5 May 1999
Communication No. 212/98
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS
Twenty-Fifth Ordinary Session
26 April - 5 May 1999
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
v.
ZAMBIA
DECISION
BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Mr. Youssoupha Ndiaye VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Vera Valentino Duarte Martins COMMISSIONERS: Dr. Ibrahim Ali Badawi El-Sheikh, Dr. Mohammed Hatem Ben Salem, Professor E.V.O. Dankwa Professor Issac Nguema, Mrs. Julienne Ondziel-Gnelenga, Dr. Nyameko Barney Pityana, Mr. Kamal Rezag-Bara
Citation: Amnesty Int'l v. Zambia, Comm. 212/98, 12th ACHPR AAR Annex V (1998-1999)
Publications: IHRDA, Compilation of Decisions on Communications of the African Commission On Human and Peoples’ Rights Extracted from the Commission’s Activity Reports 1994-2001, at 371 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, at 745 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001); (2000) AHRLR 325 (ACHPR 1999)
Represented By: Mr. Ahmed Motala
RAPPORTEUR
23rd session: Commissioner Pityana
24th session: Commissioner Pityana
25th session: Commissioner Pityana
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. The communication is submitted by Amnesty International on behalf of William Steven Banda
and John Lyson Chinula.
2. Complainant alleges that Zambia has violated the provisions of African Charter in that:
(1) Mr. William Steven Banda was served with a deportation order on 10 November 1991. The
reason given was that “in my opinion by his presence he (is) likely to be a danger to peace and
good order in Zambia”. He contested the order through the courts of Zambia.
(2) On 25 October 1994, William Steven Banda was deported to Malawi unlawfully, wrongfully
and out of political malice. He alleges that he was blindfolded and drugged, driven by Zambian
immigration service and para-military police officers. He entered Malawi through Mchinji border
post and later dumped at Lilongwe Police station.
(3) John Luson Chinula was removed from his home in Ndola on 31 August 1994. He was driven
to Lusaka International Airport with the intention of deporting him. He was served with a
deportation order signed by the Minister of Home Affairs alleging that he was a threat to Zambia’s
peace and security. He was forcibly sedated and later found himself at Lilongwe Police station in
Malawi. His Warrant of Deportation also alleged that he was “by his presence, likely to be a
danger to peace and good order in Zambia”. No reason in law or in fact was advanced for this
finding.
(4) Both complainants were prominent political figures in Zambia. They were leading members of
UNIP, the party that had been in power since Independence in 1964. UNIP was defeated by MMD
in the first multi-party elections of November 1991.
3. William Steven Banda exhausted all domestic remedies in that, his matter went to the Supreme
Court of Zambia. John Lyson Chinula could not effect any remedies through the Zambian courts
because he was deported and was given no opportunity to approach the Zambian courts.
4. It is alleged by the complainant that prior to his forcible expulsion from Zambia under order of
deportation, William Banda exhausted local remedies through his appeal to the High Court of
Zambia in 1992 and the Supreme Court of Zambia in 1994.
5. Complainant alleges that the Zambian government’s deportation of the two men amounted to
“forcible exile”.
6. Complainant alleges that attempts to seek redress through existing national legal remedies both
in Zambia and in Malawi have been futile.
7. Complainant also charges that John Chinula was not allowed recourse to the national courts of
Zambia. He was prevented from returning to Zambia by threats of imprisonment by the Zambian
authorities.
8. Complainant states that Banda and Chinula have obtained two judgements at the High Court of
Malawi confirming that they were not citizens of Malawi. The government of Malawi has failed to
comply with the judgement of the Court wh . Complainant states that Banda and Chinula have
obtained two judgements at the High Court of Malawi confirming that they were not citizens of
Malawi. The government of Malawi has failed to comply with the judgement of the Court which
ordered that they be assured to return to Zambia. They have therefore exhausted all available local
remedies at their disposal.
9. Complainant prays that the Commission adopt interim measures to allow the deportees to return
to Zambia immediately. Complaint:
10. Complainant alleges that Articles 2, 5, 7(1)(a), 8, 9, 9(2), 10, 12(2), 13(1), 18(1), 18(2) of the
African Charter have been violated. Procedure:
11. Communication is dated 6 March 1998 and was sent by mail.
12. On 18 March 1998, a letter was sent to the complainant acknowledging receipt.
13. At its 23rd ordinary session held in Banjul, The Gambia, the Commission decided to be seized
of this matter and declared the communication admissible. The Commission also requested that
provisional measures be adopted by the Government of Zambia, namely to allow the burial of Mr.
John L. Chinula, in Zambia and the return of Mr. William S. Banda to his family in Zambia
pending the finilization of the matter by the Commission.
14. On 10 July 1998, the Secretariat of the Commission wrote to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Zambia, informing them of the decision of the 23rd Ordinary Session, drawing attention to the
request for provisional measures to be taken by the government of Zambia.
15. A copy of the Note was also sent to the Embassy of Zambia in Addis Ababa. When there was
no reply, the Secretariat sent a reminder on 17 September 1998. The Embassy replied on 21
September that the Note Verbale was received but did not enclose the communication referred to.
16. The representative of the Government of Zambia appeared before the Commission on 26th
and 27th of October 1998 at the 24th ordinary session. He presented a statement in response to the
communication.
17. At the 24th ordinary session, the Commission postponed consideration of this for a decision
on the merits to the next session.
18. On 26th November 1998, the Secretariat conveyed the decision of the Commission to the
parties concerned.
19. In preparation for a hearing on this matter, the Rapporteur for this communication requested
the parties to address only some of the critical matters he had identified. Mr. Ahmed Motala
represented Amnesty International. Mr. Clifford Msika of the Centre for Human Rights and
Rehabilitation, Lilongwe, Malawi, assisted him. Mr. William Steven Banda was also present. The
Zambian Government was represented by Mr. Palan Mulonda, Senior State Advocate in the
Ministry of Legal Affairs accompanied by Mr. K.K. Nsemukila, Deputy Permanent Secretary,
Home Affairs Department and Ms. Lucy M. Mungoma of Foreign Affairs Department with
responsibility for Africa and OAU relations. The Commission also heard testimony from Mr.
William Steven Banda.
THE ARGUMENT:
20. Mr. Motala argued that Zambia was bound by the African Charter which it ratified in 1984. It,
therefore, was obliged to extend the rights in the Charter to “every individual” except where
political rights are specifically indicated as in Article 13 for example. He argued that Zambia was
in violation of Article 12 especially sub article 2 which provides that “every individual” has a
right to leave one’s country and to return. It also says that a “non-national legally admitted in a
territory of a State Party may only be expelled from it by virtue of a decision taken in accordance
with the law…”. He alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic group and social origin (Article
2) and on the basis of political opinion. The treatment the complainants received violated the
victims rights to human dignity and freedom of movement. In the case of Chinula, he was
deprived of the right to have his cause heard (Article 7). He insisted that the actions against
complainants were politically motivated. They have been left in a strange country destitute.
21. Mr. Mulonda, for the government, stated that the government did not act with political malice.
It acted within the law. The investigations against Banda began in 1976 and against Chinula in
1974 long before the present regime came into power. He denied that the deportees were drugged
and dumped across the border. He stated that the Malawi authorities received them. The
government of Zambia was acting within its sovereign rights in ordering its internal affairs,
regulating immigration and was within the provision or limitation of the right stipulated in
Article12: “This right may only be subject to restriction as provided for by law for the protection
of nation security, law and order, public health and morality”.
LAW
ADMISSIBILITY:
22. Admissibility of communications under the African Charter is governed by Article 56, which
sets out conditions that must be met before they are considered by the Commission.
23. Article 56 of the Charter reads:
“Communications … shall be considered if they: … (5) are sent after exhausting local remedies, if
unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”
24. This provision of the Charter is necessarily first considered before any substantive
consideration of a complaint.
25. In the present case all local remedies have been exhausted and there is documentary evidence
made available to the Secretariat of the Commission in support of this claim. As already stated in
the case of Chinula, the arbitrary deportation prevented him from exercising this right.
26. The complainant has attached to the communication copies of the following
judgements/orders obtained by William Banda and John Chinula;
i. Consent Order of 13 March 1995, High Court of Lilongwe, in Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of
1995;
ii. Judgement of 30 June 1997, High Court of Malawi in Lilongwe, in Miscellaneous Cause No. 2
of 1995;
iii. Judgement No. 16 of 1994, Supreme Court of Zambia in Lusaka, in Banda vs. Chief
Immigration Officer and Attorney General;
iv. Judgement No. JH/12 of 1991, High Court of Zambia in Chipata, in Banda vs Chief
Immigration Officer and Attorney General.
For these reasons the Commission declares the communication admissible.
MERITS
27. Zambia ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in January 1984.
28. A number of supporting documents were submitted: On Banda, the transcript of the judgement
by Kakusa J in the High Court of Zambia held at Chipata; the judgement on appeal by Bweupe
DCJ in the Supreme Court in Lusaka. The various decisions of the Malawi Court and affidavits
submitted in support. The Government also submitted documents on Banda and Chinula.
29. Regarding William Steven Banda, the judgement of Justice Kakusa in the High Court is
instructive. The judge found that there was no evidence, on a balance of probabilities, to prove
that Banda was born in Zambia of Zambian parents. He found that Banda was an unreliable
witness. He, however, refused to rule as to where Banda originated from. He dismissed all
evidence that suggested that Banda was from Malawi, as inadmissible and hearsay. He also noted
that the government had failed to produce the alleged Malawian father of Banda. The judge also
made the following obiter dictum without justifying his opinion, that “once it is shown on a
balance of probabilities that a petitioner is not a citizen of this Republic he becomes a deportable
person even if the country to which he must proceed is unknown … possession of a National
Registration Card … does not confer citizenship…” (at p J25). It appears that the authorities relied
on this statement in deporting William Steven Banda.
30. The judge also expressed himself in sympathy with Banda’s predicament. He said “the
petitioner has been in Zambia for a long time and has, in his own way, contributed in the political
arena … Zambia has become almost the petitioner’s only home - a de facto situation - upon which
the executive may exercise its discretion and, maybe, consider normalising the status of petitioner
should he apply… If this court were empowered to declare persons like petitioner be Zambians,
the petitioner would have received a favourable declaration considering his long stay in Zambia
and the role he played” (J25).
31. It is not denied that on the day of the judgement, William Steven Banda was taken into
custody and deported to Malawi. In addition, Banda charges that his pleas that he be taken to
South Africa were ignored including his request for a five-days stay of execution of the warrant.
32. It is evident that the Malawi Courts are irrelevant for purposes of deciding this matter against
Zambia. The fact that they declared complainants not to be Malawi citizens is neither here nor
there. Secondly, the Commission is not competent to substitute the judgements of the Zambian
courts, especially on matters of fact. It must be accepted that the legal processes were appropriate
and conducted in a manner that showed respect for the rule of law. The legal processes in Zambia
did not violate the principles of the Charter. The Commission must, therefore, accept that William
Steven Banda was not a Zambian by birth or descent.
33. This does not mean, however, that the Commission should not raise questions of law
especially as the Zambian courts did not consider the obligations of Zambia under the African
Charter. The court also failed to rule on the alleged reason for the deportation, namely, that his
presence was likely “to endanger peace and good order in Zambia…”. There was no judicial
inquiry on the basis in law and in terms of administrative justice for relying on this ‘opinion’ of
the Minister of Home Affairs for the action taken. The fact that Banda was not a Zambian by
itself, does not justify his deportation. It must be proved that his presence in Zambia was in
violation of the laws. To the extent that neither Banda nor Chinula were supplied with reasons for
the action taken against them means that the right to receive information was denied to them
(Article 9(1)).
34. The Rapporteur invited the parties to give guidance on the authority of the Charter where it
was in contradiction to domestic law. That seems relevant because Zambia ratified the Charter by
Executive Act. That means that there is legislative process that domesticates international human
rights treaties. Mr. Mulonda affirmed Zambia’s commitment to abide by the treaties it is party to.
He also confirmed that Zambia operated a dual legal system and that the Charter is not considered
to be a self executing measure. Nonetheless, Zambia accepted the binding character of the Charter
in Zambia.
35. By all accounts, though, Banda was in possession of Zambian national registration certificate
and a passport. For many years he freely used these without challenge. Immediately following the
verdict of the Supreme Court, he voluntarily presented himself to the police but he was forcibly
deported. This meant that he was denied the opportunity to pursue the option of applying for
citizenship by naturalisation in terms of the Citizenship Act. Granted, the government argues that
Banda had obtained the documents of registration and Passport by making false claims about his
place of birth. He could not therefore, be approaching the court with clean hands. The unstated
implication being that the chances of his obtaining naturalisation were negligible. In truth, of
course, the Court did not say that Banda was an illegal immigrant. It simply disputed his claims to
being Zambian by birth. It was not proved, therefore, that Banda was in Zambia illegally. It was
not proved, therefore, that Banda was in Zambia illegally.
36. Zambia has contravened Article 7 of the Charter in that he was not allowed to pursue the
administrative measures, which were opened to him in terms of the Citizenship Act. More
importantly, Zambia is in breach of Article 7(2) which says that “no one may be condemned for
an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was
committed…” By all accounts, Banda’s residence and status in Zambia had been accepted. He had
made a contribution to the politics of the country. The provisions of Article 12(4) have been
violated.
37. The allegations of violations of Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 may now be addressed. The
evidence that William Steven Banda was a political opponent of the ruling MMD cannot be lost
sight of. The manner in which he was treated was demeaning of the dignity and status of
somebody of his standing in society. It appears that he was singled out for action because of his
ethnic origin, which incidentally, is also found in Zambia. The authorities insisted on deporting
him to Malawi even though, he told them that he knew nobody there. There was no compelling
evidence that he had roots in Malawi having lived in Zambia, by their own admission, since about
1964. Counsel for Zambia argued that Banda was “accepted” by the Malawi immigration
authorities. Whatever may have been the “legal” basis for such “acceptance”, Malawi courts have
ruled that they were not citizens of Malawi. In addition, unlawful deportation could not be said to
obliterate their rights in Zambia.
38. John Lyson Chinula was in an even worse predicament. He was not given any opportunity to
contest the deportation order. Surely, government cannot say that Chinula had gone underground
in 1974 having overstayed his visiting permit. Chinula, by all account, was a prominent
businessman and politician. If government wished to act against him they could have done so.
That they did not, does not justify the arbitrary nature of the arrest and deportation on 31 August
1994. He was entitled to have his case heard in the Courts of Zambia. Zambia has violated Article
7 of the Charter. Having made that finding, the findings in para 30 of above also obtain in this
circumstance.
39. The Commission had requested provisional measures in terms of Rule 111 of the Rules of
Procedure. Zambia must be required to allow the return of William Steven Banda with a view to
making application for citizenship by naturalisation. No evidence was led before the Commission
for compensation. The evidence is that Banda had lost his job as governor after the 1991 elections.
No award for compensation is called for.
40. John Lyson Chinula died in Malawi. He was a prominent businessman. His deportation must
have caused prejudice to his business interests. His family is requesting the return of his body for
burial in Zambia. The Government of Zambia should be required to grant that wish.
41. The Government of Zambia has relied on the “caw-back” clause of Article 12(2): “This right
may only be subject to restrictions, provided for by law for the protection of national security, law
or order, public health or morality…”
42. The deportation order also stated that the deportees were considered “ a danger to peace and
good order to Zambia”. The Commission is of the view that the “claw-back” clauses must not be
interpreted against the principles of the Charter. Recourse to these should not be used as a means
of giving credence to violations of the express provisions of the Charter. Secondly, the rules of
natural justice must apply. Among these are in the audi alterm partem rule, the right to be heard,
the right of access to the Court. The Court in Zambia, in Banda’s case failed to examine the basis
of administrative action and as such, it has not been proved that the deportees were indeed a
danger to law and order. In any event the suggestion that they were “likely” to be a danger was
vague and not proved. It is important for the Commission to caution against a too easy resort to
the limitation clauses in the African Charter. The onus is on the state to prove that it is justified to
resort to the limitation clause. The Commission should act bearing in mind the provisions of
Articles 61 and 62 of the Charter.
43. Article 2 of the Charter reads:
“Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and
guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group,
colour, sex, language, religion political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune,
birth or other status”.
44. By forcibly expelling the two victims from Zambia, the State has violated their right to
enjoyment of all the rights enshrined in the African Charter. This Article imposes an obligation on
the Zambian Government to secure the rights protected in the African Charter to all persons
within their jurisdiction irrespective of political or any other opinion. This obligation was
reaffirmed by the Commission in Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme /
Zambia (Communication 71/92). The arbitrary removal of one’s citizenship in the case of Chinula
cannot be justified.
45. Article 9(2) states:
“Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law”.
46. Both Banda and Chinula were leading politicians and businessmen. Both had lived in Zambia
for decades. Even if deportation action had been initiated against them in 1974 and 1976, it can be
safely assumed that the action had been advanced unless it is proved that that was ction was
accelerated upon the assumption of office of MMD government in 1991, we are therefore
persuaded that the deportations were politically motivated. This provision of the Charter reflects
the fact that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, essential to an individual
personal development, political consciousness and participation in the public affairs of his
country. The Commission has to determine whether the "deportations", being politically,
motivated violate the provisions of Article 9(2) of the African Charter as the two victims were
denied the right to freedom of conscience as stipulated in Article 8 of the Charter.
47. Article 8 of the African Chater states:
"Freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion shall be guaranteed. No one
may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these
freedoms".
48. Article 10 of the Charter, which states;
"Every individual shall have the right to the free association provided that he abides by the law".
49. In deporting the two men, the government of Zambia has denied them the exercise of their
right to freedom of association. This is so since they have been prevented from associating with
their colleagues in the United National Independence Party and participating in their activities.
50. As the African Commission ruled in the case of John K. Modise / Botswana, by forcing Banda
and Chinula to live as stateless persons under degrading conditions, the government of Zambia
has deprived them of their family and is depriving their families of the men's support, and this
constitutes a violation of the dignity of a human being. Thereby violating Article 5 of the Charter,
which guarantees the right to:
"the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status".
51. The forcible explusion of Banda and Chinula by the Zambian government has forcibly broken
up the family unit which is the core of society thereby failing in its duties to protect and assist the
family as stipulated in Article 18(1) and 18(2) of the Charter;
(1) "The family shall be the natural unit and basic of society. It shall be protected by the State…"
(2) "The State shall have the duty to assist the family which is the custodian of morals and
traditional values recognised by the community".
52. Article 7(1)(a)states that:
"Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard…
…
(1) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental
rights as recognised and guaranteed…"
53. The Zambia government by denying Mr. Chinula the opportunity to appeal his deportation
order has deprived him of a right to fair hearing which contravenes all Zambian domestic laws and
international human rights laws.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION
holds a violation of Article 2;
holds a violation of Article 7(1)(a);
holds a violation of Article 8;
holds a violation of Article 9(2);
holds a violation of Article 10;
holds a violation of Article 18(1) and (2).
Bujumbura, 5th May 1999.