My Musing about Human Rights and Transformation in Africa
(A Contribution to the Commemoration of the Human Rights Day in South Africa, March 16, 2021, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein)
Extraordinary Professor of Human Rights, Free State Centre for Human Rights, University of the Free State, South Africa.
Although it might seem surprising to some, there are still parts of the global populace who nurse strange posers about Africa’s relationship with human rights. They raise questions like “What do Africa, human rights, and transformation have to do with one another?” “Are human rights instruments for transformation in Africa, neo-colonial impositions, or the last refuge of the privileged?” “Is transformation a desirable goal for Africa, or a red herring to make us forget about the real work, decolonization?”
On March 16, 2021, I was on the panel with Dhaya Pillay, a South African High Court judge; Johan Froneman, a retired Judge of South Africa’s constitutional court; and Karin van Marie, discussing the above posers. Special thanks to the Department of Public Law and the Free State Centre for Human Rights for bringing it up to the light and invite me to be a part of this. Beyond the discussion, it is essential to continue to educate the masses, especially my esteemed readers. We can only correct misconceptions by discussing them as long as we can, till the change in mentality and mindset circulates.
Human rights and transformation have one thing in common with Africa or any other group of people, anywhere in the world, regardless of factors like race, gender, age, colour, religion–HUMANITY! Africans are HUMANS, and it is already established that humans have rights, many of which are considered inalienable. This is especially the case as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) promulgated in 1948 that all human beings are free and equal, irrespective of their colour, creed, or religion. Thus, human rights are vital to Africa, just like it is to the rest of the world. The subject of confusion, however, perhaps lies in the fact that the concept of human rights was promulgated by the erstwhile colonial powers, thereby making many subscribe to the belief that it is linked to colonialism. This association of human rights with colonial masters and, therefore, colonialism, as one of its relics, is primarily responsible for some of the opening posers above.
First, it is worthy of note that only three of the 54 now-existing African countries entered the UDHR charter signed in 1948. Others joined upon attainment of independence. According to the UDHR, “Human right is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of humanity.” The UDHR’s first article reads thus, “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.” The following article completely eliminates prejudice, discriminations of any kind, including gender, race, sex, ethnicity, religion, country, culture, age, colour, profession, etc. In short, human rights is about the equality of all men and their freedom to life, properties, association, movements, expressions, etc. Given that colonialism is about the denial of freedom to a particular country, it begs how human rights can be regarded as colonial impositions. One of the questions to be asked is how exactly do human rights benefit the Western/colonial powers over Africa?
The African Union, of which all African countries are signatories, has also enacted its own “The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights” to protect Africans’ inalienable rights. Similarly, ECOWAS has a Court of Justice where individual member-states can report cases of human rights abuses. The decision/ruling of the ECOWASCJ is binding on all member-states. The above shows/serves to justify that it cannot be a colonial imposition when African states themselves willingly agree to strengthen further human rights provisions with more charters and implementation methods, which the UDHR even ‘lacks.’
Human rights instruments are transformational because anything that protects one human from another’s vices also preserves peace and justice in society. The absence of a guarantee of rights means I could hit the streets of Washington DC with a Magnum 99 or a Baretta, shoot everyone and return to Texas, a free man. It means survival will only be that of who is eviler and has the means to stay alive—the rule of force. After all, where there is no law, there is no sin. And where there is no sin, punishment does not exist. The described situation only regularizes chaos, disorder, and anarchy.
Moreover, human rights are not new to Africa and cannot be said to be a Western concept, let alone a colonial imposition. Many of these modern rights were exercised in pre-colonial Africa, even though not pronounced, spelt out, or documented. The one significant difference between then and now is that then, there were those (royal family, for instance) who were regarded above the law. But now, the law is believed to be above everyone else. Thus, no one, not even monarchs/presidents, can willfully take life as they deem fit. While arbitrarily taking of life, properties, etc., was not uncommon even then, they were often regarded as tyrannical acts.
Similarly, despite the pronouncement of human rights today, there are still acts of tyranny from leaders, similar or worse to the pre-colonial period. For instance, the Buhari government in Nigeria, or the erstwhile administration of Mugabe in Zimbabwe, are infinitesimal examples of where the guarantees do not ensure safety. By implication, it can be said that the UDHR and other Western-introduced principles on human rights are hitherto existent fundamentals and practised norms in Africa even before the encounter with the colonial masters. You do not need a teacher to know that taking another’s life is wrong or injustice to the victim. All you need to be is a good person. This is why despite the existent of these charters, laws, judicial systems, and the police force, crimes keep happening.
Human rights are crucial to resolving social conflicts. The big advantage and strength of the human rights paradigm lie in the values espoused by its norms, which are, by nature, transformative. These values, inherent in human rights, are used by legal practitioners, human rights advocates, and dispute resolution practitioners to resolve conflicts, thereby bringing the transformational effects of the law, justice, and order to society. This is particularly the case when the state actors desire complete resolution to ensue conflicts. The desire is crucial to the transformation of a lawless society from one that disregards law and order to one where peace reigns supreme, which is something lacking in many African countries, especially Nigeria. Indeed, reverence for human rights is undoubtedly transformational.
Furthermore, to see human rights as the last refuge of the privileged is quite paradoxical in practical terms. Put differently, what human rights aim to achieve is the freedom/protection of the common man, and the less privileged from the privileged ones. Thus, it cannot be the last refuge of the privileged; it is the direct opposite. It is the privileged who have the power to violate the rights of the less privileged as if it were nothing. Thus, what human rights do is to protect the weak and less privileged from the strong, privileged and powerful in society.
Another question that I find rather funny is about perception–”Is transformation a desirable goal for Africa, or a red herring to make us forget about the real work, decolonization?” Africa, as a continent, is home to some of the worst cases of human rights abuses with the rise of dictators in several parts of the continent. Nigeria, my homeland, recently intimidated its people and stifled them from protesting the youths’ unjust killings. In return, the government sent the armed forces against its unarmed citizens and opened fire. If such a society does not need transformation, what does? Unjust and extrajudicial killings continue in many parts of Africa—Angola, Cameroon, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Somali, Sudan, Congo, etc., probably in every part. Thus, transformation is a desirable goal for Africa.
The pursuit of Africa’s transformation from the path of injustice and utter disregard for its citizens’ rights, which it seeks to protect, perfectly aligns with the issue of decolonization. They both embrace the concept of freedom, justice, self-determination, fairness, humanity, and so on. In fact, they are intertwined. The pursuit of decolonization hinges on freedom from foreign powers. In contrast, the protection and preservation of Africans’ rights hinge on freedom from international and local abusers such as security operatives, the government, and the powerful.
Strict adherence, preservations, and protection of human rights dictates will result in an enabling environment that allows for peace and promotes the nation-building process amidst peacebuilding, especially in situations where these dictates are strictly enforced. The violation of human rights, of people based on their religion, ethnicity, gender, age, and so on ensures that violence thrives. And where there is violence, there can be no development. This perfectly sums up the African continent, just like the Middle East. The ongoing turmoil in these regions are inhibitors to peace, and where there is violence, especially in the face of human rights abuses, the thriving of the citizenry, just as the public image of the country, will be difficult and negative. Based on the fundamental principles of respect for human rights, peaceful conflict resolutions will ensure peace and the birth of an egalitarian and transformational society where everyone is willing to contribute.