on the human rights
situation in a particular country. This makes such reports easy
and useful tools for the work of treaty body members who can crosscheck
and compare information with that supplied by the State party.
Additionally, the Secretariat of the relevant treaty body prepares a
country dossier, containing all available relevant information on the
situation in the concerned country within the UN system and other relevant
sources. Additional information, generally of a confidential nature,
may also be submitted by the UN specialized agencies. As such, the concluding
observations and recommendations for a particular country cannot in
anyway be doctored by a particular CSOs but rather are a product of
a careful examination of all the above mentioned reports including that
of government, CSOs and UN country mechanisms, and are debated and adopted
by the treaty body in a private meeting.
In short, the CSOs have
a vital role in the UPR and other international mechanisms as they can
provide input into several crucial stages of the reporting processes
including participating
in national consultations preceding the drafting of the state party;
submitting their own reports to the treaty bodies based on their own
research, findings and views on the implementation of the relevant treaty
at the national level as such shadow reports can help committee members
of a treaty body achieve a more comprehensive picture of the human rights
situation in the country; following up of the recommendations of treaty
bodies through monitoring the efforts of government to implement the
concluding observations and recommendations of the treaty bodies, and
reporting this information back to the treaty bodies either through
formal submissions or informally; and also lobbying governments
to implement the concluding observations.
6.0.
The Way forward: We will not be moved an inch from fulfilling our human
rights and governance obligations
We at CHRR and Cedep
would like to reiterate that the recent “intimidatory” antics by
the current regime will not move us an inch in performing and fulfilling
our human rights and governance obligations as human rights defenders.
If anything, these intimidatory rants have only strengthened our inward
resolve to fearlessly stand for justice, good governance and human rights
for all. No dictatorial
sentiment, let alone political threats, shall succeed in wooing us to
depart from the path of reason. We remain charged up for the
noble service before us in the best interest of ordinary Malawians and
human rights for all. We are, and shall remain human rights servants!!!!
VIVA DEMOCRACY!!!! VIVA HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL!! VIVA MALAWI!!!!
LET THE NOBLE CAUSE BE EVIDENT IN THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!
God
bless Malawi!!!!
Signed
by
Timothy
Mtambo
Gift Trapence
Executive
Director, CHRR
Executive Director CEDEP
Posts
