(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is an ARTICLE 19 press release: African Refugees Speaking Out Face Persecution Voices in Exile (1) shows how the rights of refugees in Africa to freedom of expression and information are not adequately safeguarded by the UN and OAU Conventions (2,3) and are often overridden by political or practical considerations. […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is an ARTICLE 19 press release:
African Refugees Speaking Out Face Persecution
Voices in Exile (1) shows how the rights of refugees in Africa to freedom of expression and information are not adequately safeguarded by the UN and OAU Conventions (2,3) and are often overridden by political or practical considerations. It cites examples of national authorities and UNHCR limiting refugees’ expression or punishing them for speaking out, but also emphasizes the increasingly active role being played by African NGOs in supporting refugee rights. The study looks at refugee law, policies and practice in Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania, Zaire/DRC and Zimbabwe.
The report identifies a number of problems with the practice of governments and international agencies when it comes to refugees exercising their rights to free expression. It calls for a systematic and proactive approach to be taken by governments and international agencies to providing refugees with information – an approach which should include the active participation of
refugees themselves. There is also an urgent need to base policy and practice relating to refugees on an explicit acceptance that individuals retain fundamental rights guaranteed under international law.
Africa’s unique solution to the problem of large numbers of refugees is collective determination of their status which has, in practice, meant that refugees are housed in, and often confined to, camps. While such camps may be a convenient means for managing large refugee populations they make it easier for authorities to restrict various rights, including freedom of movement and expression (4), and for pre-existing (often repressive) power structures to be preserved (5).
Laws on “hate speech”, “subversion” and “public order” are used to limit expression for refugees, particularly on political matters.(6) Selective and highly politicized application of such limitations may have far-reaching consequences. For example the Kenyan and Ugandan authorities actively support and encourage the activities of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) (7). On the other hand, refugees have been expelled from Zimbabwe on the basis of such provisions simply for expressing views against the host country or their country of origin.
Voices in Exile describes the threat which refugee media can be perceived as posing to both host and home country governments. It sets out how refugee-run Radio Kwizera in Tanzania was taken over in 1996 by the Tanzanian army, who used it to help with forced repatriation; and how Radio Burundi attempts to jam it.
ARTICLE 19 also notes examples of UNHCR failing refugees and even actively punishing those who criticize officials or speak out on controversial matters. For example:
* The refugee status of a group of Congolese refugees in Tanzania was withdrawn in 1998 after their harsh criticism of UNHCR.
* An Ethiopian refugee in Kenya was punished after being accused of instigating violence by organizing a human rights seminar.
* UNHCR headquarters refers complaints directly back to the individual or office the complaint has been made against, leading to unpleasant consequences for those already vulnerable.
* independent access to camps is difficult to gain due to obstruction by officials (8).
ENDS
Notes
1. Voices in Exile: African Refugees and Freedom of Expression, ARTICLE 19, April 2001.
2. 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
3. 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa.
4. Under the Tanzanian Refugee Act no person other than the ‘competent authority’, or someone designated by them, may address a public gathering of more than five asylum seekers or refugees.
5. The report suggests that the continuing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo can be directly traced back to the inadequate response to the refugee influx of 1994: as a result of the failure to disarm and separate the armed forces and militias, not of there being ‘too much’ freedom of expression, by way of radio broadcasts, in the refugee camps.
6. Such legislation is backed by an unfortunately over-broad provision in the OAU convention which restricts “subversive activities”, including
“attacking” any OAU member state “through the press, or by radio”. ARTICLE 19 advocates a careful interpretation: it is unacceptable to suppress views because the national government or international agencies find them unacceptable.
7. Including forced recruitment and military training of minors.
8. In the course of researching the report, a UNHCR official refused an ARTICLE 19 representative entry to Kibondo refugee camp in Tanzania, despite the fact that he held a government permit to visit, citing “lack of clearance” from UNHCR.
