<em>Henry Kalenga vs. Zambia </EM>and <EM>Peter Chiiko Bwalya vs. Zambia</EM>

Henry Kalenga vs. Zambia and Peter Chiiko Bwalya vs. Zambia

Henry Kalenga vs. Zambia, Communication No. 326/1988, Views of the Human Rights Committee adopted on 27 July 1993, in Report of the Human Rights Committee, 48th Sess., UN Doc. A/48/40 (Part II), at Annex XII.L. Peter Chiiko Bwalya vs. Zambia, Communication No. 314/1988, Views of the Human Rights Committee adopted on 14 July 1993, in Report of the Human Rights Committee, 48th Sess., UN Doc. A/48/40 (Part II), at Annex XII.I.

Summary

Threats, intimidation and detention of individuals who attempt to campaign for non-violent political change constitute a violation of Article 19 of the International Convenant of Civil and Political Rights, which protects freedom of expression.

Facts

Peter Chiiko Bwalya was the chairman, and Henry Kalenga an active member, of the People's Redemption Organization (PRO), a political party that challenged the then one-party rule of the United National Independence Party (UNIP) led by President Kenneth Kaunda. Both were harassed, arrested for their political activities and detained without trial for years. They were later released but placed under surveillance and denied passports.

Henry Kalenga contended that he had not engaged in any political activities aimed at undermining the government. Instead, he had protested the govenrment's national education, military and economic policies. The subversive activity of which he was accused was the burning of the card affiliating him with UNIP.

Peter Chiiko Bwalya claimed that, when he ran for a parliamentary seat in 1983, the authorities prevented him from properly preparing his candidacy and from participating in the electoral campaign. He further contended that, in retaliation for expressing his opinions, the authorities subjected him to threats and intimidation. He was dismissed from his employment in January 1986, the Ndola City Council expelled him and his family from their home, and payment of his father's pension was suspended indefinitely. Because of this harassment he and his family emigrated to Namibia. Upon his return he was arrested. By September 1988 he had been detained for 31 months on charges of belonging to the PRO. He was re-arrested in July 1990 and released in January 1992.

Decision

The Committee noted with concern that the government of Zambia had failed to cooperate and had supplied no information on the two cases other than brief notes informing the Committee of the releases of Henry Kalenga and Peter Chiiko Bwalya. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that "due weight [had to be] given to the author's allegations, to the extent that they ha[d] been substantiated."(Kalenga case, at para. 6.1. Bwalya case, at para.6.1.)

Regarding Henry Kalenga's claim that his right to freedom of expression under Article 19 had been violated, the Committee gave its opinion that "the uncontested response of the Zambian authorities to the author's attempts to express his opinions freely and to disseminate the tenets of the People's Redemption Organization constitute[d] a violation of his rights under article 19".(Kalenga, ata para. 6.2.)

The Committee further ruled that Henry Kalenga's right under Article 9(2) to be promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest and charges against him had been violated, as it took the government authorities almost one month to so inform him.(Kalenga, at para. 6.3.) The denial of Henry Kalenga's passport amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of movement guaranted by Article 12(1).(Kalenga, at para. 6.4.)

The Committee similarly found that Peter Chiiko Bwalya's detention on charges of belonging to a political party violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 19.

It further found a violation of Article 25 which guarantees "every citizen" the right "to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections" and "to take part in the conduct of public affairs". The authorities had prevented Mr. Bwalya from participating in a general election campaign and preparing his candidacy. The Committee observed that "restrictions on political activity outside the only recognized political party amount[ed] to an unreasonable restriction of the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs."

The Committee concluded by stating that the government was obliged to provide Henry Kalenga and Peter Chiiko Bwalya with "an appropriate remedy", and urged the government to grant them appropriate compensation and to report to the Committee within ninety days on any relevant measures taken by the government to comply.(Kalenga case at paras 8-9; Bwalya case at paras 8-9)