Statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association at the conclusion of
his visit to the Republic of Rwanda
Kigali, 27 January 2014
I would like to thank the Government of the Republic of Rwanda for
inviting me to carry out a visit to the country. I commend Rwanda for
being the first country in Africa to extend an invitation to my
mandate since its establishment by the Human Rights Council in October
2010. I thank the Government for its excellent cooperation before and
during the conduct of this mission. I am most grateful to all
interlocutors I have met. I had fruitful exchanges with the Prime
Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Internal Security,
the Minister of Local Government, the Minister of Public Service and
Labour, the Minister of Trade and Industry, the Minister of East
African Community, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, and the Inspector General of Rwanda National Police.
Moreover, I had the opportunity to meet with the Governor of the South
Province and the Mayor of Huye.
I also met the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the
Prosecutor General, the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, and the
Chair of the Committee on Unity, Human Rights and fight against
Genocide of the Chamber of Deputies and its members. I had meetings
with the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission, the Director of
the Directorate General of Immigration and Emigration, the Chief
Executive Officer of the Rwanda Governance Board, representatives of
the Rwanda Human Rights Commission, and national and international
non-governmental organizations, leaders of political parties, the
Private Sector Federation, and representatives of diplomatic missions.
As Rwanda, and indeed the world, prepare to honour the memory of the
victims of the Genocide 20 years since 1994, I would like to extend my
best wishes and strength to the people of Rwanda, all of whom have
been touched by this most egregious of human rights violations. Bon
courage. I was humbled when I visited Rwanda during the 10th and 15th
commemorations of the Genocide against the Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
As a Special Rapporteur, I am independent from the United Nations and
I work voluntarily in my personal capacity. The overarching purpose of
my visit to Rwanda is to contribute to the efforts it has undertaken
in its path towards democratization, greater protection of human
rights, and development with recommendations as to how Rwanda can
better respect, promote and implement international human rights law
and standards as it applies to the freedoms of peaceful assembly and
association.
Rwanda has come a long way since 1994. There has been remarkable
progress in developing infrastructure, building institutions and
ensuring stability and security. Twenty years is a short time in the
life of a nation, which makes the achievements all the more
outstanding. Indeed few could have predicted that the reconstruction
of the Rwandan State could have reached such broad and deep levels in
1994. I am truly impressed by the resilience of the Rwandan people,
the vibrancy of the economic sector, the relatively low levels of
corruption, efforts at providing universal healthcare and social
safety nets, and the neat and clean environment. This must be
recognized, and applauded.
In the spirit of constructive dialogue, I wish to make some
preliminary observations and recommendations. The Government has
assured me that it sees this as an opportunity to consolidate the
progress made over the years towards the realization of the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the country.
Rwanda has ratified key international human rights instruments and
committed itself to observe them. Moreover, in 2011 during the
Universal Periodic Review Rwanda accepted all recommendations
pertaining to the freedoms I am mandated to monitor. My assessment is
guided by these principles.
Freedom of peaceful assembly
The Constitution guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly. Law No.
33.91 provides for prior notification for demonstrations on public
roads and public assemblies. But it also then requires prior
authorization for assemblies in open air, on public roads or in a
public space in the interests of public safety, tranquillity or
health. This creates an inherent contradiction in requiring both prior
notification and authorization, paving the way for arbitrary decisions
by the concerned authorities.
I firmly believe that the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly should not be subject to authorization by the authorities. At
most, a prior notification procedure is sufficient, in order to
facilitate peaceful assemblies and to take measures to protect public
safety and order and the rights and freedoms of others. Moreover,
spontaneous assemblies should be recognized in law and exempted from
prior notification.
I was informed that in practice only peaceful assemblies which
authorities favour are allowed to take place, such as the
commemorations marches organized by Ibuka, which are also facilitated
by the authorities. Peaceful protests voicing dissent and criticizing
Government policies are reportedly not allowed.
For instance, students who presented a petition to the Prime Minister
protesting against the reduction of scholarships were arrested for
illegal demonstration. Similarly, members of a religious group who
staged a peaceful protest to submit a petition to the President were
arrested on the same ground. In addition, Mr Sylvain Sibomana,
Secretary General of the Unified Democratic Forces FDU-Inkingi, was
arrested with a fellow party member outside a courtroom while
attending the trial of Ms Victoire Ingabire, Chair of the same party.
They both wore T-shirts with the inscription "democracy and justice".
Mr Sibomana was injured by law enforcement officials in the course of
his arrest.
According to the authorities, peaceful protests do not occur because
there are other avenues to express criticism and solve contentious
issues. That is well and good. However, not only are such avenues
limited, but as illustrated by the aforementioned cases, the fear of
being targeted has contributed to individuals and associations
refraining from exercising their right to peaceful assembly to voice
their grievances.
From my meeting with the Inspector General of the Police, it came out
clearly that law enforcement officials view peaceful assemblies solely
as an issue of ensuring public order, instead of adopting a human
rights based approach that would facilitate assemblies as an integral
right of every person in Rwanda to be protected robustly.
Let me emphasize that peaceful assemblies should not be feared. Rather
they should be encouraged for there is value in expressing
disagreement and differences peacefully and publicly. Indeed, there is
no better gauge of what citizens think than peaceful protests. And it
is in the interests of the state to allow public and peaceful
assemblies as a "release valve" in order to avoid recourse to other
means of dissent and disagreement that are not desirable. As stated by
the Human Rights Council, "everyone must be able to express their
grievances or aspirations in a peaceful manner, including through
public protests without fear of reprisals or of being intimidated,
harassed, injured... arbitrarily arrested [and] detained..." (resolution
22/10).
The undue restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly have also
impacted negatively on the enjoyment of freedom of association as
several associations have been prevented from holding general
assemblies, a key requirement for forming a political party or a
non-governmental organization. Indeed, several political activists,
holding dissenting views, have been arrested for holding meetings to
recruit members even in bars.
Freedom of association
Non-governmental organizations
The Constitution guarantees freedom of association. This right is
further elaborated in the recently enacted laws governing the
organisation and functioning of local and international
non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Although the legislation is an
improvement from previous laws it nevertheless has maintained onerous
and burdensome conditions for registration.
Local NGOs are required to hold a general assembly in order to appoint
their legal representatives and office-bearers. Among other
requirements, the minutes of these meetings including the signatures
of all those who attended the general assembly should then be
submitted to the regulatory authority, the Rwanda Governance Board
(RGB). In my discussions with representatives from various
organizations, it was apparent that while some organizations were not
required to notify local authorities prior to holding their general
assemblies, others - particularly the ones more critical of government
- reported that they had to get prior authorization for these
meetings. I urge the Government to ensure that prior notification or
authorisation is not required for associations to hold private
meetings.
To organise a general assembly means expending considerable financial
and human resources, which many organizations can scarcely afford.
Both local and international NGOs are required to provide letters of
collaboration with authorities in the districts in which they operate.
Again the financial cost, time and energy it takes to obtain these
letters, from all districts in which the organizations wishes to
operate, constitutes a serious drain on the resources of
organizations. The Directorate of Immigration, which is responsible
for the registration of international NGOs, requires that in addition,
they provide evidence of funding for the period which they seek
registration, up to 5 years. Most funding sources are unable to
guarantee funding for multiple years. Many international NGOs are
therefore forced to seek annual registration as they can only provide
proof of financial resources for a year at a time. The enormous time
and energy necessary to put together the registration requirements
could be devoted to activities benefitting the community.
The contrast between the registration process for NGOs--a non-state
actor--and that of businesses--also a non-state actor--in the private
sector is striking. The business environment in Rwanda is notable for
the ease with which businesses can be registered and operate. It is
one reason for Rwanda's economic transformation. A similar approach to
the civil society sector will yield significant economic, social and
political dividends, allowing for innovation and creativity.
As I have stated in my first thematic report to the Human Rights
Council on best practices, registration procedures should be simple,
non-onerous and expeditious. I consider that the right to freedom of
association protects associations that are not registered and, in
fact, registration should be by choice of association members and not
a pre-requisite for the operation of associations.
Many of the interlocutors I met highlighted the role of the RGB in the
life of local NGOs and faith-based organizations. Apart from
registering local NGOs, RGB also has the responsibility of monitoring
whether local NGOs and FBOs conform with domestic law. This broad
language provides unjustifiable room for RGB to interfere with the
internal affairs of local NGOs.
The case of the Rwandan League for the Promotion and Defense of Human
Rights (LIPRODHOR) was brought to my attention in this regard. Of
particular concern is the partisan role that RGB reportedly played in
changing the leadership of LIPRODHOR under questionable circumstances.
Similarly, RGB was implicated in determining the leadership at the
Rwandan Collective of Leagues and Associations for the Defense of
Human Rights (CLADHO).
The independence and ability of associations to run their internal
affairs without external interference is of paramount importance in
the exercise of the right to freedom of association. I see no
justification for RGB involving itself in leadership wrangles within
local NGOs. Resolution of such conflict should be the responsibility
of the membership of the organization and ultimately the courts, with
RGB's role purely to endorse the leadership determined by the NGOs
themselves or the courts. As a general principle, Government's role in
the civil society sector should mirror the role it plays in the
private sector--solely that of registering entities within the sector.
It is abundantly evident to me that the Government of Rwanda has a
clear vision of where it wants the country to be by 2020. This vision
of development is inclusive and creates various spaces for interaction
amongst the different stakeholders. At the local level, interactions
take place in the context of Joint Action Development Forums (JADF)
and plans, and I understand that these collaborations have been
fruitful.
Nevertheless, I am concerned that the development partnerships between
the Government and local and international NGOs are of a compulsory
nature. This is evidenced by the necessity of collaboration letters,
action plans that must align with the development objectives of the
district, down to the level of activities, and in some cases demands
for performance contracts to be concluded between local authorities
and all NGOs. In fact, the perception of some in Government and in the
civil society sector appears to be that NGOs are implementers of
Government policy.
In order to protect the autonomy and independence of NGOs, I recommend
that any partnerships between Government and civil society be
voluntary rather than compulsory. In the development field, NGOs
should be able to determine and operate within their priority areas of
concern without interference or direction by authorities. This does
not preclude areas that authorities do not consider to be a priority.
The power of innovation is enhanced through openness. A multiplicity
of interventions and approaches will serve to strengthen the capacity
of the sector to respond to the needs of their beneficiaries and
ultimately, to Rwandans as a whole.
I am also concerned by the stigmatization of local and international
NGOs that has persisted in State-controlled media, and from Government
officials, especially following the decisions of some donor agencies
to channel funding for development through NGOs. While there should be
transparency between donors and the State with regard to the sectors
they are supporting and how much, the same approach the State takes to
the private sector--which is regarded as a key actor in
development--should obtain. Moreover, labelling of civil society actors
who are critical of the Government as enemies of the State compromises
their safety.
Let me also urge the Government to urgently complete its
investigations, in a transparent way, into the death of Mr Gustave
Sharangabo Makonene from Transparency International-Rwanda murdered in
July 2013. As long as the circumstances of his death remain unclear,
this case has a chilling effect on the NGO community in Rwanda.
Political parties
Concerning political parties, I have observed a lack of space for
individuals to express dissenting views. The Government of Rwanda
favours "consensus politics" and discourages public criticism and
dissent. I am concerned that there is no genuine pluralistic society.
Indeed it appears that every dissenting political leader who rejects
this consensus approach gets into legal trouble, with negations of the
genocide, divisionism, sectarianism, and even spreading rumors being
the favoured charges. In other cases, corruption charges for those who
leave the RPF are preferred. And in all such cases, these politicians
are accused of violence or having links with violent groups. This
sends a chilling and unacceptable message that peaceful public
disagreement with the Government is equivalent to criminality. The
legitimate combat against terrorism, and other security
considerations, should not be used as a bogeyman to restrict the right
to freely associate.
This is the case of Ms Victoire Ingabire, Mr Sylvain Sibomana and Mr
Anselme Mutuyimana from the FDU Inkingi, an opposition party denied
registration to date, as well as of Mr Bernard Ntaganda from the PS
Imberakuri. They were all sentenced from 4 to 15 years on similar
charges. The sentences of 5 years and more will ban them from ever
holding leadership positions in any political organization, according
to the Law governing political organizations and politicians. And in
all these cases, I was informed that they were being pressured to
leave their parties and join the RPF or its allied parties.
History teaches us that not allowing peaceful dissent and branding a
criminal every politician who resists the consensus approach, increase
the attractiveness of alternative ways of dissent that are not helpful
to Rwanda, or its people. I was therefore heartened to hear the
Justice Minister's assurance which I hope can be implemented that: "if
you are dissenting peacefully, please go ahead."
Rwanda favours a political order based on consensus led by the ruling
party. The Government and Parliament seem to agree that Rwanda needs
to be more cautious with political parties than with NGOs, given its
recent history. But 20 years since the Genocide, the successful
reconstruction of the Rwandan State should provide confidence to the
Government that it can and should allow peaceful dissent and
disagreement. Whether political parties decide to align with the
Government is their choice, but this should not be compulsory in law
or in fact.
On registration of parties, in addition to the barriers opposition
political parties face when required to hold general assemblies to
define their status, the overall process is long, laborious and, in
far too many instances, arbitrary. Technical reasons can never justify
a 4-year delay to register, as it has been the case for the Green
party.
In addition, it is crucial that individuals exercising the right to
associate, including opposition party members, are able to operate
freely and without fear. State officials' public comments celebrating
the killing of an opposition politician inculcate fear within the
opposition.
Now turning to the National Human Rights Commission of Rwanda, I note
the work it has undertaken in promoting and protecting human rights in
the country. However, relevant stakeholders should take adequate
measures to enhance the independence and capacity of the Commission.
I call on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights and the
United Nations Development Programme to continue their efforts to
strengthen the capacity of civil society to engage on human rights
issues, without using State bodies as intermediaries. I also urge them
to continue their work capacitating State officials to meet their
obligations under international law. I further call on the
international community to especially continue providing political and
financial support to genuinely independent NGOs.
To conclude, once again, I wish to state that the above preliminary
conclusions and recommendations are shared as a friend of Rwanda. I
have offered, and the Government has accepted, my help to further
strengthen the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly
and of association.
I thank you for your attention.
END
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14201&LangID=E
--
SIBOMANA Jean Bosco
Google+: https://plus.google.com/110493390983174363421/posts
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9B4024D0AE764F3D
http://www.youtube.com/user/sibomanaxyz999
***Online Time:15H30-20H30, heure de Montréal.***Fuseau horaire
domestique: heure normale de la côte Est des Etats-Unis et Canada
(GMT-05:00)***
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
.To post a message: RwandaLibre@yahoogroups.com; .To join: RwandaLibre-subscribe@yahoogroups.com; .To unsubscribe from this group,send an email to:
RwandaLibre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
_____________________________________________________
More news: http://amakurunamateka.blogspot.co.uk/; http://ikangurambaga.blogspot.co.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.