in its July 2015 Newsletter puts the spotlight on Khalef Khalifa, Executive Director of the NGO MUHURI in Kenya.
On 8 April 2015, the official Gazette notice listed 85 companies and organisations, including MUHURI and Haki Africa, as suspected of having links to terrorism and linking them as specified entities. On 20 and 21 April, the police raided the offices of both organizations, disabling their servers, carrying away hard disks and documents, allegedly to determine whether they had been involved in tax evasion. On 28 May, the Non-Governmental Organisations’ Coordination Board announced through the media that they had de-registered the organizations. On 12 June the court dismissed all charges against MUHURI and Haki Africa on the basis that there was no evidence against them.
Khalef Khalifa (KK): As you know, on the 12th June was a good day for us as both MUHURI and Haki Africa, were entirely vindicated in court. The judge dismissed all the charges against us and said that there was absolutely no evidence to link us to terrorism in any form and specifically forbade the police or even the Minister to make any such reference in the future. However the outstanding difficulty is that he refused to unfreeze our bank accounts on the basis that we had failed to include the Central Bank in our case against the state. They have now agreed to join our case calling for the accounts to be freed but we have to wait for another hearing before the judge makes his ruling and we can begin getting back to normal.
FLD: Given the various lines of attack that were opened against MUHURI it seems as though the government was out to get you?
KK: ...we were targeted on three fronts: by the police, the Revenue Commissioners and by the NGO Board. So while the government accused us of terrorism, the Revenue Commissioners descended on our office and took away all out financial documentation to look for evidence of tax avoidance and the NGO Board lodged a complaint that we had not kept them properly informed of our activities, and in particular that we had not informed them of new appointments to our board, as required by the NGO Law. In the final verdict, while the judge said there was no evidence of involvement in terrorism, both the Revenue Commissioners and the NGO Board had to concede that we were 100% compliant with the regulations. The only thing the NGO Board could trip us up on was that while we had notified the NGO Board of the new appointments, we had not used the appropriate, and newly introduced, form. What is interesting is that in the early stages of the case the government was totally focused on pursuing a case on the basis of terrorism, but they quite quickly changed tack and started looking for any small technical failures they could find to try and make a case against us. But they failed because we have always operated in an entirely open and transparent way.
KK: The real reason for their animus against MUHURI is that we are critical of the police and have investigated their involvement in extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances. There have been at least 52 such killings and disappearances in the Mombasa region in the last two years. The police claim to be fighting terror but in fact terror is a more accurate description of the way the police themselves work. In one incident 8 people were shot dead in a church. The police claimed that it was an attack by Al Shabaab. However when the perpetrators were arrested it was clear that they were not Muslims and in fact had no affiliation to any particular group. The police then hid the names and tried to maintain the fiction of an Al Shabaab attack.
FLD: Will the work of MUHURI get back to normal now?
KK: ...As soon as the accounts are unfrozen we will continue out work as normal. For us it is clear that the government wants to intimidate and frighten MUHURI but we will not be intimidated – we will not give up.
The more general backdrop can be found in earlier Front Line messages, the 5 June appeal by the Observatory [http://www.omct.org/human-rights-defenders/urgent-interventions/kenya/2015/06/d23190/] and the statements made by NGOs on 26 June 2015 at the adoption by the UN Human Rights Council of the report of the Universal Periodic Review [UPR] of Kenya:
– International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) : Kenya should create an enabling environment for the work of human rights defenders – including repealing restrictions on NGO access to foreign funding and amending or repealing the Information Communication Amendment Bill and Media Council Bill. The statement also emphasised the risks faced by LGBTI people and organisations in Kenya as a result of the criminalisation of same-sex conduct. ‘It is crucial that the voices of human rights defenders are safeguarded and encouraged. This assists to create a vibrant, independent and diverse civil society which is essential to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law’ said Michael Ineichen of ISHR.
AllAfrica.com reports on Human Rights Watch comments: “We note Kenya’s acceptance of some important recommendations such as commitments to investigate torture and extrajudicial killings, including the killing of activist Hassan Guyo, and to fully cooperate with the International Criminal Court. But we remain concerned that there has been little tangible progress in many key areas. The ongoing abuses and recent threats to civil society illustrate a lack of commitment to implement these recommendations.”
Koné: We want to support forest dependent communities in the protection of their natural resources and put human rights issues at the heart of forest debates’.
Lassana Koné is a lawyer in Kinshasha, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), working for Forest Peoples Programme, an international NGO working to protect the rights of those who live in the world’s forests. The International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) did an interview with him on 8 May 2015 in Banjul:
Lassana’s efforts in the DRC are focused on pushing for policy change regarding land reform and forest governance, seeking to secure community land titles.‘It’s a key moment because the Government is in the process of reforming the land tenure act. It is vital that the human rights of communities be enshrined in this process. It gives us an opportunity to ensure that the free prior and informed manner in which communities ought to be consulted according to international law, is finally ensured by national law’.
Lassana works with a number of local communities in advocating for such policies and, in doing so, shines a light on the abuses taking place around communal land and natural resources. He explains that, for the communities raising their voice can be dangerous.
‘They face a range of opponents to their demands, and these opponents can become threatening. For example many communities are being evicted for conservation projects and can be threatened by national park guards. Others find themselves face to face with powerful proponents of extractive industries. In both cases, foreign companies are usually working together with the government’.
Whist the majority of the organisation’s work in DRC is currently focused on advocacy and dialogue for policy change, they also monitor human rights abuses in forest communities and are litigating a case before the national court regarding the forced eviction of a community to make way for a national park in Kivu region.
‘We hope to bring a communication before the ACHPR regarding the Sengwer indigenous people of Kenya, who have suffered a massive forced eviction last year from their ancestral lands, when many thousands of families were evicted, with houses and possessions burned, by the Kenyan Government’s Forest Service. There have been some successful complaints with the World Bank and also statements by UN special procedures, but hope for a response at the regional level.’ But Lassana also sees other opportunities for actions from the ACHPR, particularly around the free prior and informed consultations of communities regarding the development and conservation projects. ‘This is something which the ACHPR Working Group on Extractives and the Environment is working on. We hope they will produce guidelines on this issue. But we are also engaging with the regional system in other ways: for this session we produced a shadow report on the situation facing indigenous Batwa people in Uganda, whilst we are also contemplating how to work with the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders regarding the threats towards communities demanding their rights’.
‘We believe that local initiatives backed up by international support can ensure that forest peoples have their rights protected too’.
On 14 April 2015 Inform Action Kenya published this fairly long (1 hour) but informative video: “Kenya: A Guidebook to Impunity”. Human rights defender, Maina Kiai, looks at how the disputed 2013 election was used to protect political icon, President Uhuru Kenyatta, from crimes against humanity charges at the International Criminal Court. The events have left hundreds of thousands of victims without hope of justice and disappointed human rights defenders who took tremendous risks to try and bring the perpetrators to account.
Judiciary chief registrar Anne Amadi on June 10, 2014.pic\file
If true, the news in The Star of 3 March 2015 is good news for human rights defenders in Kenya. The chief registrar Anne Amadi said that the judiciary is set to prosecute more than 15,000 cases on human rights violations across the country, adding that the backlog and delay of cases over the years have greatly affected administration of justice, especially affecting human rights defenders.
“It is very unfortunate that the judiciary has never had clear policy frameworks to urgently deal with cases surrounding human rights violations and defenders,” Amadi said. Importantly, she added that the State has for years viewed human rights defenders’ pleas as criticisms and unpatriotic, hence used threats and physical surveillance to intimidate the human rights champions.
Amadi was speaking during the launch of a report on the situation of human rights defenders in Busia, Kwale and Marsabit counties.
On 16 February 2015 the York Press carried a feature story by Stephen Lewis about 5 human rights defenders in the temporary shelter programmeat York University. The aim of the placements is to give those fighting for human rights around the world a breather, as well as the chance to forge contacts with other human rights workers and organisations around the world.As these are not the human rights defenders who figure highly in the news, I will in the coming days give you their stories. The first is Ruth Mumbi from Kenya:
Ruth Mumbi
LIFE is tough in Nairobi’s Mathare slums in Kenya and “a lot of young people opt for crime so that they can have something to put on the table,” says Ruth Mumbi, who grew up here. There are small seeds of hope, however: among them the Bunge la Wamama Mashinani. It means the ‘grassroots women’s parliament’, says Ruth, flashing a smile. She helped found it, and now acts as coördinator.
“We wanted to create a space for women to come together to discuss the challenges they are facing. Most women felt that we were not being fully heard.” The Bunge has few resources – not even a building. “We usually use small open spaces in the slums to hold our debates“.
The slum is riven by racial divides as well as crime – in 2006, fighting between rival Luo and Kikuyu groups saw at least ten people killed and hundreds of homes burned. But the young men who go out to rob, and rape, and kill, all have mothers or wives, Ruth says. “At the end of the day, they go back to their households, to their women. We should be talking with our kids to stop this.”
The Bunge also lobbies for better access to health care – and better access to justice for women who are raped or abused. The law can be an impossibly expensive business. “So we have been working with pro-bono lawyers and women’s rights organisations to provide free legal representation to women,” Ruth says.
As a human rights defender, she herself has faced harassment and intimidation. In 2011, she and a colleague were charged with incitement and remanded for two days in prison after leading a protest about the high death rates at a local maternity ward. [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/kenya-rights-defenders-remain-under-attack/]. The harassment continues Ruth says: “Telling me to stop, sending threat messages, sending my mother messages telling her daughter to shut up or else.” And who is this shadowy ‘they’? “I believe they were the police.”
Interesting to note that Peace Brigades International (PBI), in spite of a large number of Irish volunteers working for it, officially launched its local chapter in Ireland only now, Wednesday 26 November 2014. PBI is known for sending teams of international volunteers to areas of conflict at the request of local human rights defenders who are threatened and the volunteers provide protective accompaniment backed up by political support networks around the world.
At the launch, three visiting human rights defenders from countries where PBI works – Colombia, Kenya and Honduras – spoke about the risks facing human rights defenders in their countries. Honduran lawyer Donald Hernández Palma joined Colombian activist Yomaira Mendoza and Ruth Mumbi Meshack.
[Ms Mendoza’s husband was shot dead in front of her and her family’s land was taken from her illegally. After talking to Colombia’s attorney general about the progress of her case, she was subjected to death threats. After months of trying to reduce her risk in Colombia and re-location attempts within the country, she is now living in exile in Spain.]
[Mr Hernández Palma has been subject to threats and harassment in his work in criminal and environmental law, with a particular focus on mining in Latin America.]
[Ms Meshack is a community mobiliser, and founder and current National Coordinator of Bunge la Wamama, a women’s chapter a movement for social justice and accountability in different parts of Kenya. She has been imprisoned for her work defending human rights.]
This blog wants keep you informed of what happens to human rights defenders and on what they do to protect the rights of others. I have also a special interest in the power of images in this area. So, I draw your attention to “Multiple Exposure” a monthly video magazine broadcast by Front Line Defenders, now in its 5th episode. Segments in the series will offer a behind-the-scenes peek at the difficulty of carrying out human rights work in different countries; more information about trends and political developments that directly impact human rights; and profiles of individual human rights defenders at risk.
Episode 5 covers the finalists of the 2014 Front Line Defenders Award for Human Rights Defenders
United Arab Emirates: Dr Mohamed Al Roken – Finalist of the 2014 Front Line Defenders Award
Dr Mohamed Al Roken is a leading lawyer and human rights defender in the United Arab Emirates. Despite official hostility and restrictive laws designed to curtail human rights activities, Mohamed has remained a champion of the rule of law and respect for universal human rights.
On 21 January 2014, a group of unidentified armed men attempted to break in to the house of human rights defender Ms Amina Mohamed. She was recently warned that a gang, hired by a young man involved in a lawsuit she is working on, was planning to “punish” her and her family for her activism on gender-based violence. Amina Mohamed is a community activist, and member of Bunge la Wamama Mashinani(The Women’s Parliament at the Grassroots), the women’s branch of the Bunge la Mwananchi movement (The People’s Parliament). Amina Mohamed has particularly been vocal on issues of gender-based violence in Kenya. Read the rest of this entry »
The Brussels-based NGO ‘Protection International’ held a Global meeting, from 18 to 22 November 2013, bringing teams from the field and its Brussels headquarters together in Mombassa, Kenya. The meeting was an opportunity for teams from Colombia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Thailand to exchange and compare their experiences, strategies and knowledge on security management and the protection of defenders. During the meeting topics were addressed such as the conceptual framework for research on community protection networks, the psychosocial care of human rights defenders, and the use of outcome mapping to strengthen the monitoring of the work done with communities and civil society organizations. The contents of a “Facilitators Guide on protection for human rights defenders” – to be published in early 2014 – was also discussed. [The Global Meeting follows an earlier Latin American Regional Meeting held in August in Guatemala]
The Information and Communications Amendment Bill of 2013 was passed in Kenya by parliament on October 31, 2013, but has not yet been signed by the president. Another problematic draft law, the Media Council Bill, is due to
be debated in parliament in the coming weeks. Moreover, on October 30 the attorney general also proposed controversial new provisions regulating the work of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including a proposed cap at 15 percent of foreign funding. “These new laws are an attempt to undermine freedoms of expression and association in Kenya,” said Daniel Bekele, Africa director of Human Rights Watch on 12 November. “Kenya’s leaders should act swiftly to prevent these bills from becoming law and focus on the country’s real challenges, like police reform and accountability.”
The new idea of restricting (foreign) funding follows similar efforts by an increasing number of other countries, signaling a dangerous trend:
On October 30, the office of the attorney published in the official gazette – the mandatory first step before a bill is introduced to parliament – the Miscellaneous Amendment Bill of 2013. This bill includes provisions that would grant broad discretionary powers to a new government body to regulate nonprofit organizations and would limit access to foreign funding for these groups. The amendment would empower a new government body, the Public Benefits Organizations Authority, to “impose terms and conditions for the grant of certificates of registration, permits of operation, and public benefit organization status.” The chairperson would be appointed by the president, increasing executive powers over nongovernmental groups. Critics of the law fear that the wide powers vested in the executive branch could be used to restrict nongovernmental organizations or even penalize organizations that fall out of favor with the Kenyan authorities.
The amendment would also introduce new limits on funding for nongovernmental organizations. It states that “a public benefit organization shall not receive more than 15 percent of its total funding from external donors,” unless otherwise approved by the minister for finance. Funding to nonprofits would be channeled through a new Public Benefits Organizations Federation rather than directly from donors – which could create new operational difficulties for nongovernmental organizations and delays in their projects.
“This new law requiring nongovernmental organizations to raise 85 percent of their funding locally may well have the effect of weakening independent voices,” Bekele said. “As we have seen elsewhere in the region, including in Ethiopia, these laws are an assault on basic freedoms and Kenya’s citizens and leadership should soundly reject them.”
in its July 2015 Newsletter puts the spotlight on Khalef Khalifa, Executive Director of the NGO MUHURI in Kenya.
be debated in parliament in the coming weeks. Moreover, on October 30 the attorney general also proposed controversial new provisions regulating the work of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including a proposed cap at 15 percent of foreign funding. “These new laws are an attempt to undermine freedoms of expression and association in Kenya,” said 
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 