CHRR, Cedep Joint Press Statement

CHRR, Cedep Response to Malawi Governments intimidation

over CSOs role in UPR and other UN mechanisms: We remain steadfast
in our human rights and governance obligations
1.0. Preamble
We, the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR)
and Centre for Development of People (Cedep), have learnt
with deep shock and regret the recent intimidatory rants by the
Malawi government through the Solicitor General and Secretary to
the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs accusing the Civil
Society Organizations who appeared before the working group
during the recent pre-sessions of the 2nd review of UPR due in
May of ambushing government with issues which were not raised
at country level with her government. In both the media interview
and during her opening speech at the working session of Malawis
taskforce on Convention against torture (CAT) at Lilongwe hotel
on 15th April 2015, the Solicitor General took a swipe to label the
CSOs who frequent Geneva as unpatriotic who are only hell-bent
at portraying a bad picture of government while neglecting the
remarkable progress made by government in human rights realm.
The Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs
further alleged that the CSOs were doing all this just to please their
donor masters for sustainability of their institutions.
2.0. Our response to unpatriotism accusations
To begin with, we at CHRR and Cedep are on one hand not surprised
with the unpatriotic accusations levelled against us by the Solicitor
General considering the fact that some other prominent government
politicians including the Minister of Gender Hon. Patricia Kaliati,
Minister of Information Kondwani Nankhumwa and Minister of
Health Jean Kalilani have of the recent past made similar chants
especially following our joint anti-NACGATE advocacy with other 20
Civil Society Organisations in the country with the climax of it being
the 13th January 2015 demonstrations against bad governance
and political abuse and interference in HIV/AIDS funds at National
Aids Commission (NAC) for activities which have nothing to do with
HIV/AIDS prevention and response. Coming from another highly
ranked government official is no surprise but rather confirms the
existing collective philosophy in the current APMs regime that
any actor/stakeholder who decides to expose the current regime
gaffes, especially on the international scene, is unpatriotic.
Patriotism, according to APM regimes dictionary is merely
singing praise of the current regime in the midst of shortfalls
requiring urgent national and international response to remedy
the same.
However, what is surprising to us on the other hand is to hear
such ill-advised comments being echoed by a respected
professional who is well conversant with the international
reporting mechanisms including Universal Periodic Review
(UPR) and other UN mechanisms. This is retrogressive in as far
as the governments committed efforts towards protection and
promotion of human rights for all in line with the international
human rights instruments to which it is party to are concerned.
We, CHRR and Cedep, would like to reiterate what we said a month
ago that we will never be part of the docile citizenry that tacitly
supports mediocrity in the name of patriotism, if patriotism.
As human rights defenders, we will never sacrifice the social
accountability movement, both locally and internationally, at
the altar of a professed patriotism. We will never be part of
those hand clappers who entertain mediocrity under the guise
of patriotism. Malawians of good will are the best judges of who a
true patriot is.
3.0. Do/Did CSOs really ambush government with issues in Geneva?
Governments deliberate distortion of facts as a tool to divert
public attention from real issues requiring its urgent response
and accountability
We at CHRR and Cedep also find wanting the accusations made by
the Solicitor General that government is often ambushed with issues
which it has no canal knowledge of at country level but are presented
by CSOs in Geneva. The accusation, in our view, is one of the current
regimes strategies or propaganda aimed at diverting the public
attention from real issues of human concern requiring governments

urgent response and accountability. With reference to the recent

UPR-precession in Geneva attended by government officials and civil
society actors including CHRR, Cedep, IPAs, MISA-Malawi Chapter,
NGO Coalition on Child Rights (NGO CCR), the issues which
appeared in the CSOs presentation were not new, and most of
them had been repeatedly raised domestically with government.
It is wrong for one to suggest that matters pertaining to access to
information, legal barriers to enjoyment freedom of expression,
operationalization of the Independent Complaints Commission,
sexual reproductive health, the continued underfunding of
human rights bodies like Ombudsman, Malawi Human Rights
Commission, Legal Aid bureau, LGBTI, child protection and
rights, access to justice, July 20 saga, people living with albinism,
extrajudicial killings and protection of vulnerable groups,
poor prison conditions, protection of human rights defenders,
freedom of assembly and association, Chasowa and Kalonga
Stambuli, cashgate cases, just to mention a few, came as an
ambush to government in the recent Geneva sessions. Instead of
suppressing the CSOs voice in UPR and other international human
rights mechanisms, we urge the government to put its house in order
and address the concerns once and for all as part of her human rights
obligations and commitment to international instruments to which
Malawi is party to.
4.0. Our response to allegations of portraying a bad picture of the
current regime as a fundraising tool to win donor support for
sustainability of our institutions
We, CHRR and Cedep, do not only perceive the above subject
allegations from the government through the Solicitor General as
absurd, illogical but also insensitive. Donors that support government
and CSOs work particularly in human rights and democratic
governance need to be applauded for such a complimentary
role in the promotion and protection of human rights for all. It is
therefore insensitive for a government to fault those donors
who support CSOs work at international mechanisms, which the
country is party to and hence obliged to fulfil its commitments,
in putting government to task on its continued failure to bring
to conclusion, for instance, Kalonga Stambuli mysterious death,
Robert chasowa Murder and governments continued unfilled
promises on the tabling of access to information bill just to
mention a few of issues presented by CSOs. If anything, such
donors should be commended for supporting CSOs initiatives to
see to it that just is attained in the best interest of the victims and
the vulnerable groups.To put the record straight, we at CHRR and
Cedep have no problems with any donor supporting the protection
and promotion of human rights (civil, political, cultural, economic
rights) and good governance through government, civil society or
any other player towards human and economic development. After
all, while strides have to be made for the country to work towards
reducing donor dependence it is a fact that at this level we still need
such support towards the full realization of human rights by all.
It is also misleading on the part of government to suggest that CSOs
only dwell on thenegativeswhile deliberately ignoring thepositives
registered by government. The government and the general republic
can be referred to all the shadow reports and statements we have
been presenting at these forums to appreciate the blend of issues
being raised. However, it is imperative to point out that while
some positives have been registered there is still more work in
human rights realm that needs governments attention, and it
would be suicidal on our part as a country (government and civil
society included) to dwell much on the successes at the expense
of areas requiring urgent attention.
5.0. The role of CSOs in UPR and other UN and international
mechanisms/treaty (e.g. ACHPR) bodies in promotion and
protection of human rights for all
We, CHRR and Cedep, are also disturbed by Solicitor Generals
attempts to portray the picture that CSOs just wake up to go to
Geneva and report ill about the current government in the process
downplaying the relevance and importance of CSOs in UPR and other

international mechanisms including those relating to UN, African

Commission on Human and Peoples Rights. Who mandates the
CSOs to go to Geneva? The answer is simple: The government of
Malawi, by virtue of being party to the various UN mechanisms
and treaty bodies, mandates the CSOs to go to Geneva to
appear before the various UN mechanisms including ICCPR,
UPR and also other international forums on the continent like
the ACHPR etc. Besides, some CSOs like CHRR, Cedep are part of
governments coordinated taskforces on various international
mechanisms including UPR which partly speaks volume of
Malawi governments recognition of the importance of the
role of CSOs in these international mechanisms particularly in
providing a comprehensive picture of the human rights situation
in the country. It is also a fact that both CHRR and Cedep continue
to champion their human rights work at UN level through different
UN mechanisms such as the International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
CHRR has an observer status at African Commission on Human and
Peoples Rights.
Furthermore, the UN through its various mechanisms recognize the
vital role the CSOs have in providing the alternative. For instance,
under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) the assessment of the
human rights records of the concerned country are based on three
sources of information, namely: information by the State under
review; experts report; and stakeholders like NGOs. It is important to
stress that the treaty bodies also receive additional information
from other sources such as National Human Rights institutions,
national, regional or international NGOs, and other Civil Society
actors. Reports from national NGOs/CSOs are of particular value
to the treaty bodies in examining State reports, as they provide
an alternative source of information on the human rights
situation in a particular country. This makes such reports easy
and useful tools for the work of treaty body members who can
crosscheck and compare information with that supplied by the
State party.
In short, the CSOs can play a vital role in UPR and other international
mechanisms by participating in national consultations preceding
the drafting of the state party; submitting their own reports
to the treaty bodies; following up of the recommendations of
treaty bodies through monitoring the efforts of government to
implement the concluding observations and recommendations
of the treaty bodies, and reporting this information back to the
treaty bodies either through formal submissions or informally;
and also lobbying governments to implement the concluding
observations.
6.0. The Way forward: We will not be moved an inch from fulfilling our
human rights and governance obligations
We at CHRR and Cedep would like to reiterate that the recent
sentiments by the current regime will not move us an inch in fulfilling
our human rights and governance obligations as human rights
defenders. If anything, these remarks have only strengthened our
inward resolve to fearlessly stand for justice, good governance and
human rights for all. No dictatorial sentiment, let alone political
threats, shall succeed in wooing us to depart from the path of
reason. We remain charged up for the noble service in the best
interest of human rights for all. We are, and shall remain human
rights servants!!!!
Signed by

Timothy Mtambo
Executive Director, CHRR
mtambot@chrrmw.org
Cell: 0 992 166 191

Gift Trapence
Executive Director CEDEP
gtrapence@gmail.co.uk
Cells: 0 991 573 514

Issued on Monday, 20th April 2015, Lilongwe, Malawi