Connect with us

Politics

Striking a Balance Between Judicial Immunity, Independence and Accountability: The Kenyan Situation

15 min read.

There is a need to re-engineer these parameters of the Judiciary to strike a functional balance between immunity, independence, impartiality and accountability of members of the bench for Kenya to enjoy a trued independent Judiciary.

Published

on

Striking a Balance Between Judicial Immunity, Independence and Accountability: The Kenyan Situation
Download PDFPrint Article

Kenya’s Supreme Court is in the eye of a storm. Four members of the apex court face allegations of bribery and impropriety. The Chief Justice himself faces a petition. The Deputy Chief Justice faces the prospect of criminal charges if an ongoing constitutional case is determined against her. One of the Supreme Court judges has declined to appear before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), citing constitutional immunity.

Lower down the rung, a judge of the High Court who was found unfit has challenged the decision. His appeal has, however, been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Several other High Court judges could face tribunals depending on the findings of the committees set up to investigate the complaints against them. Some of the complaints may turn out to be not worthy of the formation of a tribunal. However, the fact that there are so many complaints against members of the Supreme Court erodes the confidence that should be attached to the apex court, and by extension, to the whole Judiciary.

It is said that when Julius Caeser’s wife, Pompeia, allowed a man dressed as a woman into a Roman religious festival strictly reserved for women, Caeser divorced her. The whole thing had been a prank and Pompeia had no intentions of impropriety. Aware of this, the citizens of Rome enquired why Caeser had divorced his wife. “The wife of Caeser must be above suspicion,” was the Great Emperor’s response. Hence the comparison with the level of integrity expected of a judge.

Perception plays an important role in the discharge of justice. Some 118 years ago, Lord Charles Bowen, while setting aside the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice who had determined an appeal in a case involving his own brother’s architectural firm, said, “Like Caeser’s wife, a judge must be beyond suspicion.”

Now one may ask where Caeser’s wife fits in all this? What does Caeser’s wife have to do with the integrity of a judge?

It is said that when Julius Caeser’s wife, Pompeia, allowed a man dressed as a woman into a Roman religious festival strictly reserved for women, Caeser divorced her. The whole thing had been a prank and Pompeia had no intentions of impropriety. Aware of this, the citizens of Rome enquired why Caeser had divorced his wife. “The wife of Caeser must be above suspicion,” was the Great Emperor’s response. Hence the comparison with the level of integrity expected of a judge.

A transparent, reliable and accountable Judiciary is vital in the furtherance of the rule of law, which is fundamental to constitutionalism and democracy. It cannot be gainsaid that right from the recruitment, functioning, supervision, to the removal of judicial officers, the process must be rigorous, transparent, accountable and free from influence. To properly carry out their mandate, judicial officers must be insulated from victimisation arising from the discharge of their judicial functions. Conversely, they must conduct themselves with the propriety expected from those entrusted with great power.

Justice before 2010

Prior to the enactment of the 2010 constitution, the appointment of the Chief Justice was the sole prerogative of the president. He was also the appointing authority in the appointment of judges, the only rider being that with such appointments, he was to act in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

An examination of the composition the JSC, however, clearly showed that the president held sway in such appointments. Composed of the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, two judges appointed by the president and the chair of the Public Service Commission, all members of the JSC were direct or indirect appointees of the president and, therefore, beholden to him.

Another contract judge, Patrick O’Connor, was sacked by the Chief Justice when he resisted a transfer to Meru. When O’Connor questioned whether the Chief Justice had the powers to sack him, he was criticised by the political class. Not long after, in 1988, Parliament amended the constitution to remove the security of tenure of judges.

Then there were the “contract judges”, who were mostly British citizens. Their contracts were renewable at the government’s discretion. Some of these judges were so beholden to the Executive that, in one instance, the by then Chief Justice, Alan Robin Hancox, in 1991 went as far as advising members of the bar and bench that their loyalty was to the head of state.

Another contract judge, Norbury Dugdale, found himself in conflict with lawyers and members of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) due to the consistency of his decisions in favour of the Executive. Supporting an earlier call by nine members of the LSK in 1991 to have a tribunal established for the removal of Chief Justice Hancox and Justice Dugdale in September of that year, 107 lawyers signed a memorandum calling for the resignation of the two. (The Weekly Review Sep 6, 1991, page 4.)

Not all of the contract judges acted as gatekeepers for the Executive. Not all of them were malleable to the whims of the head of state. The fierce independence of Justice Derek Schofield, a contract judge, comes to mind. In 1978, a family filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking the production of their family member, Mbaraka Karanja. When Justice Schofield ordered the production of Karanja, the police said that he had been shot while escaping and had been buried. The judge then insisted the body be exhumed. Even after the opening of 19 graves, there was still no body of Karanja. Justice Schofield then threatened the Director of Criminal Investigation with contempt, prompting Chief Justice Cecil Miller to remove the case from the judge and to transfer him to Meru. Justice Schofield chose to resign than put up with this blatant interference. He would later say that the Chief Justice had informed him that his actions had been at the behest of President Moi. (Nairobi Law Monthly 49. Feb/Mar, 1992, and also Nation newspaper, 11 October 2008, interview with Okwemba.)

Another contract judge, Patrick O’Connor, was sacked by the Chief Justice when he resisted a transfer to Meru. When O’Connor questioned whether the Chief Justice had the powers to sack him, he was criticised by the political class. Not long after, in 1988, Parliament amended the constitution to remove the security of tenure of judges. ( Weekly Review, 5 August 1988, page 3.)

At the lower tier of the judiciary were the magistrates. Greater in number than the judges, and considered the true face of the Judiciary, they worked in far-flung stations. The JSC exercised complete control over their appointment. The law afforded them nothing in terms of security of tenure and they could be sacked at any time through mechanisms that were not transparent.

They worked alongside police prosecutors. Often considered enforcers for the Executive, their courts acted arbitrarily with little regard for the law or procedure. The extent of their emasculation by the Executive was at its most obvious during the Mwakenya trials. Scores of intellectuals, students, politicians and ordinary wananchi were arrested, tortured and charged with belonging to proscribed groups. The accused persons were “tried” and convicted in the magistrate’s courts, outside court hours, usually in the evenings without the benefit of counsel. (See KNHRC 2009 publication “Surviving after Torture”, pages 41-42.) One of the accusations against the twelfth Chief Justice, Benard Chunga, in 2003 when a tribunal for his removal was constituted, was that during his tenure as the Deputy Public Prosecutor, he had condoned and executed programmes of torture and illegal trials in the magistrate’s courts.

Executive interference was not the only factor that influenced the decisions of judicial officers. Far from it. In many cases, it was corruption that subverted the course of justice. So rooted was this vice that the popular saying, “Why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge?” was an accurate depiction of the state of corruption in the Judiciary. The corridors of “justice” had become a marketplace where the highest bidder carried the day.

Magistrates who displayed independence were punished. A case in point was in 1994 when Senior Principal Magistrate, Onesmus Githinji; while acquitting six accused persons (famously known as the Ndeiya Six) charged with breaking into a chief’s camp, censured the police and ordered an investigation over allegations of torture. Soon after, he was transferred to a remote court in Kitui, which prompted him to resign.

Executive interference was not the only factor that influenced the decisions of judicial officers. Far from it. In many cases, it was corruption that subverted the course of justice. So rooted was this vice that the popular saying, “Why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge?” was an accurate depiction of the state of corruption in the Judiciary. The corridors of “justice” had become a marketplace where the highest bidder carried the day.

The impunity with which some judicial officers conducted their affairs was in some instances almost hilarious. In Kisumu, an advocate obtained a photograph of a judge being transported in a vehicle that the same judge had irregularly allowed an auctioneer to attach and sell. When the advocate confronted the judge with this evidence and asked that he disqualify himself from the still ongoing proceedings, he declined. (The same judge would resign rather than face a tribunal during the 2003 “radical surgery” of the Judiciary initiated during the Mwai Kibaki administration.) In Nairobi, a magistrate was found with two sets of written judgments for the same case, one acquitting the accused, the other convicting him. His reason for this embarrassing situation was anyone’s guess.

In remote stations, magistrates were a law unto themselves. Feared by a populace that had long accepted corruption as a way of the courts, they went about their sordid business without a care in the world.

The Radical Surgery

By the time the country was going to the 2002 polls, it was plain to see that it was just a matter of time before some serious intervention was made to try and salvage a Judiciary gone rogue. And come it did in the form of what came to be known as the Radical Surgery.

With the defeat of KANU in the 2002 presidential elections and the ascendance of Mwai Kibaki to power, the stage was set for a radical intervention. An Anti-Corruption Committee chaired by Justice Aron Ringera was promptly constituted to investigate corruption in the Judiciary. Upon completing its work, it tabled a report that chronicled instances ranging from judicial officers receiving money to influence decisions to the seeking of sexual favours to make favourable decisions. It implicated 5 of the 9 Court of Appeal judges, 18 of the 36 High Court judges and 82 of the 254 magistrates country-wide.

This radical crackdown had unmasked powerful men and women, who hitherto, like Caeser’s wife, had been considered above suspicion. Pictures of Court of Appeal judges outside what is now the Supreme Court being helped by family members to load personal belongings into the boots of cars was a reflection of the magnitude of what had transpired.

In a brazen, and most would say unfair, move, the names of the implicated judicial officers were published in the national press even before they were informed of the accusations against them. This was followed by a withdrawal of their benefits and privileges. (These were to be reinstated many months later.) A two-week ultimatum to resign or be dismissed was issued to them. Many opted for the former. Some of the judges decided to face the tribunals. Justices Waki, Anganyanya, Nambuye, and Mbogoli were some of the judges who were later cleared and resumed their duties as judges.

This radical crackdown had unmasked powerful men and women, who hitherto, like Caeser’s wife, had been considered above suspicion. Pictures of Court of Appeal judges outside what is now the Supreme Court being helped by family members to load personal belongings into the boots of cars was a reflection of the magnitude of what had transpired. Men, once the face of justice, were struggling to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the corridors of justice.

Years of corruption and impunity within the Judiciary had eroded public confidence. This now ensured that there was little sympathy for these victims of the purge. It was the reason why there was little protest, despite the process of their removal being unfair and unjust. Even when the President, in an unorthodox move, used his authority to appoint 28 acting judges of the High Court to replace the fired ones, there was hardly any opposition.

The President’s move was irregular. The new acting judges had not been subjected to scrutiny. Many believed their appointment was influenced by political, tribal and other considerations, rather than merit. The process was flawed. Consequently, an opportunity to effectively clean up the Aegean stables that our Judiciary had become was lost.             

In 2003, Evan Gicheru replaced Benard Chunga as the thirteenth Chief Justice of independent Kenya. An embattled Chunga had opted to resign rather than face a tribunal made up of men he had on many occasions crossed swords with, and whose opinion of him could only be negative.

Business as usual

The Radical Surgery having gobbled up a sizeable chunk of the old faces in the judiciary. Many naively expected a reduction in instances of executive interference and corruption and consequently a marked improvement in the delivery of justice. This was not to be and for obvious reasons.

Firstly, the manner in which the Radical Surgery had been carried out, with little regard for the internationally accepted standards for the removal of judges, greatly eroded morale in the Judiciary. The appointment of 28 acting judges to replace those removed was also far from transparent. The appointees were beholden to the appointing authority, which was still the President. The constitution still allowed him the sole prerogative in the appointment of the Chief Justice. Little wonder then that in 2007, Chief Justice Evan Gicheru, who owed his appointment solely to President Kibaki, was agreeable to irregularly swearing him in as president at dusk in a private function at State House after a highly contested election. The culmination of this was an eruption of violence that left over a thousand dead and hundreds of thousands displaced.

The other reason why the Judiciary would still be hobbled with the problems of old was that the institutional deficiencies remained in place. While the faces of the judicial officers had to a great extent changed, the structures and working conditions for a long time remained the same. Soon enough it was business as usual.

The greatest opportunity to truly revamp the Kenyan Judiciary came with the promulgation of the new constitution in 2010. For the first time, the appointment of the Chief Justice would not be the sole prerogative of the president. The new constitution provided for an independent Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Save for the Attorney General and a couple of other members, the JSC was to be composed of a representative elected by magistrates, judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and two members elected by the Law Society of Kenya, amongst others; all independent of the Executive. The members of the JSC were to forward their choice for Chief Justice to the President. Their single nominee – subject to the vetting of Parliament – would be appointed to head the Judiciary.

The new constitution also mandated Parliament to provide legislation for the vetting of all judges and magistrates who were in office on the 27th of August 2010. This culminated in the enactment of the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Act No. 2 of 2011 and consequently the appointment of a vetting board by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister. A seasoned advocate, Sharad Rao, was appointed to chair the board. The decision of the board was not to be the subject of question or review in any court.

The Mutunga Era

In June 2011, Willy Mutunga, a well-known human rights activist, one-time chair of the LSK and a former detainee, was appointed the fourteenth Chief Justice. Everyone agreed that with his appointment, the third arm of government was on the way to great heights. The state of the Judiciary at the time of his appointment was summed up in his speech delivered in October 2011.

The new Chief Justice was considered an outsider – he had not been a member of the Judiciary nor had he practised much as an advocate. So he was bound to meet opposition to his leadership and any proposed reforms. The advantage was that he would not be bound by the cartels that had for a long time taken root in the Judiciary.

“We found an institution so frail in its structures; so thin on resources; so low in confidence; so deficient in integrity; so weak in its public support that to have expected it to deliver justice was to be wildly optimistic. We found a judiciary that was designed to fail.”

The new Chief Justice was alive to the dire state of the Judiciary he had been tasked to head. With only 16 High Court stations and 111 magistrate’s courts around the country, a total of 53 judges and 330 magistrates were expected to cater for a population of over 41 million. Morale amongst the magistrates was low. Considered the backbone of the Judiciary, they handled most of the cases in far-flung courts under appalling conditions, yet their salaries, in comparison with what the judges were paid, was measly. There was a huge case backlog, which was not helped by the constant disappearance of files instigated by litigants and even advocates. Financing was low, with a paltry 0.05 per cent of the national budget set aside for the Judiciary in 2010-2011, compared with the international benchmark of 2.5 per cent. This was the Judiciary that Mutunga inherited from Evan Gicheru.

Upon assuming office, Willy Mutunga realised that there were many reports by civil society and task forces formed by past Chief Justices, the latest being the 2009-2010 report by Justice Ouko that recommended improvements in the functioning of the Judiciary. Using most of this material, his team developed what he called The Judiciary Transformation Framework.

The new Chief Justice was considered an outsider – he had not been a member of the Judiciary nor had he practised much as an advocate. So he was bound to meet opposition to his leadership and any proposed reforms. The advantage was that he would not be bound by the cartels that had for a long time taken root in the Judiciary. The confidence in the new Chief Justice was soon reflected in the substantial increase in funding of the Judiciary. Parliament more than doubled the Judiciary’s budget allocation in 2011-2012. The World Bank, GTZ and UNDP committed funds towards the intended transformation.

Mutunga also sought to give the Judiciary a more human face by doing away with some anachronistic traditions. He allowed for less formal attire and did away with symbols such as wigs. Encouraging interaction between judicial officers and court users, he sought to bridge the distance that had been created under the guise of independence and impartiality. He introduced new innovations, like the Daily Court Returns Template tracking the progress of cases.

Then Petition Number 5 of 2013 happened. It challenged the election of Uhuru Kenyatta as the fourth President of the Republic. On 30th March 2013, in a brief statement delivered in an almost cavalier manner, Chief Justice Mutunga dismissed the presidential election petition. A full judgment followed on 16th April of the same year. Criticised for its lack of depth and failure to confront the evidence, it left a blot in the image of a Judiciary that was still struggling to erase an inglorious past.

The presidential petition aside, more than any other Chief Justice, it was Mutunga who squarely faced the institutional bottlenecks that had long dogged the Judiciary. He undertook structured efforts to solve them. His earlier standing in civil society also helped marshal the finances required to transform the Judiciary. The current robust engagement between court users and the Judiciary, hitherto lacking, can be attributed to Mutunga’s efforts at giving the Judiciary a human face.

Current state of the Judiciary

On the 1st September 2017, the Supreme Court, chaired by Chief Justice David Maraga, nullified the disputed 2017 presidential elections and called for fresh elections within sixty days. While the world wowed, an enraged President called the judges of the Supreme Court “wakora” (crooks). The political class swore to “revisit” the issue. Confidence in the Judiciary soared.

The nullification of a presidential election by the apex court was a clear indicator of how far the Judiciary had moved in terms of independence from the Executive. Such a move would never have been thought of in the times of Hancox or Miller.

Upon realising that the intimidation of judges no longer worked, the Executive now sought to control the appointment process. One clear instance was the Amendments to the Judicial Service Act that sought to have the JSC forward three nominees to the President, instead of one, for position of Chief Justice. The LSK successfully petitioned a constitutional court to declare the amendments to be in breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Further pointers of independence from the other arms of government were evident in the fearless abandon with which the High Court continued to strike down legislation sponsored by the Executive as unconstitutional. In 2015, a five-judge bench agreed with the views of Justice Odunga and struck out eight offensive clauses in the controversial Security Law (Amendment) Act No 19 of 2014 as being in violation of fundamental human rights. This prompted much criticism from politicians, with threats against sitting judges.

Upon realising that the intimidation of judges no longer worked, the Executive now sought to control the appointment process. One clear instance was the Amendments to the Judicial Service Act that sought to have the JSC forward three nominees to the President, instead of one, for position of Chief Justice. The LSK successfully petitioned a constitutional court to declare the amendments to be in breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Executive Director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), George Kegoro, in an opinion piece in the Standard newspaper, pointed out other instances of such interference: In one such move the President revoked the membership of two commissioners of the JSC, namely, Rev Samuel Kobia and Kipngetich Bett, while their term had not expired and in disregard of their security of tenure. Another attempt was the insistence on Parliament vetting Justice Warsame, who had been re-elected by the Court of Appeal to the JSC. It took a judgment of the Court of Appeal to scuttle the intended mischief.

The 2016-2017 State of The Judiciary & Administration of Justice Report shows that the number of judges in 2017 had almost tripled to 158 from just 53 in 2011. The number of magistrates had also risen from 330 in 2011 to 421 in 2017. Judiciary funding had almost doubled to 0.99 per cent in 2017. The maximum salary of a judge of the High Court was now slightly over Sh1 million, while that of a Chief Magistarate was over Sh700,000.

With these marked improvements in the numbers and remuneration of judicial officers, why was it that the Transparency International Bribery Index 2017 still considered the Kenyan Judiciary as the second most corrupt institution in the country after the police? Why was there still a perception amongst Kenyans that corruption was still rife in the Judiciary?

The immunity of members of the judiciary from any action or suit for anything done or omitted in good faith, in the lawful performance of a judicial function, is guaranteed in Article 160(5) of the 2010 constitution. Case law also suggests that no action can lie against a judicial officer for anything done within his or her jurisdiction even if done maliciously and in bad faith. (See Anderson -vs-Gorrie [1895] 1QB, 668. A similar position was held by our courts in Bellevue Dev Co Ltd –vs- Justice Francis Gikonyo & 7 others, [2018] eKLR.) What is suggested is that you can never sue a judicial officer for personal liability over anything he does within his jurisdiction even though it is done with malice. It matters not that his decision is so tainted with malice and militates against the evidence to the extent that it can only be attributable to extraneous factors.

Remedy lies in lodging a complaint with the JSC against such a judicial officer, and that’s just about where it ends. Immunity of judicial officers from personal liability for acts while in office, as provided in Article 160(5), suggests that it survives the officer’s tenure. Not even the President of the Republic is offered such immunity. The immunity accorded to a President under Article 143 of the constitution over acts carried out while in office does not extend past his tenure. It also allows for the period of limitation of time for any anticipated action against the President to stop running during his term in office.

It is common knowledge that the complaint process against judicial officers is slow and can remain undetermined for years. One of the reasons is that commissioners of the JSC hold other demanding jobs and enterprises. These men and women only meet occasionally. Judicial officers facing complaints have been known to brag that such complaints will not see the light of day due to the slow process. Others who have been suspended from office as their cases await determination also complain of the slow pace with which their cases are handled. Perhaps the time is right for the implementation of the Sharad Rao-led Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board recommendations of having a permanent Complaints Tribunal to handle such complaints.

The safeguard of immunity, together with the principles of independence and impartiality, are tailored to assist judicial officers to carry out their onerous task of dispensing justice. This has at times been abused. It is not uncommon for an errant judicial officer to shelter behind the iron veil of independence to escape accountability. There is a need to re-engineer these parameters and strike a functional balance between immunity, independence, impartiality and accountability of members of the bench.

Avatar
By

P. Ochieng Ochieng is a writer based in Nairobi, Kenya.

Politics

No War, No Peace: Life and Death in Eritrea

Thirty years after Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia, there has hardly been any meaningful development in this small nation in the Horn of Africa. On the contrary, the government’s authoritarian policies have undermined democracy and forced young people to flee the country.

Published

on

No War, No Peace: Life and Death in Eritrea
Download PDFPrint Article

Eritrea was an Italian colony from 1890 to 1941. Following the defeat of Italian forces by the Allied Forces during World War Two, Britain occupied Eritrea until its federation to Ethiopia in 1952. However, by 1962 Emperor Haile Selassie had annexed Eritrea, declaring that it was part of Ethiopia, and in this way ending the federation.

In 1961, a year before the annexation, the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) started an armed struggle for independence from Ethiopia. The armed struggle continued for 30 years against successive Ethiopian regimes until 1991, when the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF), who had replaced the ELF, defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea. Eritrea became formally independent following a United Nations-supervised referendum in 1993.

From the beginning, the EPLF (now the People’s Front of Democracy and Justice – PFDJ)’s strategy for achieving liberation and national unity was for it to dominate all social, political, and economic spaces. The PFDJ implemented a highly centralised and opaque two-track system of administration: an unseen, powerful inner circle of elites; and public structures that projected an image of egalitarian self-sufficiency. This centralised and opaque model of governance continues today.

Since liberation, PFDJ has banned all opposition parties and treats all non-mass-movement organisations (i.e. independent civil society) with suspicion; hence there are no independent national civil society organisations in the country. Without any consultation, the PFDJ has nationalised all land; it has established a unitary form of government, and it has changed the administrative boundaries within the country. Despite these totalitarian tendencies, in 1994, the PFDJ, as the Provisional Government of Eritrea, set up the Constitutional Assembly to draft the Constitution. The task was completed in 1997. But the Constitution remains unimplemented.

Border dispute

In 1998, hostilities and war between Eritrea and Ethiopia resumed over border demarcation issues, particularly in the town of Bademe. By December 2000, the two countries signed the Algiers Peace Agreement and established the Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) to determine the limits of their shared border.

The EEBC delivered its border decision on 13th April 2002, placing the town of Bademe, the flashpoint of the border conflict, on the Eritrean side. The Ethiopian government contested the allocation of Bademe to Eritrea. Therefore, a situation of “no war, no peace” ensued between the two countries as President Isaias Afewerki refused any dialogue on the issue because the parties had agreed that the decision of the EEBC was final and binding.

President Isaias Afwerki, who is also the chair of the PFDJ, took advantage of the strained relationship with Ethiopia to:

  1. indefinitely postpone the implementation of the 1997 Constitution as well as the general elections;
  2. arrest and disappear dissenters, especially University of Asmara students and the members of the government known as G15 who promoted a democratisation process (2001);
  3. close the independent media and arrest journalists (2001);
  4. abolish the Eritrean National Assembly (i.e. the Eritrean Parliament) (2002);
  5. maintain a high level of militarisation of the country.

To maintain a high level of militarisation, the government vertically integrated the National Service to the National Development Programme (i.e. the Warsay Yikaalo National Development Programme) and to Education. This integration allows the Eritrean government to move students into the National Service and the National Development Programme from high schools (i.e. Grade 12) and indefinitely extends the period of service of the conscripts, hence taking full control over the working population.

In 1998, hostilities and war between Eritrea and Ethiopia resumed over border demarcation issues, particularly in the town of Bademe. By December 2000, the two countries signed the Algiers Peace Agreement and established the Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) to determine the limits of their shared border.

Through the integration of the National Service into the Warsay Yikaalo National Development Programme and Education, the government has limited the citizenship rights of conscripts who while in service cannot: legally obtain a mobile phone or SIM card; get or renew a business licence; access land; and access travel documents and exit visas. Deserters or objectors are denied any rights and cannot access state services. Thus, the official Eritrean concept of citizenship is intrinsically linked to conscription and the fulfilment of National Service duties.

The National Service is a combination of military training and civil service, working for little pay in non-military activities such as agriculture, the construction of roads, houses and buildings and mining. The Warsay National Development Programme relies on the deployment of te National Service (Warsay) and defence personnel (Yikaalo) as a labour force. The programme operates under the umbrella of the Ministry of Defence.

Since 2003, the government has closed the University of Asmara (the only university in the country). It has also required that all Eritrean students complete Grade 12 at the Sawa military training camp. Students who have not completed their final year of secondary school at Sawa and have not sat for the National School Certificat, cannot access college education. The PFDJ has replaced Asmara University with regional colleges, which are administered jointly by an academic director and a military director.

National Service conscripts work for an indefinite period on development projects, the administration of ministries and local authorities, as well as in PFDJ-owned businesses. Such work is carried out for very little pay and in conditions that a UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea described as “forced labour”.

The Eritrean authorities’ control over the people includes the restriction of movement both internally and externally. Therefore, all Eritreans aged five and above cannot leave the country without an exit visa. The government will not issue an exit visa to any Eritrean above the age of five, irrespective of their situation (i.e. family reunification, health, etc.)

The government’s control over the Eritrean people is a political, social and economic process of deprivation and human rights violations for which it refuses to take any responsibility. It is systematically impoverishing the population. Therefore, Eritrean youth face having to choose between the life of slave labour or exile. They describe their situation as slavery: “[The] situation in Eritrea and long time ago with slaves is the same. We build the houses of the elites without money. We work on farms of government officials for no money. If you are educated, they deploy you to anywhere…for a short time, you can tolerate it…but this is for life.”

Faced with accusations of human rights violations, the government reverts to “threat” mode. It labels any reference to human rights violations as “lies” and “ploys” of its enemies to undermine the state. The PFDJ Head of Political Affairs, Mr Yemane Gebreab, dismissed the findings of the Commission of Inquiry on Human rights by saying: “….[it is] really laughable……There is no basis to the claims of the Commission of Inquiry…”

The Eritrean authorities’ control over the people includes the restriction of movement both internally and externally. Therefore, all Eritreans aged five and above cannot leave the country without an exit visa.

In addition to taking control over the working population, the government also took control of the economic sectors, including finance, import and export, transport and construction. It has achieved control over the economic sphere through a process of unfair competition with private business, facilitated by the fact that it does not pay taxes and does not comply with labour, environmental, and other regulatory requirements. Also, as the regime has control over the working population, it has unlimited access to a large pool of free labour, effecting a net transfer of the workforce away from the private sector. This policy of moving human resources to labour sites identified and controlled by the government has crippled the private sector, especially the agricultural industry, which still relies to a large extent on subsistence farming.

The government’s control and domination of the economy have not increased economic activity or productivity. The economy is stagnating, further weakening the private sector and restricting economic opportunities for Eritreans.

Notwithstanding PFDJ’s rhetoric, Eritrean youth experience the state as an albatross around their necks. They understand the state in terms of spy networks; as a human rights violator curtailing civil, political, and economic rights and as the as the source of torture and deprivation. They see it as the source of all restrictions and deprivations. This is the reason why they flee the country.

Peace Agreement with Ethiopia and its aftermath

In April 2018, the Ethiopia Prime Minister Abiy announced the acceptance of the EEBC decision, in particular the allocation of the flashpoint town of Bademe to Eritrea. In this way, he started a process that led to the signing of the Ethiopia Eritrea Peace Agreement in July 2018, thus ending two decades of “no war, no peace”. The land borders opened to much jubilation in 2018. However, by April 2019, the Eritrean government had closed them all. So far, the only achievements of the Peace Agreement are the reopening of embassies and telecommunication lines and the resumption of flights.

The signing of the Peace Agreement immediately raised expectations that there would be a normalisation of relations between the two states. It also raised expectations regarding reforms within Eritrea that would lead to a reduction in the number of Eritrean youth fleeing the country. Soon after the signing of the Peace Agreement, the Eritrean Catholic priest Aba Teklemichael pointed to the sweeping reforms implemented by Prime Minister Abiy in Ethiopia, and urged the Eritrean government to also undertake necessary reforms in Eritrea and to democratise the government. By Easter 2019, the Eritrean Catholic bishops were also calling for a constitutional government and the rule of law. They also encouraged the government to release political prisoners and start a process of reconciliation within the country. However, to date there have been no reforms in the country, a state of affairs confirmed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Eritrea who at the start of this year reported that she had: “ ……no tangible evidence of a meaningful and substantive improvement in the situation of human rights in Eritrea”.

The signing of the Peace Agreement immediately raised expectations that there would be a normalisation of relations between the two states. It also raised expectations regarding reforms within Eritrea that would lead to a reduction in the number of Eritrean youth fleeing the country.

The ongoing peace process is not transparent; it has mostly remained an elite political level agreement unable to deliver on the economic front or to resolve the issue of Bademe as both Prime Minister Abiy and President Isaias Afewerki have marginalised the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) for political motives. The Eritrean government has increasingly identified the Tigray State and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) as an existential threat to Eritrea, thus justifying the maintenance of a high level of militarisation. Consequently, Eritrean youth continue to flee the country. In 2018, UNHCR ranked Eritrea as the ninth-largest refugee-sending state in the world.

Ailing health sector

The totalitarian agenda of the Eritrean government did not spare the health sector either. The task of reconstructing the Eritrean health system after the liberation struggle and following the 1998-2000 Eritrea-Ethiopia border war was monumental. It was an undertaking that the late and former Minister of Health Saleh Meki undertook with passion, commitment, and zest from 1997 to 2009 when Ms Amina Nurhussein replaced him.

In his efforts rebuild the Eritrean health system, Saleh Meki sought to establish strategic partnerships with critical international health institutions, private practitioners, faith-based organisations, such as the Catholic Church, as well as professional members of the Eritrean diaspora. The former Minister of Health carried on with his efforts despite the enormous pressure to conform to the dictates of President Isaias Afwerki, and the concerns generated by the closure of international non-governmental organisations, as well as the restriction of movement imposed on all organisations working in the country. Against all the odds, he re-established the medical school known as the Orotta Medical School.

Saleh Meki died on 2nd October 2009. Soon after his death, all the medical missions of international organisations that he had worked so hard to bring to Eritrea ended. By 2011 the Eritrean Government forced the closure of all private medical clinics. And, by 2018 a total of 29 Catholic health facilities providing maternal and child health support and serving some of the more remote communities in the country were closed. The seizure and closure, of the Catholic health facilities was carried out in complete disregard to the health and safety of the patients, most of whom were left to fend for themselves.

There was no clear justification for the closure of the private health facilities. However, the closure of the Catholic health facilities was justified as an enforcement of the 1995 Proclamation to standardise and articulate religions institutions (Proclamation No 73 of 1995). The Proclamation prohibits religious bodies from engaging in social and welfare services. This position is contested by all faith-based organisations, especially since there was no consultation in the development of the law. The Eritrean Catholic bishops’ communication with the government on the seizure and closure of their health facilities point out that the facilities operated by abiding with all the requirements of the Ministry of Health.

Poor COVID-19 response

The closure of health facilities has reduced the number of available beds and the overall capacity of the health system. Hence, Eritrea, with a score of 0.434, was ranked 182nd out of 189 countries by the 2019 Human Development Index. The low Human Development Index combined with a hospital bed capacity of 7 beds for 10,000 people, and no available data as to the number of health professionals (i.e. doctors and nurses) available per 10,000 people, suggests that the situation might be even more dire. And the poor connectivity of the country (i.e. mobile phones, internet, broadbands) means that the country’s capacity to deal with pandemics such as COVID-19 is low.

The low capacity of the Eritrean health system to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic was also of concern to the diaspora Eritrean Healthcare Professionals Network (EHPN), which urged the Eritrean government to immediately implement the World ealth Orbanization (WHO) and Centre for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines and advisories to contain the pandemic. EHPN expressed concern that the country lacks the necessary prerequisites to implement hygiene measures because: “There is a shortage of water, disinfectants, laboratories that carry out diagnostic tests and medical professionals, including nursing and technical staff. There is also a lack of functioning intensive care units with adequate ventilation equipment needed to properly treat patients. The reality is that many Eritreans will not be able to seek and obtain medical treatment in their homeland or neighbouring countries. In short, the Eritrean health system is not adequately prepared for COVID 19.”

Fears regarding the poor state of the Eritrean health system were further heightened when the Eritrean government refused COVID-19 emergency supplies donated by the Chinese billionaire Jack Ma and his Alibaba Group. Mr Hagos “Kisha” Gebrehiwet, the head of Economic Affairs in the ruling PFDJ, justified the rejection of Jack Ma’s donation by saying that it was unsolicited.

The government’s willingness to reject donations has, however, launched a COVID-19 appeal among citizens. The appeal is remarkable for the lack of information as to how the funds raised will be used. There is no single COVID-19 emergency response bank account designated for the appeal; hence, in the diaspora, funds are collected in different foreign bank accounts set up by Eritrean embassies. Consequently, there is a real danger that the funds will never enter the country and will disappear into the government’s opaque offshore financial system. Also, there is no information as to how the Ministry of Health will use the funds. Reports by Eritrean human rights activists say the appeal is coerced, confirming the lack of transparency and accountability of the fundraising process.

There is also no transparency in the COVID-19 data that the Eritrean government is providing. It reported the first four COVID-positive cases on the 21st and 23rd of March. One patient was an Eritrean national resident in Norway, and the other three positive patients were Eritrean nationals returning from Dubai. Because of these events, by 26th March, the government banned all commercial passenger flights for two weeks. It also closed schools. And, by 1st April, it imposed COVID-19 lockdown measures.

Fears regarding the poor state of the Eritrean health system were further heightened when the Eritrean government refused COVID-19 emergency supplies donated by the Chinese billionaire Jack Ma and his Alibaba Group. Mr Hagos “Kisha” Gebrehiwet, the head of Economic Affairs in the ruling PFDJ, justified the rejection of Jack Ma’s donation by saying that it was unsolicited.

The lockdown measures did not include the closure of the Sawa military training camp or the release of political prisoners. The government has recently released 27 Christian prisoners, who were imprisoned without charge or trial for as long as sixteen years. Their release is conditional on their family lodging their property deeds with the government as a guarantee that the people released will not leave the country.

While maintaining a strict lockdown, the Eritrean government has allowed mass gatherings to celebrate the graduation of the 33rd round of Sawa military training camp graduates as well as the transfer of Grade 12 conscripts to the facility.

From 1st April to 18th April, the Eritrean government reported 39 COVID positive cases, all linked to Eritreans visiting or returning from their travels. Then, for two months, there were no new cases reported. After that, the number of COVID-positive cases increased, and by the 12th of October, Eritrea reported a total of 414 COVID-positive patients and 372 recoveries.

Though the government makes repeated references to quarantine centres, it has not shared a list of the centres, their location or capacity. It is also not reporting the daily number of COVID tests. Nor has it reported any COVID-related deaths or any community transmission of the virus. It continues to attribute all the new COVID cases to Eritreans returning through “irregular land and sea routes” from Ethiopia, Sudan, Djibouti and Yemen. But there is no explanation as to why so many nationals are travelling despite the government’s strict lockdown procedure that prohibits all movement between towns and that restricts te movement of any vehicles, including buses and taxis, which require movement permits. Such permits are not easy to obtain.

Finally, there are only five incidents of Ministry of Information reporting the number of individuals tested or in quarantine:

  1. 3,000 quarantined – 8th May 2020;
  2. 5,270 quarantined – 3rd June 2020;
  3. 7,158 nationals returned through irregular land and sea routes. Not clearly stated but the implication is that they were all quarantined – 14th June 2020;
  4. 18,000 citizens allegedly returned through irregular land and sea routes. This movement occurred in the last four months. Again, not clearly stated but the implication is that they were all quarantined – the 12th October 2020;
  5. 41,100 tests – 12th October 2020.

In a recent report, the Eritrean Ministry of Information asserted that the rate of COVID infection in the country was “a paltry 0.02%”, based on one (1) positive result during 4659 random tests done in Asmara”. The data shared by the government (41,100 tests and 414 COVID-positive cases) suggests that the rate of infection is just 1 per cent.

The COVID lockdown in Eritrea, like in other countries, has brought economic activities to a standstill. The difference between Eritrea and other countries is that the Eritrean economy was already on its knees before the lockdown and the Eritrean government has not made any attempt – beyond extorting donations from its citizens – to alleviate the suffering of the people with economic support packages. Consequently, Eritreans are hungry and desperate and have started to ignore strict lockdowns. They are on the streets selling all kinds of goods. Women are out in the streets, making tea and cooking food for sale. Family and friends describe Asmara, the capital city, as full of mobile tea shops.

In a recent report, the Eritrean Ministry of Information asserted that the rate of COVID infection in the country was “a paltry 0.02%”, based on one (1) positive result during 4659 random tests done in Asmara”. The data shared by the government (41,100 tests and 414 COVID-positive cases) suggests that the rate of infection is just 1 per cent.

The Eritrean Afars have, through the Red Sea Afar Human Rights Organisation (RSAHRO), issued a press statement, describing their situation under lockdown as a: “… siege imposed by the Eritrean regime on the citizens of the region.”. They warn of the danger of hunger in their area. They also describe confiscation of boats, camels and supplies by the military, closed health centres, unprepared quarantine centres, as well as lack of medical supplies. The human rights organisation also accuse General Tekle Manjus of confiscating trucks of emergency food sent from Asmara for distribution among the Afar.

The Afar coastal area is not the only area in danger of hunger. The information from Eritrea is that hunger is very real all over the country. The government media and social media accounts do not report the danger of hunger or any of the difficulties that the people are facing during this COVID-19 emergency. Their postings give the impression that Eritrea is doing just fine.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Search for a Puppet Chief Justice

The emotional energy invested in controlling the recruitment of the next Chief Justice could turn out to be a source of great frustration when administrative fiat and bench-fixing do not deliver the anticipated results.

Published

on

The Search for a Puppet Chief Justice
Download PDFPrint Article

Anxiety over who will replace Chief Justice David Maraga exploded into the public domain on Friday, October 16, 2020, when a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) alleged a plot to delay the recruitment process. Macharia Njeru, one of the two representatives of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to the JSC, claimed in a public statement that the Chief Justice and a few others were “hellbent on derailing the orderly recruitment of his successor and leaving the institution of the Judiciary in a crisis of leadership”.

LSK immediately dissociated itself from Macharia’s position and asserted that the “state capture of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service Commission would not be executed through its representatives”.

The parliamentary Justice and Legal Affairs Committee had earlier failed to prevail on Justice Maraga to take early terminal leave, and subsequently published a proposal to change the law on when to begin recruitment of a new Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will officially retire on January 12, 2021, when he turns 70, but he is expected to take leave on December 15, 2020.

Powerful individuals in the country’s politics cannot wait to see Justice Maraga’s back because of his surprising show of spine. On September 1, 2017, the mild-mannered and soft-spoken jurist led a four-judge majority of the Supreme Court to annul the presidential election in a decision that reverberated across the globe. Last month, Justice Maraga advised the President to dissolve Parliament for failing enact laws to increase representation of women in national elected leadership on the strength of a High Court declaration and six petitions.

Between the two monumental decisions, the Chief Justice has called out the President over judiciary budget cuts, disregard for court orders and verbal attacks on the institution he leads.

Justice Maraga’s name conjures up odium and foreboding in state organs at the executive and legislative levels, expressed through punitive budget cuts in the Judiciary, disregard of courts’ authority, and derisive rhetoric. None of these backhanded actions have brought the politically powerful any satisfaction, hence the abiding desire to find a more user-friendly Chief Justice.

Vacancies in the Judiciary can only be advertised fourteen days after they open up, according to the law, which means that the Chief Justice, who also chairs the JSC, plays no role in recruiting his successor. Previously, individuals in the presidency unsuccessfully sought to influence who becomes Chief Justice since the Constitution of Kenya, on its promulgation in 2010, retired Justice Evan Gicheru in February 2011. At the time, President Mwai Kibaki nominated the Court of Appeal’s Justice Alnashir Visram for Chief Justice without inviting applications or conducting interviews. He was countermanded by the newly-constituted JSC, which then conducted one of the most brutal public interviews for the position before choosing civil society icon and law scholar Willy Mutunga.

Justice Maraga’s name conjures up odium and foreboding in state organs at the executive and legislative levels, expressed through punitive budget cuts in the Judiciary, disregard of courts’ authority, and derisive rhetoric.

Dr Mutunga’s transparent recruitment freed him from the usual baggage that would accompany a political appointment to lead the transformation of the judiciary into an independent, publicly accountable institution [Full disclosure: I was communication advisor in the Office of the Chief Justice from 2011 to 2015]. By the time Dr Mutunga chose to retire a year early in June 2016, he had trebled the number of judges to increase efficiency, built confidence and secured the highest funding ever for the institution. He also ring-fenced decisional independence that would enable courts to act as a check on executive and legislative power.

After the Supreme Court upheld the 2013 presidential election, an internal corruption investigation in the Judiciary sucked the institution into a confrontation with the National Assembly, which petitioned the President to appoint a tribunal to investigate six members of the JSC. A five-judge High Court bench neutered the tribunal before it could sit and presented the first contest between Dr Mutunga and President Uhuru Kenyatta.

President Kenyatta would play possum with a list of 25 judge nominees presented to him by the JSC, first appointing 11 and then keeping the other 14 in abeyance for a year. An amendment to the law to require the JSC to send the President three names from which he could choose the Chief Justice was struck down on account of unconstitutionality.

When Dr Mutunga wanted to retire, the President declined to meet him, and the Speaker of the National Assembly refused to respond to his request to address Parliament. By the time interviews for Dr Mutunga’s replacement began in September 2016, the Executive was disoriented and unable to muscle its substantial vote strength in the JSC for a single candidate.

Although the presidency nominates two non-lawyers as members of the JSC in addition to the Attorney General and a nominee of the Public Service Commission, thus controlling 36 per cent of the vote, the Judiciary has five members – the Chief Justice as chair and one representative each for the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the magistrates – and has 45 per cent voice. The Law Society of Kenya’s two representatives – 18 per cent – provide an important swing vote for the Executive or the Judiciary whenever there is no consensus.

Justice Maraga of the Court of Appeal emerged as the dark horse in the three-month search for the Chief Justice on the strength of his electoral law jurisprudence. Earlier attempts to name Supreme Court judge Jackton Ojwang as acting Chief Justice were abandoned. Justice Ojwang trailed fellow Supreme Court judge Smokin Wanjala, Kenyan-American law professor Makau Mutua, and constitutional law expert Nzamba Kitonga.

When Dr Mutunga wanted to retire, the President declined to meet him, and the Speaker of the National Assembly refused to respond to his request to address Parliament.

The Supreme Court’s annulment of the presidential election in September 2017 produced voluble complaints from President Kenyatta, who threatened unspecified action against the Judiciary. The independence of the Judiciary, represented in the person of the Chief Justice, has clearly rankled President Kenyatta and his supporters. He subsequently began a systematic reorganisation of the Executive’s representatives to the JSC by picking a judiciary insider, Court of Appeal president, Kihara Kariuki, to replace Attorney General Githu Muigai. Even before the terms of public representatives Winnie Guchu and Kipng’etich Bett were midway, he recalled them and replaced them with Prof Olive Mugenda and Felix Koskey. And then he declined to gazette the re-election of Mohammed Warsame as Court of Appeal representative to the JSC. Judge Warsame was finally seated without re-taking oath courtesy of a court decision that obviated the need for his election to be gazetted. He joined the judiciary column led by the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, who had been elected to represent the Supreme Court, and Justice David Majanja, who represents the High Court.

Fears have been rife that the election of the magistrates’ representative to replace Chief Magistrate Emily Ominde in December and the replacement of LSK woman representative Mercy Deche could provide an opportunity for the Executive to support pliant candidates, in addition to Macharia Njeru.

It is likely that urgent attempts to start the Chief Justice’s recruitment could exclude the two representatives of the magistrates and the LSK, thus denying the panel two critical voices. Voting strength in the JSC could also be significantly altered if some of the commissioners apply for the Chief Justice’s position. For one, it is not clear if the 62-year-old Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, who already represents the Supreme Court in the JSC, will act as chairperson of the commission once Justice Maraga leaves.

Although voting is an important factor in choosing the next Chief Justice, qualification is probably more important. And the public scrutiny candidates are subjected to, complete with court oversight when required, means that a naked attempt to install a puppet would backfire.

Political horse-trading with Parliament is a necessity for nominees to the position of Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice to be confirmed during vetting. Often, politicians view the Chief Justice’s position as one of the spoils to be traded during ethno-regional deal-making. So far, the Chief Justice’s position has been occupied by a kaleidoscope of Kenyans – including many ethnic and religious colourations.

The law only provides for the Deputy Chief Justice to act as Chief Justice “[i]n the event of the removal, resignation or death” and only for a period not exceeding six months pending the appointment of a new one. It remains to be seen if legal experts will argue that retirement is not equivalent to removal, resignation or death. Should Justice Mwilu also throw her hat in the ring for the top job, she would not be able to cast a vote as a JSC member.

Another JSC member who has to weigh between voting and chasing the job is 66-year-old Justice Kihara Kariuki, believed to be a front-runner to succeed Chief Justice Evan Gicheru in 2011 but has bided his time, rising to President of the Court of Appeal before accepting to serve as Attorney General. Meanwhile, Justice Mwilu has been embroiled in petitions seeking her removal from office since the Supreme Court annulled the presidential election. Two years ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Criminal Investigations launched a highly publicised effort to arrest and charge her with corruption before the High Court discharged her and advised that complaints against her be first have been processed through the JSC. Justice Mwilu has since tied the JSC in legal knots over the involvement of the Attorney General and one other member in hearing the complaint against her, claiming that they have shown bias.

Although the Constitution allows a Chief Justice to serve for a maximum of 10 years, the practice so far has been to choose individuals who are close to the retirement age, with the effect that those chosen preside over only presidential petitions from one election cycle before they reach the retirement age of 70. If appointments continue to be short-term to limit the pain individuals can inflict on the institution, candidates in their mid-60s appear to be chosen to navigate the 2022 election and leave before the 2027 one.

Although voting is an important factor in choosing the next Chief Justice, qualification is probably more important. And the public scrutiny candidates are subjected to, complete with court oversight when required, means that a naked attempt to install a puppet would backfire.

Although the Supreme Court’s Justice Smokin Wanjala gave a good showing at the 2016 interviews and was ranked second, his age – 60 – means that if appointed, he would hold the job for 10 years. Law scholar Makau Mutua, 62, who was ranked third in the 2016 interviews for Chief Justice, could also give the job another try, as would former Attorney General Githu Muigai, who would similarly be hampered by fears of serving out the 10 years in the post.

The Executive’s frustration with the Judiciary has been expressed as blame for the slow pace of corruption cases, where the courts are criticised for not pulling their weight to deliver quick convictions. The most evident sign of frustration has been the President’s refusal to appoint 41 individuals nominated by the JSC as Court of Appeal and High Court judges. The law does not permit the JSC to reconsider its nominees after the names have been submitted to the President, except in the case of death, incapacity or withdrawal of a nominee. Last week, judge designate Harrison Okeche died after a road traffic accident before he could be sworn in because the President has not published the names as expected. It remains to be seen how the JSC responds.

Chief Justices chair the Judicial Service Commission, and preside over the Supreme Court, which decides the presidential election petitions. Besides the very constrained and collegial power in these two sites, the Chief Justice also exercises administrative power in empanelling High Court benches for constitutional references, and posts judges – powers shared with the President of the Court of Appeal and the Presiding Judge of the High Court.

A Chief Justice cannot direct judicial officers – from the lowliest magistrate to the Supreme Court judge – on how to decide a matter. Much of the power she or he wields is moral and symbolic. The emotional energy invested in controlling the recruitment of the next Chief Justice could turn out to be a source of great frustration when administrative fiat and bench-fixing do not deliver the anticipated results for those seeking a puppet Chief Justice.

Continue Reading

Politics

African Continent a Milking Cow for Google and Facebook

‘Sandwich’ helps tech giants avoid tax in Africa via the Netherlands and Ireland.

Published

on

Algorithmic Colonisation of Africa
Download PDFPrint Article

Google’s office at the airport residential area in Accra, Ghana, sits inside a plain white and blue two-storey building that could do with a coat of paint. Google, which made more than US$ 160 billion in global revenue in 2019, of which an estimated US$ eighteen billion in ‘Africa and the Middle East’, pays no tax in Ghana, nor does it do so in most of the countries on the African continent.

Google Street View of the building registered as Google's office in Accra

Google Street View of the building registered as Google’s office in Accra

It is able to escape tax duties because of an old regulation that says that an individual or entity must have a ‘physical presence’ in the country in order to owe tax.  And Google’s Accra office clearly defines itself as ‘not a physical presence.’ When asked, a front desk employee at the building says it is perfectly alright for Google not to display its logo on the door outside. ‘It is our right to choose if we do that or not’. A visitor to the building, who said she was there for a different company, said she had no idea Google was based inside.

Facebook is even less visible. Even though practically all 250 million smartphone owners in Africa use Facebook, it only has an office in South Africa, making that country the only one on the continent where it pays tax.

Brick and mortar

The physical presence rule in African tax laws is ‘remnant of a situation before the digital economy, where a company could only act in a country if it had a “brick and mortar” building’, says an official of the Nigerian Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), who wants to remain anonymous. ‘Many countries did not foresee the digital economy and its ability to generate income without a physical presence. This is why tax laws didn’t cover them’.

Tax administrations globally have initiated changes to allow for the taxing of digital entities since at least 2017. African countries still lag behind, which is why the continent continues to provide lucrative gains for the tech giants. A 2018 PriceWaterhouseCoopers report noted that Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, has seen an average of a thirty percent year-on-year growth in internet advertising in the last five years, and that the same sector in that country is projected, in 2020, to amount to US$ 125 million in the entertainment and media industry alone.

‘Their revenue comes from me’.

William Ansah, Ghana-based CEO of leading West African advertising company Origin 8, pays a significant amount of his budget to online services. He says he is aware that tax on his payments to Facebook and Google escapes his country through what is commonly referred to as ‘transfer pricing’ and feels bad about it. ‘These companies should pay tax here, in Ghana, because their revenue comes from me’, he says, showing us a receipt from Google Ireland for his payments. During this investigation we were also shown an advert receipt from a Nigerian Facebook ad that listed ‘Ireland’ as the destination of the payment.

Like Google, Facebook does not provide country-by-country reports of its revenue from Africa or even from the African continent as a whole, but the tech giant reported general revenue of US$ sixty billion as a whole from ‘Rest of the world’, which is the world minus the USA, Canada, Europe and Asia.

Facebook revenue by user geography

Facebook revenue by user geography

Irish Double

The specific transfer pricing construction Google and other tech giants such as Facebook use to channel income away from tax obligations is called an ‘Irish Double’ or ‘Dutch Sandwich’, since both countries are used in the scheme. In the construction, the income is declared in Ireland, then routed to the Netherlands, then transferred to Bermuda, where Google Ireland is officially located. Bermuda is a country with no corporation tax. According to documents filed at the Dutch Chamber of Commerce in December 2018, Google moved US$ 22,7 billion through a Dutch shell company to Bermuda in 2017.

Moustapha Cisse, Africa team lead at Google AI

Moustapha Cisse, Africa team lead at Google AI

An ongoing court case in Ghana — albeit on a different issue — recently highlighted attempts by Google to justify its tax-avoiding practices in that country. The case against Google Ghana and Google Inc, now called Google LLC in the USA, was started by lawyer George Agyemang Sarpong, who held that both entities were responsible for defamatory material against him that had been posted on the Ghana platform. Responding to the charge, Google Ghana contended in court documents that it was not the ‘owner of the search engine www.google.com.gh’; that it did not ‘operate or control the search engine’ and that ‘its business (was) different from Google Inc’.

Google Ghana is an ‘artificial intelligence research facility’.

Google Ghana describes itself in company papers as an ‘Artificial Intelligence research facility’. It says that its business is to ‘provide sales and operational support for services provided by other legal entities’, a construction whereby these other legal entities — in this case Google Inc — are responsible for any material on the platform. Google Ghana emphasised during the court case that Ghana’s advertising money was also correctly paid to Google Ireland Ltd, because this company is formally a part of Google Inc.

Rowland Kissi, law lecturer at the University of Professional Studies in Accra describes Google’s defence in the Sarpong court case as a ‘clever attempt’ by the business to shirk all ‘future liability of the platform’. Kissi is cautiously optimistic about the outcome, though: while the case is ongoing, the court has already asserted that ‘the distinction regarding who is responsible for material appearing on www.google.com.gh, is not so clear as to absolve the first defendant (Google Ghana) from blame before trial’. According to leading tax lawyer and expert Abdallah Ali-Nakyea, if the ‘government can establish that Google Ghana is an agent of Google Inc, the state could compel it to pay all relevant taxes including income taxes and withholding taxes’.

Cash-strapped countries

Like most countries, especially in Africa, Nigeria and Ghana have become more cash-strapped than usual as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic. While lockdowns enforced by governments to stop the spread of the virus have caused sharp contractions of the economy worldwide, ‘much worse than during the 2008–09 financial crisis’, according to the International Monetary Fund, Africa has experienced unprecedented shrinking, with sectors such as aviation, tourism and hospitality hardest hit. (Ironically, in the same period, tech giants like Google and Facebook have emerged from the pandemic stronger, due to, among others, the new reality that people work from home.)

With much needed tax income still absent, many countries have become even more dependent on charitable handouts. Nigeria recently sent out a tweet to ask international tech personality and philanthropist, Elon Musk, for a donation of ventilators to help weather the COVID 19 pandemic: ‘Dear @elonmusk @Tesla, Federal Government of Nigeria needs support with 100-500 ventilators to assist with #Covid19 cases arising every day in Nigeria’, it said. After Nigerians on Twitter accused the government of historically not investing adequately in public health, pointing at neglect leading to a situation where a government ministry was now begging for help on social media, the tweet was deleted. A government spokesperson later commented that the tweet had been ‘unauthorised’.

Cost to public

The criticism that governments often mismanage their budgets and that much money is lost to corruption regularly features in public debates in many countries in Africa, including Nigeria. However, executive secretary Logan Wort of the African Tax Administration Forum ATAF has argued that this view should not be used to excuse tax avoidance. In a previous interview with ZAM Wort said that ‘African countries must develop their tax base. It is only in this way that we can become independent from handouts and resource exploitation. Then, if a government does not use the tax money in the way it should, it must be held accountable by the taxpayers. A tax paying people is a questioning people’.

‘A tax paying people is a questioning people’

Commenting on this investigation, Alex Ezenagu, Professor of Taxation and Commercial Law at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar, adds that in matters of tax avoidance by ‘popular multinationals such as Facebook and Google, it is important to understand the cost to the public. If (large) businesses don’t pay tax, the burden is shifted to either small businesses or low income earners because the revenue deficit would have to be met one way or another’. For example, a Nigerian revenue gap may cause the government to increase other taxes, Ezenagu says, such as value added tax, which increased from five to seven and a half percent in Nigeria in January. ‘When multinationals don’t pay tax, you are taxed more as a person’.

Nigeria has recently begun to tighten its tax laws, thereby following in the footsteps of Europe, that last year made it more difficult for the digital multinationals to use the ‘Irish Double’ to escape tax in their countries. South Africa, too, in 2019 tailored changes to its tax laws in order to close remaining legal loopholes used by the tech giants. These ‘could raise (tax income) up to US$ 290 million a year’ more from companies like Google and Facebook, a South African finance source said. With US$ 290 million, Ghana’s could fund its flagship free senior high school education; Nigeria could fully fund the annual budget (2016/2017 figures) of Oyo, a state in the south west of the country.

Interior view of the Facebook office in Johannesburg, South Africa

Interior view of the Facebook office in Johannesburg, South Africa

Waiting for the Finance Minister

Nigeria’s new Finance Act, signed into law in January 2020, has expanded provisions to shift the country’s focus from physical presence to ‘significant economic presence’. The new law leaves the question whether a prospective taxpayer has a ‘significant economic presence’ in Nigeria to the determination of the Finance Minister, whose action with regard to the tech giants is awaited.

In Ghana, digital taxation discussions are slowly gaining momentum among policy makers. The Deputy Commissioner of that country’s Large Taxpayer Office, Edward Gyamerah, said in a June 2019 presentation that current rules ‘must be revised to cover the digital economy and deal with companies that don’t have traditional brick-and-mortar office presences’. However, a top government official at Ghana’s Ministry of Finance who was not authorised to speak publicly stated that, ‘from the taxation policy point of view, the government has not paid a lot attention to digital taxation’.

He blamed the ‘complexity of developing robust infrastructure to assess e-commerce activity in the country’ as a major reason for the government’s inaction on this, but hoped that a broad digital tax policy would still be announced in 2020.” Until the authorities get around to this, he said he believed that, ‘Google and Facebook will (continue to) pay close to nothing in Ghana’.

Comment

Google Nigeria did not respond to several requests for interviews; Google Ghana did not respond to a request for comment on this investigation. Neither entities responded to a list of questions, which included queries as to what of their activities in the two countries might be liable for tax, and whether they could publish country by country revenues generated in Africa. When reached by phone, Google Nigeria’s Head of Communications, Taiwo Kola Ogunlade, said that he couldn’t speak on the company’s taxation status. Facebook spokesperson Kezia Anim-Addo said in an email: ‘Facebook pays all taxes required by law in the countries in which we operate (where we have offices), and we will continue to comply with our obligations’.

Note: The figure of eighteen billion US$ as revenue for Google in ‘Africa and the Middle East’ over 2019 was arrived at as follows. Google’s EMEA figures for 2019 indicate US$ 40 billion revenue for ‘Africa, Europe and the Middle East’ all together. According to this German publication, Google’s revenue in Europe was 22 billion in 2019This leaves US$ eighteen billion for Africa and the Middle East.

This article was first published by our partner ZAM Magazine.

Continue Reading

Trending