July 11, 2004 will mark one year since the African Union in Maputo, Mozambique adopted the Protocol on the Rights of African Women. Adoption of the Protocol was a landmark development in the continental struggle to liberate more than half of its citizens.
However, it will take 15 ratifications before this Africa-specific version of The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) - adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly - becomes legally enforceable. So far only one country has ratified (Comoros).
Given that 53 countries on the continent have already ratified the parent treaty of this Protocol, i.e., The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Banjul Charter), which treaty effectively domesticated CEDAW and other international conventions and declarations that address women’s rights, ratification of the Protocol should not be a problem.
Article 18(3) of the parent charter provides: “The State shall ensure the elimination of every discrimination against women and also ensure the protection of the rights of the woman and the child as stipulated in international declarations and conventions.” Hence, the Protocol is merely an elaboration of an already existing obligation on the part of these 53 states.
The Banjul Charter was adopted in June 1981. One year later, in June 1982, only Mali and Guinea had ratified the charter. In other words, we should not panic over what appears to be the slow process of ratifying the Protocol. It is not out of step with the bureaucratic red tape that normally guides these processes.
If the Comoros - a country that is not particularly exemplary in upholding women’s rights (an elected female entered parliament for the first time in 1993) - has ratified, many others will surely follow. Having said that, we should not be complacent in prodding our governments to ratify as soon as possible.
I believe that the women’s movements on the continent should spend more energy strategizing on the implementation of the Protocol provisions. How do we turn the Protocol into a real instrument of accountability with which to challenge our governments?
Most of our governments ratify international human rights instruments, not so much because of a political commitment to the content but because of political expediency and maintaining a good image among the international community. At best, such ratification is a pro forma exercise; at worst, it is a nuisance that they must live with.
However, once ratification is effected, our governments are pledging to be accountable for adhering to all the provisions (except where they entered reservations for specific provisions) of the treaty. It is our duty to make our governments more accountable.
* Dr Sylvia Tamale is a feminist activist and Senior Lecturer at Makerere University's Law Faculty
* How can we make our governments more accountable? Please send comments to
July 11, 2004 will mark one year since the African Union in Maputo, Mozambique adopted the Protocol on the Rights of African Women. Adoption of the Protocol was a landmark development in the continental struggle to liberate more than half of its citizens.
However, it will take 15 ratifications before this Africa-specific version of The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) - adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly - becomes legally enforceable. So far only one country has ratified (Comoros).
Given that 53 countries on the continent have already ratified the parent treaty of this Protocol, i.e., The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Banjul Charter), which treaty effectively domesticated CEDAW and other international conventions and declarations that address women’s rights, ratification of the Protocol should not be a problem.
Article 18(3) of the parent charter provides: “The State shall ensure the elimination of every discrimination against women and also ensure the protection of the rights of the woman and the child as stipulated in international declarations and conventions.” Hence, the Protocol is merely an elaboration of an already existing obligation on the part of these 53 states.
The Banjul Charter was adopted in June 1981. One year later, in June 1982, only Mali and Guinea had ratified the charter. In other words, we should not panic over what appears to be the slow process of ratifying the Protocol. It is not out of step with the bureaucratic red tape that normally guides these processes.
If the Comoros - a country that is not particularly exemplary in upholding women’s rights (an elected female entered parliament for the first time in 1993) - has ratified, many others will surely follow. Having said that, we should not be complacent in prodding our governments to ratify as soon as possible.
I believe that the women’s movements on the continent should spend more energy strategizing on the implementation of the Protocol provisions. How do we turn the Protocol into a real instrument of accountability with which to challenge our governments?
Most of our governments ratify international human rights instruments, not so much because of a political commitment to the content but because of political expediency and maintaining a good image among the international community. At best, such ratification is a pro forma exercise; at worst, it is a nuisance that they must live with.
However, once ratification is effected, our governments are pledging to be accountable for adhering to all the provisions (except where they entered reservations for specific provisions) of the treaty. It is our duty to make our governments more accountable.
* Dr Sylvia Tamale is a feminist activist and Senior Lecturer at Makerere University's Law Faculty
* How can we make our governments more accountable? Please send comments to [email protected]
- Log in to post comments
- 922 reads
Author
Anonymous (not verified)
