Renewed Threat to Freedom of Expression in South Africa

Posted by Susan Farbstein

In the forthcoming issue of the New York Review of Books, Nadine Gordimer writes about two disturbing pieces of legislation under consideration by the South African parliament: the Media Tribunal and the Protection of State Information Bill (or so-called “Secrecy Bill”). Both would significantly curtail freedom of expression and access to information.  Nearly twenty years after the end of apartheid, the acts are eerily reminiscent of the legal architecture that upheld the apartheid system itself—laws banning political parties, newspapers and books, and advocacy of political, economic, and social change.

Protesters show their opposition to the so-called “Secrecy Bill” at a candlelight vigil in Johannesburg, September 2011. Photo: Heather Mason at http://www.2summers.net.

If the Media Tribunal is established, journalists will be required to inform it about topics that they plan to investigate or write about; the Tribunal will then have the power to determine whether these subjects pose a threat to state security.  However, under a new plan recently proposed by the Press Freedom Commission, a compromise seems more likely.  The Commission has recommended a system of “independent co-regulation” between the public and press, without involvement of political parties or state officials, which may mitigate some concerns raised by critics of the Tribunal.

The Secrecy Bill may be the greater threat.  It has received heavy criticism from South African civil society and media, and would impose significant prison sentences on those who expose corruption in government and industry.   It lacks a public interest defense, meaning that journalists or whistle-blowers could be imprisoned for up to 25 years for sharing information deemed classified by the government, even in the face of a compelling public interest such as exposing corruption or malfeasance.  In addition, the Bill will insulate various intelligence agencies from public scrutiny, ensuring that ordinary constitutional checks and balances will not apply to the intelligence services.

The powerful Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), a traditional ANC ally, is strongly opposed to the Bill, as is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has said that it “makes the state answerable only to the state.”  The final hearing on the Bill is set for May 17th.  If passed into law, expect to see a Constitutional Court case challenging the Bill in the near future.

In many ways, this legislation contradicts the founding ideals that the ANC promised to a new South Africa.  Should the Secrecy Bill be enacted into law, former Constitutional Court Justice Albie Sachs’ warning may prove disturbingly prescient: “There is no guarantee that somebody who is a freedom fighter, who is willing to sacrifice his life for freedom, will not violate the rights of others when he takes over power.”

Legal Victory Places Massive Aníbal Bruno Prison Under International Sanction

Posted by Fernando Ribeiro Delgado

On August 4, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights officially called on Brazil to take all steps necessary to protect the life, personal integrity, and health of prisoners in Aníbal Bruno prison and reduce over-crowding at the pre-trial center, one of largest prison complexes in Latin America and among Brazil’s most violent.  This is the first time Aníbal Bruno prison has come under international sanction.  The measures were sought this past June by a coalition of human rights groups including the Catholic Prison Ministry (Pastoral Carcerária), the Ecumenical Service of Advocacy in Prisons (Serviço Ecumênico de Militância nas Prisões), Global Justice (Justiça Global), and the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School.

Starting in 2010, the Clinic and its partner organizations began gathering evidence of 55 violent deaths occurring in the prison since 2008, the vast majority of them homicides.  Joint fact-finding visits documented systematic torture and severe medical neglect as well.  The coalition reported these abuses to state authorities—as had occurred many times before—but little was done to address the prison’s problems.  The request for precautionary measures to the Inter-American Commission was filed this past June, as the death toll continued to rise.

The coalition’s filing sought measures to reduce rampant violence within the facility, provide health services to gravely ill prisoners, and promote long-term reforms that would stem excessive pre-trial incarceration, improve conditions of detention, and tackle corruption.  Brazil has until August 24 to inform the Commission of its efforts to comply with the decision.

Located in one of Brazil’s tourism capitals, Recife, Pernambuco state, the Aníbal Bruno prison gained national notoriety in 2008 when the facility was designated by a congressional inquiry as one of the top ten worst detention centers in the country.  Inhuman detention conditions persist today.  Aníbal Bruno prison is currently at 334 percent capacity, with over 4,800 prisoners crammed into space designed to hold 1,448.  In its decision, the Commission sought from Brazil “a substantive reduction in the overpopulation of persons deprived of liberty [in Aníbal Bruno],” among other steps.

During their inspections, coalition members found evidence of systematic torture, including signs that some prisoners had been partially skinned and had their bones broken in assaults orchestrated by “keymasters” (chaveiros)—prisoners who are officially deputized with guard duties.  The “keymaster” prisoners derive their nicknames from the fact that they literally control the keys to cells and, in practice, decide which prisoners get to access medical and other services outside the cellblock walls.  The coalition documented prisoners suffering severe medical neglect in Aníbal Bruno, including untreated open wounds, infections, and chronic pain.  The Inter-American Commission specifically urged Brazil to end the “keymaster” system, provide, “adequate medical attention to the [prisoners],” and adopt, “all the measures necessary to avoid the transmission of contagious diseases.”

Members of the Catholic Prison Ministry and the Ecumenical Service of Advocacy in Prisons have been monitoring human rights conditions in Aníbal Bruno prison for decades.  Justiça Global and the Clinic began fact-finding, international litigation, and media advocacy surrounding Aníbal Bruno last fall, joining the work of advocates in the region.

For the initial complaint on Aníbal Bruno (in Portuguese with certain names redacted), click here [warning: this document contains a graphic image].

For the Commission’s decision (in Portuguese), click here.

For Justiça Global’s press release on the case (in Portuguese), click here.

What it Takes to Work in Human Rights: An Interview with Jim Cavallaro

Posted by Cara Solomon

Here’s our very own Jim Cavallaro talking to the Harvard International Law Journal about how he got started in the field of human rights, and what it takes to make an organization work on the ground.  He also offers some good advice for students, including this:

“I encourage students to go somewhere that they might want to work and to be prepared to spend time there learning the ropes. Not a few weeks or months, but years.  That’s what it takes.  To be successful, you have to be part of the local human rights community, you have to understand the local culture, language, norms, and so forth.  They say that all politics is local.  Well, at some level, so is all human rights work.  Or at least all good human rights work.”