Tag Archives: African Court

AU Should Strengthen its Framework to Curb Violence Against Women

People participate in a march held to call a halt to gender-based violence on International Women’s Day in Nairobi, Kenya, March 8, 2019. © 2019 Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP via Getty Images

New York, USA, 13 March 2026 -/African Media Agency (AMA)/- Violence against women and girls in Africa demands urgent action. As of 2023, it is estimated that one in three women and girls between ages 15 and 49, have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Last November, South Africa classified violence against women as a  a national disaster.

When the African Union adopted its Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls in early 2025, UN Women  and several governments  celebrated  it as progress. But across the continent, women’s rights organizations are warning against premature optimism and calling for the treaty to be strengthened.

Indeed, the African Union needs to increase compliance with the existing legal framework, and strengthen the latest one, if it is to lead to tangible improvements for women and girls.

Africa already had one of the world’s most progressive regional frameworks addressing this crisis: the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, commonly known as the Maputo Protocol, adopted in 2003 (effective 2005). Maputo guarantees comprehensive protections; from generally obligating states to enact and enforce laws to prohibit all forms of violence against women to taking appropriate measures to prevent and eliminate such violence.

However, there have been  significant setbacks to enforcing it, such as slow passage of national laws and enforcement, and reservations by some countries on key provisions—reproductive health and safe abortion, equality in marriage. The new convention will face similar obstacles if the AU doesn’t address the warnings that it may be used to water down protections already guaranteed under Maputo, burden governments with duplicate reporting requirements, and create confusion around enforcement because of the competing legal frameworks.

Organizations like the Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) and Akina Mama wa Afrika have noted under the initiative#PauseforPurpose, the risk that the convention might lead to backsliding. The African Bar Association has already published  model reservations suggesting governments water down the convention’s commitments.

Reports from grassroots organizations and survivor-led groups that they were shut out of consultations in drafting the new convention are troubling. Fos Feminista, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies have all raised red flags. When credible voices across the continent sound the alarm, their warnings warrant careful attention.

The AU Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls includes some provisions that add to the Maputo Protocol: explicit protections against cyberviolence and femicide, stronger workplace harassment provisions, and attention to marginalized groups like women with disabilities and refugees. These are important provisions that align with international treaties including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Violence and Harassment Convention (C190) on violence in the world of work.

However, the convention, with its narrower operational focus, doesn’t explicitly incorporate the comprehensive rights framework for preventing violence such as Maputo’s provisions for sexual and reproductive health rights, including access to safe abortion (article 14), and on equality in marriage, divorce, and inheritance (articles 6 and 7), and safeguards against child, early, and forced marriages.

The Committee of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the body that interprets the international treaty,  affirmed that violence against women is inseparable from structural discrimination, including denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights, and inequality in marriage and family relations.

Any regional framework that addresses violence without confronting the underlying inequality risks treating symptoms rather than root causes. At a minimum, the African Union should ensure that the Convention on Ending Violence is read together with the full scope of Maputo’s obligations to complement and enhance them and not to diminish them.

The document is riddled with vague language, such as “positive masculinity” and “African values and norms,” that could risk loopholes for enforceable rights, by arguing for cultural discretion.

We’ve already seen this play out with Cameroon’s and Uganda’s reservations to the Maputo Protocol, contending that some provisions are inconsistent with African ethical and moral values or principles, though Maputo also recognizes “the crucial role of women in the preservation of African values based on the principles of equality, peace, freedom, dignity, justice, solidarity and democracy.” Without clear definitions, the new convention could be used to open the door wider.

The new convention relies on the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to monitor its implementation—as it already does with the Maputo Protocol—rather than creating a new treaty body. The commission already faces significant challenges, primarily due to severe resource constraints and a heavy existing workload. For it to act as a monitoring body for the convention, and to prevent weakening the existing legal framework, the AU needs to provide clear guidance on the relationship between the two instruments and overlapping obligations, and standards to avoid complications in reporting and an increased strain on an enforcement system that already lacks adequate resources.

At the same time calls to “pause ratification” also require caution. In AU practice, prolonged ratification pauses have often led to political stagnation rather than substantive reform, allowing states to evade both existing and new obligations. Moreover, a pause without a clear AU-mandated review process risks creating uncertainty and fragmented obligations across governments, with some proceeding with ratification and others not, running counter to AU norms of requiring all countries to meet the same standards.

Once the AU has adopted a treaty, it has not traditionally suspended or paused ratification, even when important gaps existed, but instead it has favored progressive development that complements existing requirements.

Consistent with its treaty-making norms, as happened with the  Malabo Protocol amending the African Court Statute, a mechanism to close the gaps could take the form of an amendment or interpretive protocol that clarifies the relationship between Maputo and the new convention and reinforces existing obligations, while avoiding creating parallel regimes, or interpretations that lower established standards.

The path to ending violence against women and girls in Africa requires first getting states to ratify the Maputo Protocol without reservations and to push for governments that have reservations to withdraw them. It means the AU should increase funding for robust implementation and monitoring mechanisms, including more resources allocated to the Commission to match the expansion of its mandates.

In the meantime, the AU should commit to addressing gaps in its new Convention on Ending Violence through inclusive consultations with civil society. Meaningful participation is not a courtesy; it is a foundational principle of the African Charter. A convention of this nature without robust consultation risks undermining its own legitimacy. We cannot afford to continue wasting time.

Distributed by African Media Agency (AMA) on behalf of Human Right Watch

 

The post AU Should Strengthen its Framework to Curb Violence Against Women appeared first on African Media Agency.

South Africa: Cyril Ramaphosa to meet with Donald Trump in US next week

It is difficult to hide: relations between South Africa and the United States are strained and have been so for months.

Since Donald Trump took office again as president of the United States, the two countries have repeatedly clashed over the US plan to resettle white South African farmers, which Donald Trump claims face “racial discrimination” in South Africa.

And in March, Washington expelled the South African ambassador Ebrahim Rasool over critical comments he had made on the subject of the Trump administration.

Could a meeting however help improve the situation?

Late on Wednesday, Pretoria announced that South African president Cyril Ramaphosa would travel to Washington next week. On the agenda is a meeting with Donald Trump.

While the South African presidency did not further comment on the issues to be discussed by the two presidents, the tensions surrounding the white farmers’ refugee status, which the US granted earlier this week, are likely to be included in the talks.

The US welcomed 59 white South Africans as refugees this Monday, the start of what the Trump administration said is a larger relocation plan for minority Afrikaner farmers who Trump has claimed are being persecuted in their homeland because of their race.

South Africa denies the allegations and says whites in the majority Black country are not being singled out for persecution.

No evidence of “genocide” of white farmers

The Republican president has singled out South Africa over what the US calls racist laws against whites and has accused the government of “fueling” violence against white farmers.

The South African government says the relatively small number of killings of white farmers should be condemned but are part of the country’s problems with violent crime and are not racially motivated.

Trump said Monday that there was “a genocide taking place” against white farmers that was being ignored by international media.

This claim has previously however been discredited, most recently so by a South African court ruling in February.

The US criticism of what it calls South Africa’s racist, anti-white laws appears to refer to South Africa’s affirmative action laws that advance opportunities for Black people, and a new land expropriation law that gives the government power to take private land without compensation.

Although the government says the land law is not a confiscation tool and refers to unused land that can be redistributed for the public good, some Afrikaner groups say it could allow their land to be seized and redistributed to some of the country’s Black majority.

Source: Africanews

South Africa: Cyril Ramaphosa to meet with Donald Trump in US next week

It is difficult to hide: relations between South Africa and the United States are strained and have been so for months.

Since Donald Trump took office again as president of the United States, the two countries have repeatedly clashed over the US plan to resettle white South African farmers, which Donald Trump claims face “racial discrimination” in South Africa.

And in March, Washington expelled the South African ambassador Ebrahim Rasool over critical comments he had made on the subject of the Trump administration.

Could a meeting however help improve the situation?

Late on Wednesday, Pretoria announced that South African president Cyril Ramaphosa would travel to Washington next week. On the agenda is a meeting with Donald Trump.

While the South African presidency did not further comment on the issues to be discussed by the two presidents, the tensions surrounding the white farmers’ refugee status, which the US granted earlier this week, are likely to be included in the talks.

The US welcomed 59 white South Africans as refugees this Monday, the start of what the Trump administration said is a larger relocation plan for minority Afrikaner farmers who Trump has claimed are being persecuted in their homeland because of their race.

South Africa denies the allegations and says whites in the majority Black country are not being singled out for persecution.

No evidence of “genocide” of white farmers

The Republican president has singled out South Africa over what the US calls racist laws against whites and has accused the government of “fueling” violence against white farmers.

The South African government says the relatively small number of killings of white farmers should be condemned but are part of the country’s problems with violent crime and are not racially motivated.

Trump said Monday that there was “a genocide taking place” against white farmers that was being ignored by international media.

This claim has previously however been discredited, most recently so by a South African court ruling in February.

The US criticism of what it calls South Africa’s racist, anti-white laws appears to refer to South Africa’s affirmative action laws that advance opportunities for Black people, and a new land expropriation law that gives the government power to take private land without compensation.

Although the government says the land law is not a confiscation tool and refers to unused land that can be redistributed for the public good, some Afrikaner groups say it could allow their land to be seized and redistributed to some of the country’s Black majority.

Source: Africanews

White South Africans welcomed in US not “refugees”, South African leaders and scholars say

South African leaders and scholars dispute the qualification of “refugees” for white South Africans relocating to the United States, after US authorities welcomed a first group of Afrikaners on Monday.

The group, made of 49 people according to Associated Press and 59 according to Reuters, were granted refugee status under a relocation programme announced by the Trump administration in February. 

While obtaining for refugee status in the US can be a yearslong process, the US government fast-tracked applications from white South Africans, under the justification that they were the targets of persecution and racial discrimination in their homeland. 

US President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that Afrikaners were victims of a genocide, echoing the far-right conspiracy theory supported by his South African-born adviser Elon Musk

In February, a South African court dismissed claims of a white genocide in the country as “clearly imagined and not real.”

South African authorities have also repeatedly disputed allegations of persecution and discrimination against this white minority group.

“A refugee is someone who has to leave their country out of fear of political persecution, religious persecution or economic persecution, and they don’t fit that bill”, South Africa’s president Cyril Ramaphosa said during a conference in Abidjan on Monday.

“Those people who have fled are not being persecuted. They are not being hounded. They are not being treated badly. They are leaving ostensibly because they don’t want to embrace the changes that are taking place in our country, in accordance with our Constitution”, he added.

Afrikaners, who mainly descend from Dutch settlers, are among the “most economically privileged” in the country, South Africa’s government said in a February statement.

“Certainly, these individuals don’t fall in the category of refugee,and the reason why the South African government has to insist on this is because it ys going to then give credibility to the lie that indeed they are being persecuted, that indeed they are running away from some conflict, some white genocide and so forth”, said Dr. Oscar van Heerden, senior research fellow at the centre for African Diplomacy and Leadership at the University of Johannesburg.

Dr. van Heerden said the US had to call white South African “refugees” to justify the expenses necessary to their relocation.

“We traditionally over the last 30 years have been a receiver of refugees from all over the Southern African continent”, he said.

“And now because of this stunt that is being pulled by the Trump administration, they are trying to say to the world that we ourselves have now become a country where people are seeking refugee status.” 

In a phone conversation, South Africa’s president Cyril Ramaphosa told Donald Trump he had received false information on Afrikaners’ situation.  

Trump told reporters he planned to address the issue with South African leadership in a meeting next week. 

The group of Afrikaners arrived at Dulles International Airport outside Washington DC on a private charter plane and were greeted by Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar

The US government has made the resettlement of white South Africans a priority, despite engaging in a wider crackdown on asylum seekers from other countries. 

On the same day that Afrikaners arrived in the US, the Trump administration revoked temporary deportation protections for Afghan people, citing “an improved security situation” and a “stabilising economy” in Afghanistan, which is ruled by the Taliban

Source: Africanews

Desperate DPP Vuwa Kaunda drags Malawi Govt to African Court for nullifying his Nkhatabay central seat

Desperate Vuwa Runs to African Court

MZUZU-(MaraviPost)-Desperate opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) former Member of Parliament for Nkhata Bay Central Constituency, Symon Vuwa Kaunda, has dragged Malawi government to African Court on Human and People’s Rights in Arusha – Tanzania following a decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal to nullify his seat.

Vuwa Kaunda told Zodiak online that he has sought to obtain a stay in his application at the African Union Court to review the Supreme Court of Appeal’s basis to nullify the 2019 Parliamentary Election.

Malawi’s Attorney General (AG) Dr. Chikosa Silungwe has since confirmed receipt of the application of notice last but said he is yet to make a recommendation on the way forward to government.

Meanwhile, Malawi Electoral Commission Chairperson Justice Chifundo Kachale said they are yet to be served as preparations for the June 29, 2021 by-election in the disputed constituency and two other wards are currently underway.

The Supreme Court nullified Vuwa Kaunda’s Victory after People’s Party (PP) politician Raphael Mhone appealed against a Mzuzu High Court judgment that upheld Kaunda’s victory in the elections.

In 2019, MEC declared Kaunda as winner of the elections with 6,418 votes against close Mhone’s 6,412.

Mhone challenged Vuwa’s election arguing that there were irregularities that affected the outcome, which the Supreme Court agreed with