Singapore must immediately halt the execution of Chijoke Stephen Obioha, a Nigerian national on death row for possession of drugs.

On Wednesday, Chijoke Stephen Obioha’s family was informed that his appeal for clemency has been rejected. He is set to be executed on Friday 18 November 2016.

“The Singapore government still has time to halt the execution of Chijoke Stephen Obioha. We are dismayed that clemency has not been granted in his case but remain hopeful that they won’t carry out this cruel and irreversible punishment against a person sentenced to the mandatory death penalty for a crime that should not even be punished by death,” said Rafendi Djamin, Amnesty International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

“The death penalty is never the solution. It will not rid Singapore of drugs.”

Rafendi Djamin, Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific

“The death penalty is never the solution. It will not rid Singapore of drugs. By executing people for drug-related offences, which do not meet the threshold of most serious crimes, Singapore is violating international law. Most of the world has turned its back on this ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is about time that Singapore does the same, starting by restoring a moratorium on all executions as a first step towards abolition of this punishment.”

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, regardless of the method of execution or the crime for which it is imposed, and believes that there is no credible evidence that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect.

Background

Chijioke Stephen Obioha was found in possession of more than 2.6 kilograms of cannabis in April 2007, surpassing the amount of 500 grams that triggers the automatic presumption of trafficking under Singapore law. Under Singaporean law, when there is a presumption of drug possession and trafficking, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecutor to the defendant. This violates the right to a fair trial by turning the presumption of innocence on its head.

Drug-related offences do not meet the threshold of the “most serious crimes” to which the use of the death penalty must be restricted under international law. International law also prohibits the imposition of the death penalty as a mandatory punishment. Amnesty International opposes the use of the death penalty outright, regardless of the crime.

As of today 103 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes and 141 are abolitionist in law or practice.

Authorities in Chhattisgarh must independently investigate the beating of eight prisoners, including journalist Santosh Yadav, in the Jagdalpur central jail.

On 2 November, according to Santosh Yadav’s family and media reports, the state police beat the prisoners with batons after they peacefully protested against the quality of food served at the jail. The next day, the police registered a criminal case against the prisoners for offences including ‘rioting’, ‘obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions’ and ‘assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty’. Santosh Yadav’s relatives say they have not been allowed to see him since the incident.

“Prisoners have a right to peaceful protest. The Chhattisgarh police must respect this right, and ensure that any allegations of unnecessary use of force against protestors are investigated,” said Makepeace Sitlhou, Campaigner at Amnesty International India. “Prisoners must not be prevented from meeting their families and lawyers.”

Santosh Yadav’s brother, Jitender Yadav, told Amnesty International India that Santosh had called him on 11 November from a hospital in Jagdalpur where he had been examined by a doctor. He said, “[Santosh] told us he was beaten severely by the police. Both his wife and I have tried to meet him separately but the jail authorities refused permission.”

“Prisoners have a right to peaceful protest. The Chhattisgarh police must respect this right, and ensure that any allegations of unnecessary use of force against protestors are investigated.”

Makepeace Sitlhou, Campaigner at Amnesty International India

A police official at Kotwali police station, where the FIR against the prisoners was registered, said, “The prisoners had some demands for which they were only willing to speak to senior officials and not jail authorities. The police had to use force to disperse them back into their cells. The force used was proportionate”. Despite several attempts, Amnesty International India could not reach the jail superintendent for a comment. On 11 November, Santosh Yadav was transferred to a district jail in Kanker, Chhattisgarh, about 192 kilometres from his home in Darbha.

Santosh Yadav was arrested on 29 September 2015 and is being held under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, both of which violate international human rights law and standards.

He was accused of being involved in an attack by a Maoist armed group on security forces on 21 August 2015. However, the case against Santosh Yadav rests primarily on the testimony of a police official who said he had identified the journalist at night, by the light of a flare, from over a hundred Maoist fighters. The police official subsequently failed to definitively identify Santosh Yadav in an identification parade. Santosh Yadav’s name did not feature in the list of accused persons in the First Information Report on the incident.

It is believed that Santosh Yadav is being targeted for his work among Indigenous Adivasi communities in Bastar district, Chhattisgarh, and that the allegations against him are fabricated.

The journalist’s family has previously alleged that he was tortured in custody on 30 November 2015. Santosh Yadav told Amnesty International in August 2016 that he had also received threats to his life from an inmate. His lawyer alleged that he was also stripped and humiliated by the state police in June 2015.

Santosh Yadav’s application for bail has been rejected twice. Another application is pending before the Supreme Court. On 17 October, the court asked the Chhattisgarh state government to respond to the bail petition.

“Santosh Yadav must be immediately released, and all charges against him dropped,” said Makepeace Sitlhou. “Any charges filed against prisoners simply for protesting against prison conditions are by no means justified.”

The Comptroller Auditor General said in a 2014 report that the Chhattisgarh government had failed to provide prisoners access to sanitation and a hygienic environment. Chhattisgarh has the most overcrowded prisons in India. Research by the Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group, a group of human rights lawyers, showed that the occupancy rate in the Jagdalpur central jail in 2013 was 260 per cent.

 

The Malaysian authorities should quash the 18 months jail sentence handed down to Rafizi Ramli, a whistle-blowing member of parliament.

Rafizi Ramli has been convicted under the Official Secrets Act of 1972 for being in possession of and disclosing part of the Auditor General’s report into the 1MDB corruption scandal that is engulfing Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak.

“Rafizi Ramli acted in the public interest by bringing to light information about one of the biggest corruption scandals in Malaysia’s recent history.”

Josef Benedict, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for South East Asia and the Pacific.

“Rafizi Ramli acted in the public interest by bringing to light information about one of the biggest corruption scandals in Malaysia’s recent history. The authorities should have published the Auditor General’s report from the beginning, rather than trying to suppress it,” said Josef Benedict, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for South East Asia and the Pacific.

“Rafizi Ramli’s sentence should be quashed immediately and he should be protected against any retaliation stemming from the disclosure of information that shows wrongdoing. By invoking the Official Secrets Act, the Malaysian authorities are yet again taking the cover of national security to stop people from raising legitimate questions about the 1MDB funds and obstructing the society from receiving such information.”

Rafizi Ramli is currently on bail pending an appeal to the High Court. If the appeals process is exhausted without the verdict being overturned, he will lose his seat in parliament and be sent to prison solely for the peaceful exercise of his rights.

“If Rafizi Ramli is imprisoned, Amnesty International would consider him a prisoner of conscience.”

Josef Benedict.

“If Rafizi Ramli is imprisoned, Amnesty International would consider him a prisoner of conscience,” said Josef Benedict.

Amnesty International is alarmed by the widespread use of national security legislation and other restrictive laws to choke peaceful dissent in Malaysia.

Background

On 24 March 2016, at a press conference in the lobby of parliament, Rafizi Ramli publicised a page of the Auditor General’s report into the 1MDB corruption scandal.

On 3 April 2016, he was detained for three days before being charged under the Official Secrets Act 1972.

Rafizi Ramli is also charged under section 97(1) of the Banks and Financial Institutions Act at the Shah Alam sessions court for exposing the National Feedlot Corporation Scandal, involving an RM250million (50 million pounds) government loan intended for a cattle breeding project.

He has also been found guilty under section 504 of the Penal Code for ‘Provoking UMNO members’ at the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court and fined RM1,800.

1Malaysia Development Bhd (1 MDB) was established by Prime Minister Najib Razak in 2009, as a step towards establishing a financial hub in Kuala Lumpur.

The fund missed payments for some of the US $11bn it owed to banks and other creditors.

Just two weeks before the deadline given to close the Dadaab refugee camp, Kenyan government officials are deliberately coercing refugees to return to Somalia, where they risk being injured or killed in the ongoing armed conflict.

The government announced in May that it would close the world’s largest refugee camp, which is home to more than 280,000 mostly Somali refugees, citing security, economic and environmental concerns, in addition to lack of support by the international community. Since then, government officials have made statements in the media and visited the camp, threatening people to leave before the closure slated for 30 November 2016.

“The refugees are caught between a rock and a hard place. Kenyan government officials are telling them they must leave by the end of the month or they will be forced to leave without any assistance.”

Michelle Kagari, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes.

“The refugees are caught between a rock and a hard place. Kenyan government officials are telling them they must leave by the end of the month or they will be forced to leave without any assistance,” said Michelle Kagari, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes.

“These actions contravene the Kenyan government’s assurances to the international community that it would ensure all refugee repatriations are voluntary and carried out in safety and dignity.”

Amnesty International researchers visited Dadaab in August, where they interviewed 56 refugees individually and held focus group discussions with 35 more.

Among those interviewed were two brothers aged 15 and 18 who had gone to Somalia in January 2016 and came back to Dadaab four months later. They said that when they got to Somalia, their father was killed in front of them and they were forcibly recruited by Al-Shabaab. They eventually escaped and made it back to Dadaab.

The dangers associated with the armed conflict in Somalia have been greatly underreported to the refugees by the UN and NGOs facilitating the return process from Dadaab to Somalia. For instance, in August, when thousands of people were going through the return process, UNHCR’s information on the security situation in Somalia had not been updated since December 2015 in spite of increasing insecurity in many areas. The UN and the NGOs are currently working to update their information, however, it is unclear when this will be completed and what level of detail will be included.

Besides, Somalia, which is currently grappling with over 1.1 million internally displaced people, lacks the necessary resources to handle a large-scale return of refugees from Dadaab. Services including shelter, healthcare and education remain in desperately short supply.

Most refugees interviewed by Amnesty International said they were only considering leaving due to threats from Kenyan government officials.

According to a verification exercise carried out by the Kenyan government and UNHCR in July and August, only 25% of refugees said they were willing to return. Refugees cited threats issued by the Kenyan authorities that they would be forced to leave if they did not go now and that they would miss out on the allowance UNHCR gives, as reasons to leave.

“They [the Kenyan authorities] are pushing us to Somalia. They came to our block areas with microphones and said: “You have to go register yourselves to go to Somalia… If you don’t go register yourself now you will have to go on foot with your babies on your backs.”

Hadi, who has lived in Dadaab for the last 24 years

Hadi, who has lived in Dadaab for the last 24 years, told Amnesty International: “They [the Kenyan authorities] are pushing us to Somalia. They came to our block areas with microphones and said: “You have to go register yourselves to go to Somalia… If you don’t go register yourself now you will have to go on foot with your babies on your backs.”

His testimony was echoed by Samira, who has lived in the camp for the last eight years. She said: “People believe after November the small return package won’t be there and there won’t be transport… People are moving before they miss the transport and money.”

No alternative options have been provided by Kenya or the international community for the majority of refugees not wishing to return to Somalia. Several of those who spoke to Amnesty International cited not only insecurity, but the lack of basic services and fear of discrimination as reasons for not wanting to return.

Amongst those that expressed concerns about returning are people with disabilities and members of minority groups, returning to Somalia is not an option as no additional safeguards have been put in place for them.

“There are no facilities for disabled people in Somalia. As refugees we are already considered last in everything. With children with disabilities we will be right at the back of the queue when it comes to receiving help.”

Mouna, a mother of a disabled child

Mouna, a mother of a disabled child, said: “There are no facilities for disabled people in Somalia. As refugees we are already considered last in everything. With children with disabilities we will be right at the back of the queue when it comes to receiving help.”

Amina, a woman whose six-year-old son is living with albinism said: “Another big part of the reason why I don’t want to go back is that people don’t understand albinism. Already some people here say he is illegitimate, he is a foreigner. He has been picked on by the other kids for being different. In Somalia I can see it being much worse. He also won’t have access to the cream he gets for his skin.”

The lack of international support given to Kenya, including through consistently underfunding appeals and offering very limited resettlement places to vulnerable refugees, has contributed to the appalling situation in which the inhabitants of Dadaab currently find themselves. Just 10 countries host more than half of the world’s 21 million refugees – Kenya is one.

“Kenya’s increased restrictions on Somali refugees comes at a time of shocking failures by rich countries to accept their fair share of responsibility. Rather than focusing on returning refugees to Somalia, where they are at risk of further human rights abuses, the international community should be working with Kenya to ensure long-term sustainable solutions,” said Michelle Kagari.

“This includes increased resettlement places for the most vulnerable refugees. But it also includes Kenya guaranteeing refugees their rights and finding ways to integrate them into host communities and away from camps, with the full support of the international community.”

The Singapore government must grant clemency to a Nigerian man set to be executed for drug trafficking next week.

Chijioke Stephen Obioha will be hanged on 18 November unless President Tony Tan commutes his death sentence, which was imposed as the mandatory punishment for trafficking.

“Singapore is a week away from brutally ending the life of Chijioke Stephen Obioha for a crime that international law and standards make clear should not be punished by death,” said Josef Benedict, Amnesty International’s Campaigns Director for Southeast Asia.

“Time is running out for President Tan to step in and prevent this ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment from being carried out. He must use his power to grant clemency before it is too late.”

Chijioke Stephen Obioha was found in possession of more than 2.6 kilograms of cannabis in April 2007, surpassing the amount of 500 grams that triggers the automatic presumption of trafficking under Singapore law. 

“Time is running out for President Tan to step in and prevent this ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment from being carried out.”

Josef Benedict, Campaigns Director for Southeast Asia

Under Singaporean law, when there is a presumption of drug possession and trafficking, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecutor to the defendant. This violates the right to a fair trial by turning the presumption of innocence on its head.

Drug-related offences do not meet the threshold of the “most serious crimes” to which the use of the death penalty must be restricted under international law. International law also prohibits the imposition of the death penalty as a mandatory punishment. Amnesty International opposes the use of the death penalty outright, regardless of the type of crime.

“The death penalty is unacceptable under any circumstances, but the fact that the defendant’s right to a fair trial, in particular his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, have been violated makes this case especially distressing,” said Josef Benedict.

“It is a reminder of the pressing need for Singapore to immediately re-impose an official moratorium on all executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, and commute all existing death sentences.”

Chijioke’s family members, who live in Nigeria and the United Kingdom, have been unable to travel to visit him in Singapore and have had limited ability to assist him.

Throughout the proceedings, they have received sporadic and often delayed updates, including when a legal representative was removed from the case.

Chijoke’s brother Anthony described his sibling as “hard-working and educated” and told Amnesty International it was an “unforgettable shock for the family” to learn of his arrest.

“A lot of financial and physical effort has been made by our family towards his defence but due to lack of funds restricting our access to Singapore, it was difficult to carry on with his desire towards [hiring] a defence lawyer [of his choice],” Anthony Chijioke said.

“He had a lot of government-appointed defence counsellors but he wasn’t satisfied with their efforts, and the family were not satisfied with their level of communication with us. We were kept in the dark for a very long while.” 

Background

Chijioke Stephen Obioha’s appeal against his conviction and sentence was rejected in August 2010.

After the rejection of his clemency appeal in April 2015, his execution was set for 15 May 2015, but was stayed a day earlier to allow him to apply for resentencing.

His family was only informed on 25 October 2016 that he had withdrawn his application for resentencing earlier in the year, following legal advice that he would not qualify.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal lifted the stay of execution, which is now set for 18 November.

Chijioke Stephen Obioha has appealed once again for clemency from the President, the only person with the power to commute his death sentence.

As of today 103 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes and 141 are abolitionist in law or practice.

Today’s announcement by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on third country resettlement is an extreme step in shirking responsibility by the Australian Government.

Prime Minister Turnbull today announced that the Australian Government is in discussions with the United States for some of the refugees warehoused on Nauru and Manus Island to be settled in the US via a process administered by the UNHCR.

“It is absolutely shameful that the Australian Government has first sent several thousand people to languish for three years on Nauru and Manus Island, set up an offshore processing regime on Nauru that amounts to torture and is now passing the buck when it comes to offering them protection,” said Dr Graham Thom, Refugee Coordinator at Amnesty International Australia.”

“Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and should be leading by example at a time of global record high levels of people forced to seek safety. Yet our Government is failing to play a fair part in providing sanctuary for those fleeing conflict and persecution, and this urgently needs to change.”

Dr graham thom, amnesty international

“Amnesty International has seen first hand the horrific abuse that is being inflicted on people in Nauru and on Manus Island, so we are pleased that for those who may be resettled in the US the abuse will come to an end and we acknowledge the US for giving people a genuine chance at settling and restarting their lives in a safe place.

“What this announcement clearly shows is that the Australian Government has finally acknowledged that Australia’s offshore processing policy is not tenable and Australia’s centres on Nauru and Manus Island must be urgently emptied and closed.”

dr graham thom

Amnesty International is extremely concerned about the lack of information provided by the Australian Government around the timeline of this deal taking place and lack of clarity around the numbers of people who will be given the opportunity to settle in the US, with fears that many people will be left behind to languish in limbo.

Amnesty International also raises serious concerns around the introduction of the 20 year visa for people on Nauru, given the well-documented systematic mistreatment, attacks, discrimination and inadequate medical care experienced for years by the hundreds of people warehoused by the Australian Government on Nauru.

“The people on Nauru and Manus Island have suffered severe trauma at the hands of the Australian Government. A durable solution to this failed policy of offshore processing means that all people are settled safely where they have access to appropriate health care and access to torture trauma services, not trapping them in further limbo,” said Graham Thom.

“A durable solution to this failed policy of offshore processing means that all people are settled safely where they have access to appropriate health care and access to torture trauma services, not trapping them in further limbo.”

dr graham thom

Amnesty International refutes the Government’s claims that the lifetime ban is a necessary step towards achieving third country resettlements for the refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island. The lifetime ban is an outrageous and unnecessary proposal that  discriminates against people seeking safety based on their mode of arrival, which is in clear breach of Australia’s obligations under international law.

Amnesty International is strongly urging the Australian Government to finally resolve the unsustainable situation that is offshore detention. The fairest and quickest way to look after the 2000 men, women and children on Nauru and Manus Island is to bring them to Australia now to process their asylum claims and welcome refugees into our community.

The next step is for Australia to immediately invest in alternative solutions that both protect the human rights of people seeking asylum and prevent avoidable deaths – twin goals which should be the bedrock of any asylum seeker policy.

“There are humane solutions – that both reduce deaths at sea and eliminate abuse – one shouldn’t come at the expense of the other and it’s about time the Australian Government stops ignoring this.”

dr graham thom

Secretive executions can’t hide the fact that Japan is on the wrong side of history when it comes to the death penalty, Amnesty International said after a death row inmate was hanged on Friday.

Kenichi Tajiri, 45, was executed at Fukuoka Detention Centre in the early hours of Friday. He was sentenced to death in 2012 for two murders committed in 2004 and 2011.  

“The death penalty never delivers justice, it is a cruel and inhumane act.

“The death penalty never delivers justice, it is a cruel and inhumane act. The Japanese government cannot hide the fact that it is on the wrong side of history, the majority of the world’s states have turned away from the death penalty.”

The execution is the third to be carried out in Japan in 2016 and the 17th under Prime Minister Abe’s government.

The hanging comes a month after the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations formally adopted a policy calling for an end to the death penalty. Among other things, the lawyers’ group highlighted the risk of wrongful convictions and the lack of evidence that the death penalty reduces crime.

“Instead of signing further death warrants, Minister of Justice Katsutoshi Kaneda should listen to the many voices opposing the death penalty, such as the United Nations and these respected lawyers, and work to end its use in Japan,” said Hiroka Shoji.

Secretive executions

Executions in Japan are shrouded in secrecy with prisoners typically given only a few hours’ notice, but some may be given no warning at all. Their families, lawyers and the public are usually notified about the execution only after it has taken place.

Secret executions are in contravention of international standards on the use of the death penalty. This and the lack of other adequate legal safeguards for those facing the death penalty in Japan has been widely criticized by UN experts.

This includes defendants being denied adequate legal counsel and a lack of a mandatory appeal process for capital cases. Several prisoners with mental and intellectual disabilities are also known to have been executed or remain on death row.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception, regardless of the nature or circumstances of the crime, the guilt, innocence or other characteristics of the offender or the method used by the state to carry out the execution. The death penalty violates the right to life and is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

The Egyptian authorities must immediately retract an order to freeze the bank account of the renowned El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence.

The organization, a clinic which provides hundreds of torture victims with vital services including counselling and legal assistance, learned today that its financial assets were frozen according to an order by the Central Bank of Egypt.

“The El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence is a lifeline for hundreds of victims of torture and for families of people who have been subjected to enforced disappearance. The Egyptian authorities’ decision to arbitrarily freeze its bank account is a cruel blow to human rights in the country,” said Philip Luther, Research and Advocacy Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.

“This is yet more evidence of the Egyptian authorities’ chilling contempt of perceived critics. By freezing El Nadeem’s financial assets the authorities are preventing the Center from carrying out their crucial work to provide care to survivors of horrific violence and violating victims’ right to health and to reparation.”

“This is yet more evidence of the Egyptian authorities’ chilling contempt of perceived critics.”

Philip Luther, Research and Advocacy Director for the Middle East and North Africa

The Central Bank’s letter, which the Center has yet to receive a copy of, stated that the bank account freeze will be imposed until the organization conforms with a repressive Mubarak era NGO law (84/2002).

The El Nadeem Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence has operated as a registered clinic with the Ministry of Health and does not need to be registered under the law on associations.

Amnesty International believes that the authorities are using the bank account freeze to force the Center to shut down, in retaliation for its work helping victims of torture and other ill-treatment and family members of those subjected to enforced disappearances.

This is not the first time the Egyptian authorities have attempted to stop the El Nadeem Center from carrying out its work. In February 2016 the authorities issued an arbitrarily administrative decree to close the organization without giving any reason. The decree is currently being challenged before administrative courts.

The bank account freeze imposed on the El Nadeem Center comes just months after a court froze the personal and organizational bank accounts of a group of leading and award-winning human rights defenders and campaigners, stifling their vital work.

“Obstructing care for victims of torture is inexcusable. Instead of lashing out at El Nadeem Center, the Egyptian authorities should be implementing safeguards to prevent torture in custody and end enforced disappearances,” said Philip Luther.

Background

The El Nadeem Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence was not informed about the decision in advance, as is required under Egyptian law, undermining their ability to correct errors or to prepare their legal defence. The bank had been in regular contact with the organization over the past 10 days and requested documents to update its bank account which the organization had provided.

The organization must be given an opportunity to challenge the order before a court, and pending the trial, it must have full access to its bank accounts.