President Salva Kirr of South Sudan at the sidelines of the African Union summit, which was held in Addis Ababa from Jan. 27 to 28. Credit: Elias Asmare/IPS

By Blain Biset
ADDIS ABABA , Jan 29 2013 (IPS)

The African Union summit failed to provide a breakthrough in the ongoing negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan when it ended on Monday Jan. 28.

President Salva Kirr of South Sudan and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir met on the sidelines of the summit, which was held in Addis Ababa from Jan. 27 to 28, to discuss the implementation of agreements the two countries signed in September 2012.

On Jan. 25 Kirr called for the immediate implementation of the deals after the bilateral meeting, telling journalists at the AU headquarters that the two countries should “shift from rhetoric to action.”

Kirr and Al-Bashir signed nine agreements on Sep. 27, 2012, following the continued fighting between the two countries along their borders, disputes over oil fees and claims over oil-rich border states, including the Abyei region.

At the time, the United Nations Security Council threatened both countries with sanctions if no agreement was reached.

But the agreements are yet to be put into effect, as there is no implementation deadline.

Independent East Africa peace and security analyst Mehari Taddele Maru told IPS that U.N. sanctions might be helpful if the countries fail to implement the agreements. He said “sanctions have to be considered again, but then they should be well targeted so that (the sanctions) pressure officials and do not only effect the general public.”

However, AU Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) commissioner Ramtane Lamamra told IPS that sanctions are not needed: “I believe there is a clear expectation that failure should not be an option and patience is also part of the entire exercise.”

Chairperson of the AU Commission Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma told delegations from both countries that the South Sudanese/Sudanese conflict poses a set of challenges on “how to celebrate diversity while pursuing the goal of a united Africa.”

Negotiations between the two countries seem to be continuing indefinitely as the AUPSC extended the mandate of the mediation team, led by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, till the end of July.

Mehari said that this was an issue for concern: “Every meeting comes with new conditions, new requests and even new documents that are tabled. The previous agreements are almost forgotten.”

South Sudan blamed its neighbour for the delay in implementing previous security agreements, which include implementing a buffer zone between the two nations, claiming that Sudan allegedly made new demands during the recent high-level security meeting.

The Sudanese delegation did not want to comment on the matter and told IPS on Sunday, Jan. 27,  “we agreed with the South Sudanese delegation in the beginning that we would not speak to the media while discussions are ongoing.”

Mehari said that the ongoing negotiation process was used as an excuse to not focus on democratisation and delivering basic services to the citizens of both countries. He said that Sudan’s Al-Bashir could use the ongoing border conflict for his own political gain, and could claim that he is the only leader who can stand against the threat of South Sudan and the international community.

Mehari added that the border issues were also used by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, the leading political group in South Sudan, to shift the focus from their lack of delivery of services to their people as they are still trying to transform from a liberation movement into a democratic political party.

African civil society groups at the summit urged the AU to act on the worsening humanitarian situation in places such as disputed border states of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Both countries are engaged in armed conflict in civilian areas in both states. In 2012 Human Rights Watch accused the Sudanese government forces of being in violation of international humanitarian law.

Abozer Mohamed of the Sudanese NGO National Group for Human Rights, which has consultative status to the U.N., said that the current agreements between the governments are not about the people, but only about politics. He said that strategies between the two countries should be more about capacity building. “When you hear the politicians speak you will think a war will begin tomorrow between the two countries. That should be changed,” Mohamed told IPS.

Delegations from Sudan and South Sudan are expected to return to Ethiopia in February to continue negotiations on implementing existing agreements.

Oil-rich South Sudan shut down its oil production in January 2012 over disagreements about transport fees with Sudan. Oil revenues are essential to both economies and production is yet to resume.

Ethiopia’s Anti-Terrorism Proclamation is once again stirring debate in this Horn of Africa nation as lawyer Temam Ababulga challenges the 2009 law in the highly-publicised “Muslim terrorism” case.

Ethiopia’s Federal High Court was meant to deliver the judgment in the case, where 29 Muslims were arrested in July on charges of terrorism, on Thursday Dec. 6. But the case was postponed till Dec. 17.

Ethiopia has had Muslim demonstrations since the beginning of the year, as members of the religious community have protested against what they say is government interference in their religious affairs. Around one-third of the 84 million people in this predominantly Christian nation are Muslim.

The dispute reached a head in July when 29 leaders of the Muslim community were arrested during a meeting, and charged under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation. Under the decree, peaceful protest and dissent can be considered terrorism, and critical reporting by the media is seen as encouraging terrorism.

“We believe that the proclamation is not constitutional,” Temam told IPS.

Human Rights Watch has also repeatedly criticised Ethiopia’s anti-terrorism decree. Leslie Lefkow, the rights watchdog’s Africa specialist, told IPS that there are a number of human rights concerns in the proclamation.

“The definition of ‘terrorist acts’ is so broad that it can be used to prosecute a wide range of conduct far beyond what can reasonably be considered terrorist activity, such as legitimate peaceful protest and dissent, and protected speech,” she said.

In addition to rights organisations, the United Nations and foreign governments have criticised the proclamation for its broad interpretations of terrorism. Almost 200 people were imprisoned under this proclamation in 2011 alone, mostly members of the opposition, journalists and activists.

Amnesty International’s Claire Beston agreed that the proclamation was unconstitutional. “The constitution guarantees the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, including, explicitly, the right to peacefully protest. As the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation places restrictions on these rights, it does violate Ethiopia’s Constitution,” she told IPS.

Under Article 25 of the proclamation, parliament has the power “to proscribe and de-proscribe an organisation as a terrorist organisation.” This is another violation of the constitution, according to Temam.

“By implementing this proclamation, parliament has given up on the separation of power,” he said.

Other constitutional provisions that have allegedly been violated fall under the article concerning the collection of evidence. Article 23.1 states that intelligence reports with information obtained by the police or secret services with evidence against terrorist suspects may be used in court “even if the report does not disclose the source or the method in which it was gathered.”

“The court has no choice but to release my clients,” said Teman, noting that article 13 of Ethiopia’s constitution specifically rules out charges that are not constitutional.

Ethiopia’s late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who died in August after ruling the country for 21 years, defended the proclamation in February. He told parliament that the proclamation was copied word for word from other countries: “We took from America, England and the European model anti-terrorism laws. From these we have chosen the better ones…the proclamation in every respect is flawless. It is better than the best anti-terrorism laws.”

There are several other ongoing anti-terrorism cases. These include the cases of award-winning journalist Eskinder Nega and opposition leader Andualem Arage, who are currently appealing their sentences.

They were arrested in 2011 for alleged acts of terrorism and for trying to start an Arab Spring against the Ethiopian government. They were also accused of being active participants in terrorist groups such as the outlawed group Ginbot 7. Eskinder was sentenced to 18 years without parole and Andualem to life without parole.

A verdict is also expected soon in the so-called “Al-Qaeda trial” where 11 people are being prosecuted for alleged ties with the international terrorist organisation and its Somalia affiliate Al-Shabaab.

Meanwhile, Beston does not expect the court to declare the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation unconstitutional. “It is highly likely that the proclamation will continue to be used to silence government opponents and critics,” she said.

Lefkof said that continued use of the anti-terrorism proclamation would have a negative impact on Ethiopian society.

“This is part of a larger crackdown on independent voices in Ethiopia, and it is a profoundly worrying trend. Rule based on oppressing fundamental human rights is a precarious and short-term strategy that will only harm Ethiopia and its people over the long term,” she said.

Temam said he did not believe that Ethiopia needed the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation to prosecute people allegedly involved in terrorist activities.

“The current laws should be sufficient to charge terrorists and therefore I believe we will succeed in proving that this anti-terrorism proclamation is unconstitutional,” he said.