Silencing the Defenders - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

There are certain circumstances and times when human rights defenders are at even greater risk
than usual.
Elections
When contestation is
intense and the ruling
party as intent on
winning another term as
its rivals are in defeating
it, the temptation of
those in authority to use
all the power of the
state machinery at their
disposal to stifle criticism
becomes in many cases
too overwhelming
to resist.
Election time is one such moment. It is a time of
heightened public awareness: the moment when the often
suppressed vox populi can make itself heard. For human
rights defenders the moment is an especially fruitful one
for the promotion of human rights, both in terms of
drawing attention to the government’s past record, for
example by publishing report cards on candidates or
highlighting broken promises; by engaging in activities
to ensure that the election is free and fair, such as
educating voters about the electoral system and how to
exercise their democratic rights; assisting often excluded
communities to register and take part in voting;
monitoring election campaigns to ensure that codes of
conduct are adhered to; and pointing out irregularities
such as voter intimidation and impersonation, booth
capturing and ballot stuffing. It is also a time when human
rights defenders are especially hopeful for change and
are at their most active in attempting to capitalise on that
potential. When contestation is intense and the ruling party as intent on winning another term as its
rivals are in defeating it, the temptation of those in authority to use all the power of the state machinery
at their disposal to stifle criticism becomes in many cases too overwhelming to resist.
The media is a particular target for regimes threatened by the possibility of losing power in a free and
fair election. The Media Institute of Southern Africa reported, for example, that in Zambia there was
a surge of sixteen media freedom violations between September and November 2008, just before
the presidential by-elections of October 2008, compared to six between January and August of the
same year. The ruling party’s candidate went on to win the election.
Criticism of human rights records at election time is felt particularly sensitively and elicits some sharp
reactions. In Uganda, during the March 2006 municipal elections the police closed an independent
radio station, Choice FM, after it aired a programme that was critical of a ruling party candidate and
of the military. Opposition candidates invited to speak on the programme had voiced opinions that
the military and civilian authorities were mistreating residents. 162 In Pakistan, similar restrictions were
faced in the run-up to planned elections on 18 February 2008. 163 In early February, for example, Aaj
TV was taken off the air for twelve hours merely for broadcasting a discussion with a prominent critic
of the Musharraf government, who has been outspoken on issues such as press freedom, extrajudicial
killings and women’s rights. 164 In Nigeria two radio stations were raided and shut down by the State
Security Services, and repeatedly warned for freely airing views critical of the ruling party just over a
week before the Presidential and National Assembly elections in April 2007. 165
In many cases there is legislation that legitimises unwarranted actions of government and police.
Uganda’s Electronic Media Act of 1966 bars the broadcast of programmes “likely to create public
insecurity or violence”. 166 Section 8 of the Act requires broadcasters to adhere to the minimum
standards: “A person shall not carry out any broadcasting or operate a cinematograph theatre unless
what is to be broadcast or exhibited is in compliance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this
Act.” 167
Human rights defenders in these cases exercise their right under Article 8 of the Declaration, to draw
attention to aspects of official work “that may hinder or impede the promotion, protection and
realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms”. 168 In doing so, they attempt to enforce the
34 CHRI 2009 REPORT: SILENCING THE DEFENDERS •