African Union and Commission diminished by leaders’ failure to act on human rights abuses

By Tererai Karimakwenda
26 January 2006

African heads of state are being praised for blocking the Sudan from chairing the African Union and for electing judges for an African human rights court at their just ended summit in Sudan. These are positive achievements, but they fall far short of what was expected of a continent that has been championing human rights, democracy and peer review as the incentive for foreign investment, and as the focus of developmental plans. The African leaders diminished the significance of The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights which they created by failing to adopt its resolutions on 6 pariah states criticized for human rights abuses. The Commission, at its 38 th session in the Gambia in December, issued a report recommending that the Union take action on Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

This was not the first time Zimbabwe had been criticized for gross abuses of human rights and other violations. Another report years back reached similar conclusions, and it was ignored as Zimbabwe cried foul and pleaded for more time to respond. A weak response followed, and to date, the Commission’s recommendations have not been implemented. This time, Zimbabwe asked for more time to respond, and the heads of state again let the opportunity slide by. Reports suggest that South Africa was instrumental in supporting Zimbabwe. Ignoring an action that has been recommended by your own commission of experts only serves to diminish it.

Tim Hughes of The South African Institute of International Affairs said he was disappointed at the heads of state for not taking ownership of a report that is theirs. He believes the excuse that they were preoccupied with the Sudan is weak, because Zimbabwe is equally as important. Hughes was also disappointed by South Africa’s failure to pressure the group to adopt the resolution on Zimbabwe. He believes the issue would have been tabled on the agenda had South Africa acted. Hughes said this lack of leadership and action on the Zimbabwe crisis is perplexing, particularly because the South African government has acknowledged its soft approach failed. Hughes also believes South Africa needs to be careful that it is not seen as Mugabe’s protector in the way the apartheid government of John Vorster was seen to protect Rhodesia’s Ian Smith.

So why the relunctance to do what is obviously good for the continent? Pursuing these democratic goals, good governance and peer review mechanisms would create a stable environment in Africa, and attract the foreign investment and debt cancellation which the continent needs badly.

Tim Hughes said years after president Mbeki initiated NEPAD, The New Partnership for African Development based on the principles of good governance, the African Union is not adhering to them. In fact the grouping seems to be deviating from them. The just ended Sudan summit is another missed opportunity.

If the heads of state continue to ignore its resolutions, the Commission will become a powerless organ whose resolutions serve only to document and publicise abuses by pariah states. The African Union itself will lose credibility in the international community and the newly created human rights court will have no significance. In the words of a fellow journalist, the heads of state have wimped out again.