July, 08 2009, 09:29am EDT
Guinea: Coup Leaders Undermining Rights
Six Months After Coup, More Abuses and Promised Restoration of Democracy Off Track
NEW YORK
Respect for human rights by the coup government that took power six months ago has been undermined by arbitrary arrests and detentions, restrictions on political activity, unpunished criminal acts by the military, calls for vigilante justice, and disappointing progress in organizing elections, Human Rights Watch said today.
"The new government has had six months to show that it was serious about improving respect for human rights in Guinea," said Corinne Dufka, senior West Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. "There is no time to waste; they need to put a stop to human rights violations and organize free, fair, and transparent elections without any more delays."
A group of Guinean military officers calling themselves the National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD) seized power hours after the death on December 22, 2008, of Lansana Conte, Guinea's president for 24 years.
Human Rights Watch research since the coup has found numerous instances in which the CNDD has violated its commitment to end human rights violations and taken little concrete action to organize elections promised before the end of the year.
At least 16 military personnel, including a former army commander, have been detained, and sources within the military have suggested that some of them have been abused in detention. All remain in detention, though none has been charged with any crime. Human Rights Watch calls on the Guinean authorities either to initiate formal trial proceedings against the men or order their release.
While the coup leaders initially agreed to a timetable for new elections, there has been little concrete action taken or funding committed to plan the elections. A ban on political activity has been reinstated, and there have been attacks on opposition parties. Human Rights Watch called on the Guinean authorities to repeal the ban on political activity immediately and to hold parliamentary and presidential elections as quickly as possible.
Human Rights Watch has documented a number of violent attacks by the military on ordinary Guineans, but no member of the military has been held to account for the attacks. Officials also appear to have condoned instances of vigilante justice. Human Rights Watch called on the coup government to retract the call for vigilante justice, and ensure that attacks on citizens by vigilantes end immediately and that those responsible are brought to justice.
Attacks and Other Episodes that Violated Promises Made by the Coup Leaders
Continued Arbitrary Detention of at Least 16 Military Personnel
In late December and early January 2009, the CNDD detained 12 military officers who had been assigned to provide security for the late President Conte. Military personnel interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Conakry said that the 12 were questioned by gendarmes only once, shortly after being taken into custody, but have yet to be allowed access to their lawyers or charged with a crime. The detained men were prevented from receiving family visits for a period of three months, and remain in custody in an unofficial detention center on the grounds of the CNDD's headquarters at the Alpha Yaya Diallo military camp in Conakry.
A second group of at least three military personnel was detained in late April following an alleged coup attempt against the CNDD president, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara. Sources within the military told Human Rights Watch that these men are being held in a military camp on Kassa Island - a few kilometers off the coast of Conakry. Military officers interviewed by Human Rights Watch suggested that this group had suffered repeated beatings.
In the afternoon of May 26, dozens of security forces personnel beat, tied up, and detained Kader Doumbouya, a former military commander under Conte, and then looted his residence in Conakry. He has since then been held without charge in the "PM3" gendarmes detention center in Conakry. Sources told Human Rights Watch that he is being treated for a cracked rib suffered during the incident.
This prolonged detention of the men without charge, access to a lawyer, or review by an independent judge constitutes arbitrary detention, in violation of Guinea's international law obligations. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Guinea in 1978, states that anyone arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. Human Rights Watch calls on the Guinean authorities either to initiate formal trial proceedings against the men in question and ensure that they are immediately brought before a judge, or order their immediate and unconditional release. In any case, the men should be compensated for their arbitrary detention.
Elections and Freedoms of Political Expression and Assembly
Little progress has been made toward the return to civilian rule through free and fair legislative and presidential elections, despite the CNDD's commitment to restore constitutional order by the end of 2009. In March, the Forces Vives of Guinea - an organization consisting of political parties, unions, and civil society leaders - presented the CNDD with a timetable for elections preparations, with a view toward holding legislative elections in October and presidential elections by December 2009. Though Camara agreed in March to this timetable, the CNDD has taken few concrete steps to organize elections, and has refused to provide funding for the Independent National Electoral Commission (CENI) - the government body charged with organizing and monitoring the elections - in May and June 2009.
A communique from Camara, read on Guinean public radio on June 26, reinstated a ban on all political and union activities. Prior to the official banning of political activity, rallies by three Guinean political parties planned in different towns across Guinea were cancelled by order of local authorities, presumably to comply with commands from authorities in the capital.
On June 18, the Union of Democratic Forces of Guinea (UFDG) was forced to cancel its month-long nationwide campaign tour for its presidential candidate, Cellou Dallein Diallo, after local authorities and the military in the eastern town of Kerouane - 1,000 km from Conakry - ordered hundreds of supporters who had gathered for the rally to return to their homes, and then ordered the party's delegation to leave town. Shortly before reaching Kankan, 130 km away, the delegation was stopped by about 50 military personnel. Witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that the commander told the delegation that he had received orders that they would not be allowed into Kankan, where they had planned to hold a rally later that day.
Similarly, rallies by the United Front for Democracy and Change (FUDEC) in the towns of Coyah and Boffa, north of Conakry, and by the Democratic Union of Guinea (UDG) on June 18 in Foracariah were forbidden by the local authorities.
Human Rights Watch also spoke with a witness who described a June 20 attack on the UDG party headquarters in Kagbelen, outside Conakry. He said that approximately 25 members of the military led by the minister in charge of presidential security, Claude Pivi, forced their way into the local headquarters. The witness said that the military told them that they were looking for the local party representative.
"The military were heavily armed and wearing red berets," the witness said. "Pivi was seated in his four-wheel-drive car, watching everything. He called me and asked me where the head of our party was. We said we didn't know. His men then forced their way into our offices looking for him, beat up a few of our people, and stole two of our mobile phones."
On July 4, there were media reports of a second raid on the UDG in Kagbelen by members of the military wearing red berets, in which several UDG activists were allegedly rounded up and detained at a nearby military camp.
Human Rights Watch called on the Guinean authorities to repeal the ban on political activity immediately and uphold the right of all Guineans to choose their representatives by holding free, fair, and transparent parliamentary and presidential elections as quickly as possible.
Criminality by Military Personnel with No Mechanism for Accountability
The CNDD promised in May to prevent acts of criminality by military personnel. However, little concrete action has been taken to improve the situation, Human Rights Watch said. While the security forces have made arrests of civilians alleged to have committed crimes, no member of the military has yet faced arrest, investigation, or prosecution for the types of criminal acts documented by Human Rights Watch in April.
Human Rights Watch has since then documented several incidents of theft and violence by members of the military against businesspeople and ordinary citizens, including thefts of goods and cars, and extortion by soldiers manning checkpoints in the Matoto and Bonfi neighborhoods of Conakry. In one egregious incident, a Guinean businessman who had recently returned from living abroad described how, on May 30, two armed soldiers threw him out of a third-story window after robbing him and spraying tear gas in his eyes. The soldiers then stole his car. The fall broke the man's back, both legs, and both arms.
Official Call for Vigilante Justice that Undermines the Rule of Law
A call from a CNDD top law enforcement official for vigilante justice to be meted out against suspected thieves has seriously undermined respect for the rule of law in Guinea. At least one person appears to have been murdered in a vigilante attack.
During a June 2 meeting with local government and community leaders, which was widely reported in national and international media, Captain Moussa Tiegboro Camara (no relation to the CNDD president, Dadis Camara), the minister charged with the fight against drug trafficking and serious crime, urged youths to set up surveillance brigades and to "burn all armed bandits who are caught red-handed committing an armed robbery," adding that there was no more room in Guinea's prisons to accommodate these criminals.
In the early morning hours of June 5, residents in the Yimbaya neighborhood of Conakry found a young man lying under a tree whose body was severely burned and whose face, fingers, and ears had been cut in multiple places. They informed Human Rights Watch that the man told them he had hours before been accused of theft by other local residents, who then burned him on his chest, back, and buttocks with a clothes iron, severely beat him, and cut him with a razor blade. The man died two hours after he was found by the residents.
Local residents further described to Human Rights Watch how, at around 5 p.m. the same day, Tiegboro visited the neighborhood to look at the corpse and address local residents. According to several residents who attended the meeting, Tiegboro told them: "You've done well to kill this man. He is a criminal and any time you see such a criminal, you should kill him. If you don't have the money to buy petrol, come to my office and I will give you money to buy it."
Another man attending the meeting said: "No one opposed what Captain Tiegboro said, but I think what happened to him [the victim] is wrong. In fact, it is the torturers who should be arrested and tried for what they did to him."
When interviewed by Human Rights Watch on June 24, Tiegboro asserted that he supported the rule of law and the right to a fair trial, but that his appeal for "popular justice had been intended as a preventive action to frighten would-be perpetrators." He denied offering money to local residents intending to burn criminals alive, but noted emphatically that the victim of the June 5 incident had a well-known criminal history and had been in and out of Conakry's main prison at least eight times.
While Human Rights Watch was unable to ascertain whether those who attacked the man were incited to action by Tiegboro's statement, it appears that he endorsed the killing after the fact. Human Rights Watch called on the Guinean authorities to retract the minister's call for the formation of vigilante groups and any calls to kill suspected criminals. Those who carry out vigilante attacks, including the murder in Yimbaya, should be investigated and prosecuted.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular