Sie befinden sich im Archiv Dieser Teil der Website wird nicht mehr betreut. Es können somit einige Verweise nicht mehr funktionieren und die Sprache der Dokumente ist nicht zu ändern.

International Human Rights Week in Jena, from 6th to 10th December 99.
 

We are just a bit over two weeks away from Xmas and its message of" Peace to men of goodwill on earth”, must start provoking thoughts in us. What is peace in the first place? Is it only the absence of war? I shall not make an attempt to define peace here as this may engender conflicting views. Many think, peace is the absence of war. Was there peace in the days of the Cold War? Yet today we have many more regional wars. To me peace is not only the absence of war but also a state of existence that permits one to live in harmony with the world around him. Peace should entail harmony and reconciliation between the spirit and the flesh in a human being; real peace should include the absence of fear and a state of harmony with those around us.

After the world had been visited by the atrocities of the two world wars, world leaders were brought to reflect on how to avoid wars and work for peaceful co-existence between nations. The effort after the first world war produced the League of Nations as the guardian for peace. But in 1939 the League of Nations appeared to have failed and the world found itself in the more devastating world war II. This produced two incidents that made man tremble at the barbarism to which he was sinking. These included the shameful gas chambers for six million Jews here in Germany and the disastrous, destructive effect of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

Consequently the search for peace after this brought man to reflect on an element that had         hither to been neglected - Human Rights. The Eleanor Roosevelt Commission working on this took two years to produce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which to date remains the most perfect analysis of Human Rights. Human Governments seeking to avoid the absolute truism of the UDHR have, as they say, tried to produce applicable and justicial versions of this in Covenants and Conventions.

We shall however prefer to deal with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Eleanor Commission, composed of wise persons had two good years of reflection, meditation and discussion to come to the text we now have. It must therefore be taken very seriously, giving adequate consideration both to the spirit of the document as revealed in its preamble and the letter of the text as contained in its 30 articles.

Permit me here to quote a few reflections on this preambular statements as contained in the HRDG- Explanatory notes.

The first preambular paragraph states: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

We must remember that the United Nations Organisation was being set up principally as an institution that will help maintain world peace. In this declaration we notice that the concept of world peace is immediately linked up with freedom and justice. This may only be built on a foundation of the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. It is important to stress the fact that the human race is seen as a single family and hence the bonds that unite humanity should be looked upon as same with those between our smaller family units. Further it is important we note that the human  dignity referred to here is inherent. It is inherent in the human being. It belongs to his very human nature; it is part and parcel of it. It is not a gift coming from external sources but makes part of the whole. These rights render all human beings equal; equal in their human nature. Not equal in height, weight, wealth or physical power. These equal rights are  inalienable i.e. they may not and should not be taken away from their human nature. In other words if these rights are taken away from a person, he no longer enjoys his full humanity. He drops a bit lower. Man is born with these rights hence they are inherent and also inalienable. They are in the human nature and come from his creator.
The second paragraph of the preamble states:
"whereas disregard  and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"

Herein we get a hint of those events which actually shocked the conscience of the world. They are referred to as barbarous yet they were carried out by seemingly civilised nations. Why did they do so? Because they disregarded  human rights and went ahead to treat them with contempt. The highest aspiration of the common people is declared to be a world in which human beings enjoy freedom of speech and belief and are equally free from fear and want. Hence those who sit in terror over the people and deny them the right to their beliefs and free speech are working against the highest aspiration of the common people.
The next paragraph of the preamble declares:
"whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse,as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

This statement presumes the existence of the rule of law in every society. This is necessary to order life in this society. This implies that laws exist that regulate life in the society. These laws must be obeyed by all-governors and governed. Further the laws should be fair and just and  in that sense protect human rights. It is only in such conditions that justice is ensured. Otherwise tyranny and oppression reign in the society. Man, in his human nature and in natural reaction to this tyranny and oppression, rebels against such authority. He is compelled to rebel; it is not because he likes rebellion. He only does so as a last resort. In other words it is the tyranny and oppression that is responsible for the rebellion. Those, thus rebelling are fully justified by the very natural reaction of the human nature. The tyranny and oppression in the system must bear full responsibility for the rebellion and its consequences.

Failure to rebel against tyranny and oppression is sub-human. It is an abnormality. Suffice this for consideration within the spirit of the articles that spell out what constitutes human rights. However before going on to the articles of the UDHR, let us have a look at what the General Assembly thought of them when on 10. December 1948, it adopted these rights. It is significant that this Jena celebration of the Human Rights Week ends tomorrow 10th December 1999, the first celebration after the 50th anniversary celebrated last year world-wide.

We quote again from the HRDG document referred to above: "The proclamation of these articles is made in the following words:
Now therefore,
The General Assembly
Proclaims This Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the people of territories under their jurisdiction.

The words are concise and clear, we may only emphasise that:
(a) It is a common standard - not varying from nation to nation according to colour and custom.
(b) All individuals, all organs of society strive to promote respect for these rights and freedoms.
(c) Progressive national and international measures should secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.

Article 1 of the UDHR states:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Let us examine the word brotherhood in the context of this very first article of the UDHR in the light of the first preambular statement. Lets look at the phrase “... all members of the human family...”

The emphasis here is that all humanity constitute but one family. This is the spirit that should govern all considerations of inter- human relations. Let us cease to see my family and your family; my tribe and your tribe; my country and your country, Cameroon and Germany. Let us only see my brother and sister, my father and my mother. In this spirit let humanity embrace itself. It is surely part of this reasoning that brought the International Human Rights conference of 1993 in Vienna to come to the conclusion that on Human Right issues there should be no more barriers. Nationalistic concepts, put forth by dictators and oppressors had over exploited the concept of non- interference in the internal affairs of member nations contained in the United Nations charter. Vienna upheld that the human family is one; the abuse of the rights of any citizen in any part of the world is an abuse on humanity calling for the concerted action of the entire human family to put an end to it.

Article 3 if the UDHR states simply: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Article 6 of the UDHR states: “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”. Its meaning is clear. A foreigner has the same right to legal recognition as a person as it may pertain to the indigene. Even a convicted person retains the right to legal recognition as a person and therefore must be given the minimum respect that his human dignity requires.”

Let us examine these two articles together. By article 6. a person is a person and carries with him human dignity no matter his status in life. He must enjoy the right to life, liberty and security of person. Without life he loses all the other rights. Living, he must be assured of the security of his person. This implies that he may not be molested and may not fear lose of his liberty, if he does not commit a crime. His status in life-rich or poor, white or black, indigene or foreigner must not play any role to hinder his enjoyment of his human rights.

Article 13 states simply:
1) "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
2) "Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own, and return to his country."
 All these statements are self evident. The only thing that might impede the enjoyment of these rights is only if the immigrant or citizen fails to respect the laws of the country.
 
 Article 14: 1) " Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
3) This right may not be invoked in the case of persecution arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

In the context of this conference it maybe useful to say a word or two on these rights. The right to asylum is a right and not a favour. Once it is established that a person risks persecution in his own country for his opinions, religion, political-activities etc. he is entitled to political asylum. We may again return to the spirit of the UDHR which requires that a man in his relationship with one another should employ the spirit of brotherhood for we all belong to the human family. If all humanity is one family the stress on foreigners drops off and has no bases. What is important is that the person seeking asylum establishes the fact of the likelihood of persecution in his country for non criminal acts.

It is also true that the social security systems of the developed states are threatened by the influx of asylum seekers from developing states. In order to ensure that the social security measures continue to be available for all persons in the state it maybe necessary to control the influx of foreigners. Yet it must be remembered that the motive for granting, asylum remains the threat of political persecution.

It is  again  painful to notice the inhuman and degrading way in which asylum seekers are treated in the developed nations. Persons from the third world are looked upon more as economic refugees than political refugees and are subjected  to all sorts of inhuman restrictions. Racism  even plays an important role in most cases.

A civilised person in my own view is one who has developed a vision of life that permits him to treat all human beings as members of human family. We need further to ask these questions "Why are the developed nations developed and the under developed remain poor? What is happening to the national product in the developing countries?" However as a personal opinion , I should wish to see my fellow Africans get involved in the struggle to overthrow
the dictators that rule over our continent. If we remain at home and get committed to the national liberation struggles, we may soon overthrow the dictators supported by the developed nations. These are the ones who promote the flow of wealth from south to north enriching the north and impoverishing  the south. The north pays lip service to human rights outside their own countries and actively supports and defends their collaborators in the south.

Article 21 of the UDHR seems to us a yardstick by which we may measure the democracy in each state. It states:
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or equivalent free voting procedures.

1. The elections must be genuine elections.
2. The elections must be periodic.
3. The election must be by a free voting procedure on the basis of a universal and equal suffrage. The free voting procedure recommended is secret ballot. Rigged elections give no authority to any government.

Democracy was originally described as the government of the people by the people and for the people. This article in our view takes care of the three concepts. Any government whether  a dictatorship, autocratic, monarchy or democracy apparently governs people. For it to be democratic, it has to be by the people and for the people. It is by the people at least when it is constituted by representatives of the people chosen in genuine elections. This provision appears in this article and hence lauds the importance of free and fair elections not rigged elections.

The periodic necessity ensures that the government continues to be for the people. A freely elected government that preaches respect for the wishes of the people at election time could degenerate to a dictatorial set-up if it had not to come back to the people for reelection. Periodicity of elections compels the elected persons to continue to endeavour to do the will of the people  so as to preserve their confidence. In this pursuit it remains a government for the people.

The fact that the election must be by universal and equal suffrage ensures the participation of the majority of the population. The result therefore should reflect the will of the majority. The secret vote or ballot excludes unnecessary pressure on the consciences of voters.

I may at this stage fall back to the specific topic I was requested to address in my talk-Cameroon, its political prisoners, detention conditions. Before entering these specific area let us have a look at the Cameroon we have today.

The Cameroon state was at the 1884 partitioning of Africa in Berlin confirmed as a German colony but in 1916 while the first world war waged on, seized by a joint Franco-British action, the French invading from the East and the British from the West. At the end of the war the League of Nations mandated the Territory to the two powers. When the League of Nations died , the mandatory system went with it. The United Nations that was born then, all the same, left the two powers in control of the territories they had seized from the Germans under a modified form -Trusteeship- system. The important issue in this trusteeship system was that the people be rapidly  developed and brought to independence or self government. The decision on the system or mode of termination of trusteeship had to be decided by the people themselves. This concept is contained in article 76B of the United Nations charter. This trusteeship system took off in 1946.

By 1955 civil war broke up in the French administered territory, in protest to the repressive government that the French employed in Cameroon. The Union of the Populations of Cameroon (U.P.C.) led the people to demand independence and the reunification of the German Cameroon .By 1958 this demand had  gained support in more than 60% of the population of the territory-particularly  in the southern region. France noticed that the situation was running out of it’s control and the puppets it had installed in power could not hold the fort if free and fair elections under the United Nations were conducted.

In the United Nation’s general assembly session that 1958,France told the UN that her territory was ripe for independence. Her Cameroonian puppet then-Ahmadou Ahidjo confirmed the readiness of his government to assume sovereign status with all it’s demands. Petitioners from Cameroon, many in number and representing a greater population of the  country, accepted independence but requested that it be preceded by free and fair  elections conducted under United Nations supervisions.

In the light of article 21 (3) of the U.D.H.R. cited above  one would have thought that this had to be the procedure. The united nations could not establish the wishes of the people otherwise than by free and fair elections. But the French in collaboration with the British and Americans  got the 4th committee of the General Assembly defeat the African states motion that urged elections under UN supervision be  conducted before independence. Funny enough, the UN adopted resolution on independence saw the need for early elections after independence in order to sort out constitutional problems in the new state. This procedure to us looked improper. We even fail to see the state that was the product of this act.
The state of Cameroon was a foreign creation of peoples and tribes with different values compelled by a higher force to live together. In order that they be condemned to live together as one people it was necessary that their constitutional problems be sorted out through dialogue and agreement reached before independence. The UN rather said these problems would be sorted after independence after France shall have consolidated the grip of her valet-
Ahmadou Ahidjo on the people through military might.

The dictatorship in this part of Cameroon, indeed the bigger part, then with a population four times that of the anglophone southern cameroons was thus installed by the UN, in gross violation of it's charter. The lot of the anglophones in southern cameroons was no better. They had been brought up as a people, recognised as such by the UN. But when they had to accede to independence they were denied sovereignty by the UN. Teleguided by Britain the administering authority, the UN imposed on the people a union with one of her neighbours as a means of attaining independence. The southern cameroons could only become independent by joining either Nigeria then with a population 40 times that of the southern cameroons or with the francophone Republic of cameroon with a population four times that  of the southern cameroons.

The UN plebiscite conducted to solicit the wishes of the southern cameroonians within these options thus gave no option of sovereignty. They had to become part of sovereign nations, several times greater in population. This again was a violation of the UN charter and the right of peoples to self determination. Many other anomalies surround the case of the union of the southern cameroons with the republic of cameroon. Today the southern cameroons minority are agitating and wishing to assert it's own sovereignty. We have had occasion to twice present it to the minority rights sub-commission working group-May 1998 and May 1999 but no report of this group has ever mentioned that we appeared before it. The big powers Britain and France also stifle our voices in  the UN system that was supposed to give an opening to the cry of the weak and so provide peaceful solutions to problems.

All this reveal that small nations in general and African peoples in particular have no real worth before the UN. The establishment is there only to endorse the design of the great powers for world domination. Do we really expect peace to flow out of such an organisation? Indeed the UN non-recognition of  the right to self determination of the people of the Southern Cameroons goes to confirm, the stand of our youths that resort be made to force. Of course we see that the beneficiaries will again be these imperial and colonial powers which will sell arms to both parties. But for how long will our advice be heeded?

In 1997 the government drew up a plot to destroy this anglophone  struggle for sovereignty. Some officers pretended to be ready to help the youths of the Southern Cameroons Youth League (SCYL) carry out some military strikes at security and administrative posts. When the
plot was consomated, government went out on  a rampage, arrested no less than 300 members of the main opposition, Social Democratic Front and Southern Cameroons National Council, tortured them and detained them for months before releasing some. At least 87 were held up for over 2 years before being tried by a military tribunal that lasted from 14th April to 6th October ´99. During this trial evidence was brought before Court to reveal the complicity of the then Senior Divisional Office of Bui Division Tiku Arikai and his Gendarmerie company Commander Banen. The court refused to take note of this but went forth to convict 22 persons to long terms of imprisonment ranging from 8 years to life imprisonment. Most of the 87 got lighter sentences to justify the period they stayed in prison. We consider this as  a crime against humanity and we have put out the facts in a special publication of ours in which we call on the international Community to help us both morally and financially so that we prosecute  this case to it logical conclusion. We have petitioned the United Nations Secretary General, His Excellency Koffi Anan to set up the necessary machinery to help realise the setting up of the International tribunal for crimes against humanity in Cameroon. We have indicated that we are prepared to provide any further information that may still be necessary. As a first step towards raising funds we brought along some five hundred copies of this twenty page document which we are putting out for sale at 5-DM each. People could offer us more. It contains an appeal to truly peace loving people world wide to help us raise funds for this project. It will surely be expensive and even long but we think it is a worth while cause to follow. Crimes against Humanity may not be limited to cases of Genocide. Surely barbaric treatment of people by government constitute crime against Humanity particularly when this constitute a pattern of gorvenance,.

I was asked to speak on the general Human Rights situation and prison conditions. I think the best I can do with the time constraints is to quote from our HRDG position paper as at 31st January 1998

(a) "Cameroon is a lawless country and the first perpetrator of lawlessness is the Cameroon government. It is a country where the judiciary and legislative powers are fully controlled by the Executive and there is no difference between the state and the government. Since the ruling party has the impression that it is synonymous with the Cameroonian state, there is bound to be arbitrariness. This is clearly revealed in the inability to execute judgements of the courts against persons protected by the Executive.

(b) ”Though pre-publication censorship has been removed, the post publication censorship  authorising administrative seizure of newspapers without compensation does not meet with the requirements of Article 19. Further, several Penal Code provisions protect unnecessarily public persons - President, Ministers, Secretary Generals etc.

Pius Njawe has been in prison for two years for being anxious about the health of the president. It should be clear that Biya is not the President of a particular group of persons but of Cameroon, therefore it's a matter of right that the people should know about his state of health. This action of government in pursuing and imprisoning him rather than informing the public adequately on the state of health of the president has vindicated Njawe's stand. Instead of the Director of Civil Cabinet issuing a statement on the state of health of the president, it ought to have been at least his personal physician. Since no one, not even the best of doctors can guarantee rapid healing for heart attacks, it seems to us, his physician would not dare risk his reputation in contradicting the declaration of Njawe. Being not sure of what might happen to the President in the weeks ahead, he leaves the job to a politician to make pronouncements which might not be based on facts.

It is further disturbing to notice that the courts guided by the procureur, might have based its judgement on the fact that Njawe is constantly against the government of President Paul Biya. It might have been better to look into the facts of each case that was raised. It is equally important to note that the declaration made in Le Messager was not completely authoritative but rose from a justifiable anxiety on the state of health of the President which must be of concern to the Cameroonian people. To us, Njawe is a prisoner of conscience.

Paddy Mbawa too, a prisoner of conscience after being released from prison is now on the run as he is still being pursued apparently by the courts. Yet we know he is hunted by a businessman with deep roots in the system.

The Human Rights Committee in 1994 further found that the Cameroon government was culpable in relation to the human rights violations of Mr. Albert Mukong and requested that he be adequately compensated but the Biya Government ignores the recommendation up to date.

Though the Cameroon government has submitted its Human Rights periodic report for 1997 to the same Committee, the public is not aware of its content. The Human Rights Defence Group applied for a copy but we have received no response. If all the Committee's recommendation to the Cameroon Government are treated as trash, what is the reason for it to study the current report? Is it not time for Cameroon to be treated as a rebel nation?

The Cameroon government is hypocritical to International Conventions. The convention on Torture was ratified by the Cameroon government but it is still not applicable in our courts. Torture with impunity remains deeply rooted in our society. Zachary Khan who lost seven of his toes because of torture is still suffering in the Military Hospital in Yaounde. Nothing has been done to those taken to Yaounde after the March so-called terrorist attacks in the North West. They are still languishing in prison while some have died of torture, malnutrition and starvation coupled with lack of drugs. The dead include Ngwa Richard, Famasoh, Tita Samuel, Ngwei Mathias, Ndifor Joseph, Nsom Victor, Fai Donald, Ignatius Bonke, Konseh Emmanuel. In all these, the government is doing nothing to investigate the cause of their deaths. None of the officers involved in the torture has been questioned. They may most likely be promoted. The very act of taking them out of their province of origin and away to Kondengui prison more than 500km from their homes is not only illegal but wicked and intended to perpetuate their torture and eventual deaths. Prisoners in Cameroon are not well fed and so they depend on the support they may get from their families and friends around. Taking the so-called terrorists, fighting for Anglophone liberation, to the hostile fort of those they rose against was intended to expose them to such living conditions that only the most hardy could live through. Contact with them is so regulated that it is nearly impossible for any of them to receive visitors. They are treated worse than war prisoners.
 
 

Perhaps it may be better to stop here and complete this work in the question and answer session that follows. However before I put down my pen, I shall like to appeal to Germany - the government and its people that they need to do something very positive to promote Human Rights world wide. Her asylum conditions leave much to be desired and I fear that they reveal some continued racism that is reminiscent of the Nazi action against the Jews in particular and non- Germanic races in general. I wonder how much importance is given faith in God in state consideration but it is important to know that the state indirectly funds religion in its taxation policy. I shall love to propose that Germany picks up the humanitarian policy of looking at Humanity in general as a people to which it owes a moral debt and try, to make this good in the way it treats strangers. "I was a stranger and you received me. I was hungry and you gave me food, naked and you clothed me ..." by these words of our Lord Jesus Christ will constitute the material for the last judgement.

Germany is a great power though refused that acknowledgement in the security council. I urge her to use her economically dominant situation in the world to bring relief to the Cameroonian people and the rest of the oppressed third world. The Cameroonian suffers because Germany had to be pushed out of her colonies and we came under three colonial powers. We developed different attitudes on issues, political and moral. These have not permitted our common conception on these issues. This has caused the great divide which we see as the most insolvable. I appeal that Germany gives a closer study to the Cameroon case.

May I end here so that we enter general discussions and may be we find answers to the issues we may raise. I thank the audience for coming and its patient listening.

Albert W. Mukong
Executive director HRDG.