For some time, Burundi, the Central African country has been in the news for the wrong reasons. It started with the “constitutional coup” of President Pierre Nkurunziza to have a third term in office. In spite of the protests from the Burundi people over the seeming illegality of Nkurunziza’s ambition, he went ahead to contest and win the presidential poll last July.
For two days, from 13th-14th May last year, a coup by the Military was foiled by government which, accused her neighbor, Rwanda of training and backing rebels to oust the Nkurunziza government. Kigali however, denied the allegation.
Since the election however, violent protests have become part of the national life of Burundi, a tiny country of about 10million people. It is common - place to find dead bodies on the streets of Burundi especially, the capital Bujumbura where the opposition appears more concentrated. The continued violence has led to the death of at least 400 people largely from government’s clampdown on the opposition elements.
Statistics released by international human rights groups familiar with the situation in Burundi claimed about 3,500 have been arrested and detained since April, when Nkurunziza announced his decision to seek a third term in office in the last July elections, while an estimated 220,000 people have fled the country and about a similar figure or a little higher internally displaced.
The latest round of violence which drew the ire of the international community occurred shortly before Christmas when 87 people were killed in one day when an unidentified group, obviously from the opposition, attacked military installations in Bujumbura, the capital.
In a swift reaction, Burundi police and Military allegedly stormed known houses of opposition politicians, dragged them out and fired them point blank. About 150 civilians were allegedly killed in the operation which government justified that the police and Military acted “professionally”.
This incident forced the Peace and Security Council of the African Union(AU) to immediately order the dispatch of a 5,000 - strong African Prevention and Protection Mission(MAPROBU)-(peace - keeping force) to Burundi to help curb the violence from spreading and possibly snowballing into yet another civil war.
The AU Mission which has an initial six-month tenure, has the mandate to protect civilians who have been under threat from government armed forces and also create an enabling environment for a dialogue by concerned parties in the crisis.
In rejecting the AU mission, Burundian authorities said the peace keeping forces from the AU constituted an “invasion” from external forces since Burundi had enough forces to maintain internal peace and security.
There are a few issues for consideration. The first is whether the AU has the right to deploy peace -keeping forces to Burundi. By the enabling protocol(Article 4(j), AU has the right to “intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, in accordance with Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act”. On the strength of this provision in the protocol therefore, AU is justified to send peace - keeping forces to help restore peace in any African Country where in the wisdom of the Council requires support to maintain peace and security.
By convention however, the AU would ask the member country to formally seek its intervention to pave way for the deployment of the peace-keepers (Article 4(k). In the case of Burundi, AU did not seek an invitation from the Burundi government. In fact Burundi claimed that it was the incumbent Chair of the AU Peace and Security Council in the month of December when the decision was taken yet, it was not part of the decision.
Giving this situation, could the AU be said to have acted illegally. In our view, the AU acted rightly since evidence abound that the government of Burundi has consistently used its Armed Forces and police against the civilians. Since it has found it convenient to silence the opposition with the use of state security apparatus, it would naturally not support the AU peace -keepers who would prevent the government from having its way.
The AU also justifies her decision on the perceived illegality of president Nkurunziza’s re-election for a third term in office.
Right from onset, Nkurunziza’s third term project was opposed by the international community, which viewed same as an act political impunity. His ambition was said to be in violation of the two-term limit prescribed by the Burundian constitution. To this extent therefore, AU reserves the right to protect democracy and the rule of law in line with its statues and protocols.
President Nkurunziza’s argument for a third term appears hollow and serves only to justify his ambition. Nkurunziza has argued that he was qualified to run for a another in office since his first term was given him via an electoral college by the Parliament and not directly by the people of Burundi.
His argument is not new. These kind of arguments usually surface when ambitious political leaders seek to elongate their tenures.
Some of the leaders even attempt to place themselves as indispensable, thus tying the future of their countries to their political fates. This is the argument that led to President Paul Kagame to go for a referendum to seek another term in office. We are yet to see how the Rwandan situation will play out when the presidential elections will take place.
However, attempt to extend constitutional term limits by incumbent presidents has always thrown up a political crisis. Burkina Faso for instance has just come out of the crisis thrown up by former President Blaise Compaore’s manipulation of the constitution to seek another term in office. In Nigeria, former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s attempt to amend the constitution to give him a third term in office nearly threw the country into yet another political crisis until it was stopped by the National Assembly.
The AU should not impress on Burundi to open up to the peace- keeping force. Fortunately, it has the support of the UN which in very strong terms condemned the latest pre-Christmas violence in Burundi.
The Burundi presents a test case for the AU. If it the continental body allows Burundi to have her way, a dangerous precedent would have been set whereby other countries would in future reject AU peace-keepers in times of crisis.
The mandate of the AU Peace-keepers is such that it cannot but enter Burundi. The peace mediation talks initiated by Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, will be jeorpadised if the over 14 groups in the crisis are not protected to part-take in the talks which held late last year in Uganda.
The Burundi economy struggling to bounce back since the civil war ended about 10 years ago has continued to nosedive since the crisis began in April. With rising prices of commodities and unemployment, Burundi faces a gloomy future that would imminently worsen the already precarious security in the Central African region.
0 comments :
Post a Comment