Last month, 80 African studies scholars based in the U.S. joined me in writing to Secretary of State John Kerry, asking him to defend and uphold the Leahy Amendment.  United by concern that a vital human rights law was being undermined by top Pentagon officials, who publicly complained that it presented an inconvenience to counter-terrorism programs in some countries, we urged America’s top diplomat to “resist any efforts to weaken the Leahy Amendment and, rather, to ensure that rule of law and accountability for human rights abuses remain core principles guiding U.S. policy toward Africa.”  Click here to read a copy of our letter and see the list of signatories, which continues to grow.

Secretary Kerry has responded with a letter dated August 12, thanking the scholars: “Support for the rule of law and accountability are cornerstones of U.S. policy toward Africa, and the Leahy laws will continue to be essential tools for advancing them.”  He brought much the same message to a congressional appropriations hearing earlier this summer.  Apparently, tepid implementation of Leahy runs deeper than merely some corners of the Pentagon, with the State Department’s regional bureaus sometimes holding back information on human rights violations, and occasional disputes between embassies and Foggy Bottom.  So a new message from the top, reaffirming Leahy, will generate some ripples.

Click here to download a copy of the letter from Secretary Kerry, which emphasizes that Leahy is more than merely a putative tool for denying aid to security units that violate human rights.  It is also a tool for holding human rights violators accountable and strengthening the rule of law.

I also want to thank the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars for helping to publicize the letter.

“Support for the rule of law and accountability are cornerstones of U.S. policy toward Africa, and the Leahy laws will continue to be essential tools for advancing them.”

Kerry’s words to the African studies professors

 

The AFL-CIO and Solidarity Center just released a report about the upcoming Zimbabwean parliamentary and presidential elections.  It details the importance of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) in taking on the country’s political establishment and creating political space and advancing workers’ policy interests.  As my colleague Adrienne LeBas argues in her groundbreaking book, From Protest to Parties: Party-building and Democratization in Africa (just released in paperback this month) the labor movement has both protected civil society space and advanced political reform in Zimbabwe.  The Solidarity Center report describes how unions have given voice to workers in the the large informal economy, and the ZCTU and its affiliates have provided critical support for civic education and get-out-the-vote initiatives for the election in particular.

Download a copy of the report, “On the Front Lines of Change” here.

Dateline Dakar – While Obama is in Africa, is the US Military Trying to Roll Back U.S. Human Rights Law?

Obama’s “nio far” comment (meaning “we are together” in Wolof) here in Dakar will likely resonate through history, similar to President Kennedy telling Germans he was an East Berliner.  Senegal is hardly a divided cold war Berlin. But it is surrounded by countries swimming against the tide of Africa’s political liberalization over the last two decades.  So the administration’s plans for a massive influx of foreign aid hopes to fashion Senegal into a beacon of democratization amidst Islamic moderation has obvious appeal to Obama’s new national security team.  Senegal represents a counter-narrative to economic Afro-pessimism, and from the Pentagon’s perspective it promises a wedge against radical Islamic influences from its neighbors, Mauritania and Mali.  Call it the “Almadies Alternative,” referring to the westernmost geographical point in Africa.  Whether the appropriate metaphor for this peninsula is an outstretched hand of friendship, or a finger scolding DC, will depend in part on the priority given human rights in this new national security narrative.

Back home in Washington, the New York Times last week brought to light comments by Obama’s generals openly prodding the administration to recalibrate American priorities by arguing that the Leahy Amendment unnecessarily complicates counter-terrorism training.  This law prohibits the provision of State Department foreign aid, or Department of Defense military training, to military units or individuals who have committed gross human rights violations.  Determining whether such violations have occurred, and who is eligible for training, places a substantial burden on under-resourced American diplomats who do the vetting.  To read more about how this process works, click here to read a fact sheet from the U.S. Department of State that describes the vetting process.

An unclassified PowerPoint presentation provides additional details about what constitutes a “unit,” what the State Department considers “credible information,” and how it defines a “gross human rights violation.”  It also makes clear that the Department of Defense applies a lower standard for a waiver compared to the diplomats across the river in DC.  And – surprisingly – the DOD is not required to report to Congress when it does so.  You can download the presentation here.

To address these concerns, the following US-based scholars have signed a letter to the State Department, asking Secretary Kerry to defend the Leahy Amendment.  This page will be updated periodically until the final letter is sent to Kerry.  (Signatories have not endorsed the above comments.)

Letter to Secretary Kerry: Defend Leahy Amendment, Advance African Rule of Law

July 5, 2013

Hon. John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary,

As scholars from U.S. – based institutions with expertise on Africa, we are pleased with the Administration’s renewed interest in the continent’s many growing economies and rising democracies.  As with his previous trip, President Obama chose to visit countries that are making meaningful strides towards democratic consolidation.  Of course, to reach this point, Africans walked a long road to freedom.  Where democracy on the continent is most vibrant today, procedural elements such as free and fair elections are accompanied by other features, including strict civilian control of security services and accountability for human rights abuses.  After a robust inter-agency debate, the 2012 White House National Security Strategy toward Sub-Saharan Africa embraced these principles. The US pledged to “expand efforts to support and empower key reformers and institutions of government at all levels to promote the rule of law,” and to “amplify and support voices” calling for rule of law and accountability.

We are writing to express our profound concern that efforts under way in the United States to weaken the vetting process for U.S. foreign aid and military training will have the opposite effect. Doing so would contradict U.S. foreign policy goals and roll back rule of law in Africa by abetting – or even training – known human rights abusers.

The “Leahy Amendment” now prohibits State Department aid, or military training from the Department of Defense (DOD), to units known to have engaged in human rights abuses.  This is codified in Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, which states: “No assistance shall be furnished … to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.”A provision in the annual DOD Appropriations Act states: “(a) None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to support any training program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible information from the Department of State that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.”  These laws attest to an American commitment to enhance democracy by ending impunity and promoting accountability.

As you know, the Leahy Amendment only applies to the most serious human rights offenses, such as extra-judicial executions, torture, disappearances and rape.  The allegations must be credible and substantiated through a rigorous vetting process that involves the U.S. Embassy in the host nation and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and (for countries in Africa) the Bureau of African Affairs in Washington.  For allegations requiring extra scrutiny, the State Department consults with civil society groups – thereby offering a model for a healthy democratic debate about foreign policy.

Suspension of aid through Leahy is a powerful incentive for governments to hold abusers accountable – and some countries have done just that in order to get American aid reinstated. The DOD Appropriations Act permits restoration of training if “all necessary corrective steps have been taken.”  The FAA sets a higher standard, requiring a determination by the Secretary of State to Congress that “the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring responsible members to justice.”

There is good evidence that the Leahy Amendment has worked.  Your predecessor, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, noted that without the Leahy Amendment U.S. taxpayers would have armed or trained 1,766 individuals or units that the State Department determined had probably committed serious human rights crimes in 2011 alone.  In 2012, the State Department Inspector General reported that 211 Nigerian soldiers (out of a potential 1,377 participants) were excluded from a training due to credible concerns about their respective roles in human rights abuses.  According to a recent article in The New York Times, a Nigerian military unit in Mali has also been excluded from training. For those who would say this presents an undue burden on counter-terrorism (as the top official from the Special Operations Command implied in recent comments), we note that the abusive unit is being replaced by another one with a clean record.

In 2008, Nigeria’s president said that he wanted to be remembered for “restoring respect for the rule of law.”  Such African dreams of democracy will be difficult to realize if American security programs allow loopholes and waivers on the road to reform.  U.S. military assistance programs to Africa have expanded, and they need to be held to the same high standard as other aspects of foreign aid.  The era of financial austerity warrants it, and the hard lessons learned from some of America’s alliances in Africa during the Cold War demand it.

We understand the need to be pragmatic, and we appreciate the complexities of contemporary security contexts in Africa and beyond.  But we urge you to resist any efforts to weaken the Leahy Amendment and, rather, to ensure that rule of law and accountability for human rights abuses remain core principles guiding U.S. policy toward Africa.

Thank you for taking our views into consideration.  Our affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not constitute an institutional endorsement.

Sincerely, (last updated on July 5)

A. Carl LeVan, American University
Jennie  Burnet, University of Louisville
Dave Wiley, Michigan State University, Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
Deborah Brautigam, Johns Hopkins University
Steve Orvis, Hamilton College
Catherine Bolton, University of Notre Dame
Meredith Turshen, Rutgers University
Nelson Kasfir, Dartmouth College
Alice Kang, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
David  Newbury, Smith College
Martha C. Johnson, Mills College
Catherine Newbury, Smith College
Staffan Lindberg, University of Florida
Marc Sommers, Boston University
William Minter, AfricaFocus Bulletin
Elias Kifon Bongmba, Rice University
Martha C. Larson, Independent Analyst, San Francisco
Raymond F. Hopkins, Swarthmore College
Brian A. Guy, University of Oregon
Alex de Waal, World Peace Foundation, Fletcher School
Neil O. Leighton, University of Michigan – Flint
Lorna Lueker Zukas, National University
Mary D. Herr, Elizabethtown College Alumni Peace Fellowship
Richard Lapchick, University of Central Florida
James Simon, Center for Research Libraries, Chicago
David A. Pigott, Brigham Young University – Idaho
Robert Press, University of Southern Mississippi
Merle L. Bowen, University of Illinois – Champaign
Ken Harrow, Michigan State University
Susan Thomson, Colgate University
Peter Alegi, Michigan State University
Elizabet Schmidt, Loyola University – Maryland
Susan   Waltz, University of Michigan
David  Dwyer, Michigan State University
Susanna Wing, Haverford College
Adotei Akwei, Amnesty International
Walter Turner, College of Marin
Teresa Barnes, University of Illinois – Urbana
Richard Waller, Bucknell University
Edward A. Alpers, University of California – Los Angeles
Charles L. Riley, Yale University Library
Bruce Magnusson, Whitman College
David Vine, American University
Gretchen Bauer, University of Delaware
Mechthild Nagel, SUNY – Cortland
Michael Bratton, Michigan State University
Jericho Burg, University of California, San Diego
Aili Mari Tripp, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Clarence Lusane, American University
Jarmaine Abiodogun, Missouri State University
Sarah E. Hager, American University SPeX
Noah Zerbe, Humboldt State University
Leslie Hadfield, Brigham Young University
Teju Olaniyan, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Tony Avirgan, Independent Scholar
Martha Honey, Independent Scholar
Vivian N. Anugo, American University
Brook K. Baker, Northeastern University Law School
Christopher M. Annear, Hobart & William Smith Colleges
R. Joseph Parrott, University of Texas at Austin
Ann Seidman, Boston University
Sarah E. Watkins, University of California, Santa Barbara
Jeanne Koopman, Boston University
Thomas A. Smucker, Ohio University
Sandra Barnes, University of Pennsylvania
Edwin S. Segal, University of Louisville
James Mittleman, American University
John Metzler, Michigan State University
Nurudeen B. Akinyemi, Kennesaw State University
Jeanne Penvenne, Tufts University
Roshen Hendrickson, College of Staten Island (CUNY)
Robert Mortimer, Haverford College
Almaz Zewde, Howard University
Robert Mazur, Iowa State University
John Harbeson, Johns Hopkins University – SAIS
Sarah S. Milburn, Rutgers University
Thomas Turner, Virginia Commonwealth University
Olufemi Vaughan, Bowdoin College
Omofolabo Ajayi-Soyinka, University of Kansas
Pauline E. Peters, Harvard University

cc:        Susan Rice, National Security Adviser
Hon. Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense
Senator Patrick Leahy

If you are affiliated with a US-based academic institution and would like add your name to this letter, email [email protected] with your name and institutional affiliation by July 5, 2013.

NIGER DELTA CIVIL SOCIETY COALITION (NDCSC)

THE PORT HARCOURT DECLARATION ON THE PERVADING IMPUNITY IN RIVERS STATE IN PARTICULAR AND NIGERIA IN GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

I.   The Niger Delta Civil Society Coalition (NDCSC) is a non-partisan, non-profit, non-governmental coalition of critical civil society organisations drawn from across the communities of the Nine Political Niger Delta Region States, academic community, labour unions and other stakeholders, united in their vision of a just, equitable and indivisible peoples, and in the building  of effective participatory democracy, good governance, social, economic and political justice, and the respect and promotion of the fundamental human rights of all citizens and residents.

II.    The Coalition held a Special Roundtable at Port Harcourt, on the Theme: Defending Democracy, on June 17, 2013, during which it reviewed the on-going politically manufactured  crisis in Rivers state, generated by factions in the State Chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and analysed its genesis and escalating character which is not only affecting the way of life  of ordinary unsuspecting  citizens, but their livelihoods as well. This is most evident in the continuing occupation of the Obio/Akpor Local Government Council Secretariat by the State Police Command, inspite of a subsisting Court Order to the contrary; and the forced recess of members of the State House of Assembly, by reason of  security threats.

DECLARATION

Preamble

Following a comprehensive review of the political crisis situation in Rivers State, NDCSC

1.       Found the prevailing state of  impunity in  the  region, especially so in Rivers state, most shattering. Noted that political elites in the region has become a class unto themselves, feeding lawlessly and carelessly at the public trough, thereby generating an open invitation for citizens to reject democracy.

2.       Noted the manufactured political crisis that has its roots in the 2015 general elections

3.       Noted attempts to criminalize ambition, political participation, freedom of assembly,  association, thought and expression.

4.       Noted that the pathology of personal rule still persists. The right to rule is ascribed to a person rather than to an office. Subordinates pay loyalty to their personal patrons, not to the laws and institutions. Prebendal governments have failed to produce quality public goods, but private goods for those who hold or have access to political power.

5.       Noted with alarm the absence of any effective  official opposition political parties in the state and region.

6.       Noted with alarm the character of the recent convergence  of ex-militants in Port Harcourt , with intent to intimidate.

7.       Noted with alarm the political character of policing in the state under its present leadership, which is assuming a despotic, omnipotent disposition to intimidate, conquer and abuse rights and freedoms.

8.       Noted with concern the character of the grounding of the Rivers state government owned aircraft in Ekiti State, by the federal government.

9.       Noted the controversy  surrounding  the  Nigeria Governors Forum Chairmanship  election which was duly conducted and won by the governor of Rivers State.

10.   Noted with concern the lack of internal democracy which is instrumental to current overheating of the  state polity.

11.   Noted with concern the speed of light with which the elected officials of the Obio/Akpor Local government were suspended, by the State House of Assembly.

12.   Noted with concern the undeminishing level of corruption with impunity in the region by political elites.

13.   Noted with concern the extreme use of language, which connotes a do or die political mentality of political elites, bearing in mind the volatile character of the state and region.

14.   Noted with concern the overbearing retarding interest in Rivers state, of some neighbouring state  governors and the  presidency, which is threatening the relative peace and global investment interests  in the state and region.

15.   Noted with concern that a ‘political economy’ may have developed around the political challenges in the state, with the effect that certain elements may be deriving financial benefits from the prevailing state of near confusion, to create the impression of uncertainty and make the state ungovernable.

16.   Noted with particular concern the most troubling culture of silence of the populace in the face of egregious threats to democracy and human freedom.

17.   Noted with concern  the manner in which the  Judiciary may be allowing itself to be used as porn, in the illicit political battle for supremacy.

18.   Expressed concern that the Obio/Akpor Local Government Secretariat workers are still locked out, their salaries not paid for an upward of about two months, and the unavailability of the very fundamental services they render to members of the general public.

19.   Expressed concern that the State House of Assembly is still under lock and keys for weeks, depriving  the peoples of the state of due representation and services of the members as required by the Constitution.

20.   Further concerned that the Presidency is neck deep in the manufactured political crisis which has everything to do with  the  2015 general  elections.

Now therefore, the Niger Delta Civil Society Coalition and other stakeholders hereby formally:

A.      Calls on the Presidency to take its Responsibility to Protect  all Nigerian citizens, under both international law and the constitution of the Federal Republic, most seriously. The presidency should prevent, rather than stoke conflict in any guise whatsoever.

B.      Calls on the Presidency and all elected representatives of the peoples to end, the most undemocratic culture of impunity, by taking the rule of law and due process requirements seriously.

C.      Calls on the Presidency to void forthwith in the public interest any practice or use of powers democratically and constitutionally entrusted upon him to govern, protect life and property of citizens in an abusive manner, or manipulating the same in settlement of political scores.

D.      Calls on the Presidency and political elites to shun speeches that could be termed hate speech and have capacity to cause dissension, humiliate and or reduce the integrity of  his office.

E.       Calls on the Presidency and governors to respect the outcomes of a duly conducted Nigeria Governor Forum elections that is considered free, fair and credible, therefore, leave positive examples for broader future elections.

F.       Calls on the Presidency and colleagues to support the sustenance and consolidation of democracy that is accountable, respectful of the rule of law in which the constitution is supreme, all citizens are equal before the law, no one is above the law, corruption is minimised and punished, state authorities respect the rights of citizens.

 G.     Calls on the governors and legislators to respect the constitutional requirements for the third tier of government. Legislators and its relevant committees should effectively investigate suspicions, fraud and abuses within the state and local government agencies, under its jurisdiction. They  should monitor the overall efficiency and integrity of government and allegations of wrongdoing in an objective, transparent and in accordance with the requirements of known statutes.

H.     Calls on the federal government to effectively and efficiently conclude the Amnesty programme in such a manner that its dangerous monetization impact, does not motivate peaceful and law abiding young people into violence.

I.        The Presidency should take capacity seriously in the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs and ensure that the East–West road and other critical infrastructures in the region are given priority attention, to enable job creation for teaming millions of helpless and frustrated young people.

J.        Insist that participation in  2015 general elections should be based on performance, merit,  and all political parties should internalize democratic values and rule of law.

K.      Calls on the Police Service Commission and the Inspector General of Police to ensure that the Nigeria Police in all of its ramifications does not assume the character of a political, omnipotent force, that is master, rather than servant of the peoples, and officers found wanting should be dismissed forthwith.

L.       Calls on the National Judicial Commission, the Chief Justice of the federation and the Nigerian Bar Association to guard judicial independence and integrity most jealously. A democratic rule of law requires a judiciary that is, at every level, neutral, independent from political influence, and reasonably competent and resourceful. Most of all, it requires a constitutional court willing to constrain the power of the mighty and defend the rights of the meek.

M.    Calls on the fourth estate of the realm to effectively play its historic role in securitizing and checking the exercise of executive power, inspite of the overwhelming threat to open culture by the police command.

 

Vigilant Citizenry: Finally, we the peoples and leaders of critical civil society groups in the  Niger Delta region, do hereby give unto ourselves  a DOING DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT  with the object of mobilizing and conscientizing  citizens from the roots of communities and states of the region, to participate in decisions that affect their lives, and  join in collectively  building democracy, decimating  culture of silence, challenge all impoverishing structures, and ensure that democracy becomes qualitative, participatory and human rights and fundamental freedoms observed and respected, through legitimate democratic processes which include peaceful protests etal.

Issued at Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria, this 17^th Day of June, 2013

For and on behalf of the NDCSC and Stakeholders:

Anyakwee Nsirimovu

Chair, NDCSC

Dr. Lucky Akaruese  – University of Port Harcourt

Rev. David Ugolor – Executive Director, ANEEJ, Benin, Edo State

Kenneth Atsuwette, esq. Human Rights Alliance,

Mike Karipo, esq. – MOSOP/Environmental Rights Action, Port Harcourt

Chief Christian Akani  – Centre for Academic Freedom, PHC

Martha Agbani – Nokiaka Community Development Centre, Rivers

Christy Enang –CPD Uyo, Akwa Ibom  State

Ekanem Inyang      Applicant Welfare and Development Centre– Uyo –

Dr. Roibito Ekanem – Women in Action for Positive Development and Gender Enhancement Centre, Cross River State

Victoria Ukpong  –  Edem Foundation, Cross River

Allagoa Morris – Environmental Action,  Bayelsa State

Princess Egbe –  Operation Rescue, Bayelsa State

Betram     Ubaka – Disabilities Action Network, Edo State

Courage Nsirimovu, esq. – IHRHL, Rivers

Emeka Ononamadu –Citizen Centre for Integrated Development and Social Rights Centre, Imo State

Okechukwu Nwanguma – NOPRIN, Lagos

Ifeanyi  Anyanwu –   CLEEN  Foundation, Imo State

Amaka Biachi – Umuahia, Abia State

Amechi   Omagbitse Ogbonna- Itsekiri Movement for Peace and Justice, Delta State

Uzezi  Agbo –    Community Peace Development Initiative, Delta State

Abiye George  – Rivers Youth Coalition Vanguard, Rivers

Osademe Tonia – FIDA, Rivers

Dumka Emah – Child Life, Rivers

Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan recently declared a state of emergency in response to violence by Islamic radicals.  This is a move with dangerous implications for democracy which has already had grave human rights implications for thousands of Nigerians.  In addition to hundreds killed and thousands displaced in the Baga Massacre in April, the United Nations reported this week that thousands of Nigerians have begun streaming into Niger and Cameroon, creating a new wave of displaced persons (will they soon be designated refugees?)

But if the state of emergency was declared so that the government can get a handle on the violence, why didn’t it declare one  in the states where the violence is most serious? This is the question raised by an important analysis released today by the Fund for Peace. It turns out that between January and April of 2013, the worst violence occurred in three areas: (1) around Maiduguri, where the Islamic militants are based, (2) near the city of Kano, and (3) the area just south of Jos in Plateau State (see map to the right from the FFP report). In fact, the overall levels of violence appear to have actually declined in Adamawa and Yobe, two states now subject to large scale military operations.

While the governorship of Adamawa has been held by the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) since the 1999 transition, the other two states subject to the current emergency, Borno and Yobe, are opposition strongholds. The All Nigerian People’s Party (ANPP) and its predecessor have held the governorships since 1999.  After the relative success of the 2011 elections, the Jonathan administration now risks creating an impression of partisan bias without a further rationalization for its decision about where to declare a state of emergency.

The International Law Association’s standards for such declarations, along with other conventions such as the European Unions’, say that the magnitude of the threat must be objectively demonstrable, with an impact on the nation on the whole.  And while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows for suspension of certain rights “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation,” it also provides no exception for Article 6(1), which states “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

N-Katalyst Forum: Nigeria’s Intellectuals Issue a Plea for Human Rights – and Civil Society Activism

Such concerns inspired last week’s declaration, at a meeting in Abuja organized by a group of scholars on Nigeria’s security crisis. The statement notes with concern that the Nigerian government has not made a legal determination about the nature of the current violence, and the counter-insurgency “seems to be conducted outside the ambits of both Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law.”

With equal alarm, the signatories note “there seems to have developed a culture of silence with respect to the impact of the security conflicts on civilian populations in the theatres of conflict.”  A full humanitarian response is needed not only by the government but from civil society.  You can read the full statement here.