Togo: Human Rights

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Teresa Pearce

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Teresa Pearce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, particularly as it has given me time to catch my breath, because I have just run all the way across the parliamentary estate—there are not many things that a 63-year-old woman would run across the estate for, but I will for human rights in Togo. The issues in relation to the election are very important, and I will touch on them later.

It is time for the Government of Togo to practise what they preach and fulfil the promises that they have made to the United Nations, to the international community and, most importantly, to their people. Togo is a United Nations member state. As is protocol, the UN conducts a universal periodic review of the human rights records of all UN member states. The first cycle of the UN universal periodic review of Togo took place in October 2011. Of the 133 recommendations made, Togo rejected a number, including a recommendation to amend or repeal the laws used to crack down on journalists and human rights defenders, a recommendation regarding the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the country and a recommendation regarding the inclusion of laws that criminalised defamation. There has been some progress in the ratification of crucial international instruments, but there is so much more to do. It is imperative that Togo live up to the recommendations that it has agreed to within the universal periodic review. Things must happen not just on paper, but in practice.

Togo was elected to join the UN Human Rights Council for the period 2016 to 2018 and was expected to use that mandate to strengthen its human rights commitments. Combating torture was one of the key recommendations made in the review. The country ratified the optional protocol to the UN convention against torture by rolling out capacity-strengthening workshops to combat torture for criminal investigators and prison and rehabilitation officers, but torture remains a practice in the country that is used by security forces against participants in anti-Government demonstrations.

Many hon. Members will be aware that between August and December 2017 the authorities continued violent crackdowns during mass protests. Those protests were led by the political opposition, calling for, among other things, the end of President Faure Gnassingbé’s tenure as President. Freedom House is an independent watchdog organisation that dedicates itself to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world. In its country overview for 2018, it stated:

“Togo’s politics have been dominated since 1963 by Gnassingbé Eyadéma”—

apologies for my pronunciation—

“and his son, the current president…Advantages including a security service dominated by the president’s ethnic group, disproportionately drawn election districts, and a fractured opposition have helped President Gnassingbé and his party hold on to power. In 2017, protests calling for the reintroduction of term limits were harshly repressed.”

The President has been in power since 2005. His predecessor—his father—held on to power for 38 years before his death. Claims of the repression of protests that call for the reintroduction of term limits are supported by many human rights organisations and institutions. According to Amnesty, protests were met with excessive use of force by the security forces. Among other instances, security forces used live ammunition in 2017 to disperse a protest against rising oil prices in the country. Several people were injured, and many were surprised that only one death was recorded. In June 2017, videos posted on the internet showed members of the security forces, armed with shotguns, beating students on the ground with batons at a student demonstration calling for improved living conditions. That outrageous act occurred at the University of Lomé within the student union. As if that were not enough, security forces arrested at least 19 students, 17 of whom were later released. Several students stated in court that they had been beaten during their arrest and transfer.

Members of the political opposition held mass demonstrations in major cities across Togo. There are reports that those demonstrations were, again, broken up by security forces, which used tear gas, batons, water cannon and live ammunition. It is simply not humane to use water cannon to disperse crowds and most certainly not for people who have a right to protest peacefully under the UN declaration of human rights, to which Togo became a signatory on 20 September 1960.

One of the main things that Togo seems to have refused to address or improve is the authorities’ repression of people’s right to freedom of expression. The Freedom House report entitled “Freedom on the Net 2018: The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism” stated:

“In almost half of the countries where internet freedom declined, the reductions were related to elections.”

Unsurprisingly, that is true in the case of Togo. In September 2017, the authorities shut down the internet for nine days in retaliation to opposition-led protests. In doing so, they disrupted the organisation of protests and heavily disrupted the work of human rights defenders and journalists who were monitoring the protests. Those reports were later verified by the digital rights group Internet Without Borders. Togo is a signatory to the international covenant on civil and political rights, and its shutdown of mobile phone services and the internet is a violation of article 19 of the covenant.

In a year in which human rights defenders are operating in a shrinking civil society space, I hope that the House will agree with me that disrupting the crucial work of human rights organisations and human rights defenders is detrimental to democracy and should not be allowed to continue. Many cases have been brought to my attention to highlight the gross extent to which the Togolese Government curtail people’s rights. They do so by arbitrarily closing down media outlets and arresting community and opposition leaders to crack down on anyone who expresses dissent.

One such case is that of Robert Kossi Avotor. Robert is a journalist who was viciously attacked with batons in the city of Lomé by the police. He was also handcuffed in a successful attempt to prevent him from photodocumenting an eviction that was taking place. He was subsequently detained and had his images deleted, before being released without charge. Although he filed a complaint with the prosecution service, he received no response. This is a classic example of the security forces using extreme force and brutality to curtail the legitimate work of journalists and human rights defenders. They are propped up by the general prosecutor, who issued a warning stating that anyone who reported on Robert’s attack would face criminal prosecution for disseminating “fake news”. When a Government who do not respect human rights are propped up by a judicial system that does not respect the rule of law and intimidates those seeking justice for crimes committed against them, what hope is there for the people of that country?

I would like to thank the Minister for the attention in the written answers she has already provided to me. In November last year, the Minister responded to one of my written questions on Togo, saying that the UK Government supported the President of Ghana and that they encouraged both the Government and the opposition in Togo to work towards ensuring that the elections to be held on 20 December would be free, fair and void of any violence. Sadly, as many will be aware, the elections were anything but that. According to various news sources, in the days leading up to the elections, many people were killed by security forces. Despite advice given by Ghana and the UK, protesters still gathered and organised demonstrations in the lead-up to the elections, which in turn flared into violence. Some 14 opposition parties joined forces to call on their supporters to boycott the elections, amid fears that the President would put forth legislation to allow him to run again in 2020 and 2025.

During the mediation talks held by Ghana and Guinea to resolve the crisis, the opposition asked for an overhaul of the electoral commission and for term limits to be set, but this was not to be. Elections are a major source of contention and strife in Togo. How many more people will be arbitrarily arrested and detained? How many more people will tell us their tales of torture, simply because they exercise their human right to freedom of expression or opinion?

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Like her, I have many constituents, some of whom are in the Public Gallery, who will be watching this debate closely, and who have real concerns about their friends and family still in Togo. Does she share my concern about the repressive cyber-security law that the National Assembly recently passed, which human rights campaigners around the world agree will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression?

[Teresa Pearce]

I do have major concerns about that. If people are not free to access information and communicate with each other, it puts Togo in the same position as many other regimes, such as China. The Togolese Government beat their opposition for expressing dissent, and silence the media and journalists. In November, the Minister replied to a question that I raised, saying that the UK Government recommended that allegations of arbitrary arrest and detention, and allegations of torture, be investigated thoroughly. Reports from Amnesty International and other human rights organisations dispute that that has taken place in Togo.

I have five questions for the Minister. If she cannot answer them now, I request that she sends me a written response. First, what can the Foreign Office do—what will it do—to encourage Togo to end its security forces’ excessive use of force and for their authorities to respect people’s right to peaceful protest? Secondly, does the Minister join me in condemning the Togolese Government for shutting down the internet, and contravening article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights? Thirdly, what assistance is the UK giving to support human rights defenders and civil society in Togo? Fourthly, how might the Foreign Office encourage Togo to ensure that perpetrators of human rights abuses are held accountable and prosecuted in a court of law? Finally, will the Minister ask the Togolese Government when the high commissioner for reconciliation and strengthening national unity will action the plan to implement the truth, justice and reconciliation commission of Togo’s 68 recommendations?

The 70th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights was marked on 10 December 2018. Togo is a signatory to that declaration. On paper, Togo is doing the right things to show that it cares about and is committed to human rights values and principles—I have touched on those things throughout my speech. However, in reality, the Government and the security forces there fail to adhere to human rights standards. Togo seems to be a country open to improvement when it comes to its human rights failings. That is why it was elected to the Human Rights Council. However, we seem to be dealing with a Government who make assurances to protect human rights and adhere to human rights standards one day, and abandon those values when they think that nobody is looking.

South-eastern Rail Franchise

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Teresa Pearce

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Far too much is made of the problems that undoubtedly exist at the throat point at Lewisham. Those problems do not ground the proposed service revisions under the franchise specification.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. What he says about Belvedere and Erith stations in my constituency is true: services to Charing Cross will be stopped and the Thameslink will not stop there. There are substantial new housing developments, and the people who move in will stand on the platforms at Belvedere and Erith and watch trains whizz past them, with no way for them to get to work.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is a mind reader, because she anticipates my next point.

Viewed in the context of the Department’s serious and significant underestimation throughout this process of the scale of development and projected population growth in the area—my hon. Friend raised the point at the time of the consultation—the service revisions are of real concern and I ask the Minister to revisit them, but they are not my only concern.

It is difficult to understand why the ITT includes nothing that will encourage bidders to offer enhanced services. Indeed, it includes stringent conditions that militate against any attempt to do so. If a bidder determines to propose an enhanced service and the DFT judges that the conditions are not met, the bidder risks being penalised by having its score reduced. Surely, if one of the three bidders believes it could maintain services from, say, Woolwich and Charlton to Charing Cross to meet passenger demand, why should it not be able at least to explore the option?

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the new franchise specification is that none of the commendable aspirations set out in the joint plan published by the Department and Transport for London in January 2016 has been included. Will the Minister tell the House why options such as greater integration of fares and the staffing of stations from the first train to the last were ruled out? Given the tangible benefits those options would bring, will he reconsider including them?

Lastly, although in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves I certainly welcome the introduction of a new “one team” model of franchising that will bring the future operator and Network Rail together under a single director responsible for both infrastructure and operations, whether it will work is another matter entirely. The Minister may recall that a previous attempt to foster closer working between South West Trains and Network Rail fell apart. How confident is he that this latest attempt will succeed where that one failed?

To conclude, it is beyond doubt that passengers using the south-eastern rail network have suffered from substandard services for far too long. All of us would agree, I hope, that they deserve better from the next franchise, but I have real concerns—concerns shared by passengers and the rail user groups in my constituency—that the way the Government have approached the franchise that is to be let later this year will not deliver the level of service that passengers expect and deserve. We will all have to live for the best part of a decade, and perhaps even longer, with the franchise and the operator who secures the award later this year. It is crucial that we get it right.

I would like to ask the Minister not only to address in his reply to the debate some of the specific concerns that I have raised, but to go away and think again about some of the limitations of the franchise specification published by his Department last year and what might be done, even at this late stage, to address them. I fear that if he does not, we will all be back here next year, and potentially for many years after that, repeating concerns about services on the network on behalf of those we represent.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Teresa Pearce

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Teresa Pearce]

Thank you, Sir Alan. The Minister misunderstands what the amendment is meant to do. We are trying to establish a way for tenants and prospective tenants—someone who is about to enter into a legal lease—to check with the local authority whether the person offering the lease is a fit and proper person. Someone could call up their local housing authority and say, “This person has offered me a lease. Are they fit and proper, or are they a banned landlord?” If the answer is no, and the landlord is not on the list, the person could proceed, or remain silent if the landlord is on the list. The only other way of giving individual tenants such protection would be to give some sort of kitemark to all landlords except those who are not fit and proper, which would be onerous.

The amendment is quite simple, but I thought long and hard before tabling it. Many people contacted me to say they wanted a public database, which I think would be a step too far, because there could be misunderstandings if there are people with similar names. That would not be right.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate that the Minister did not want to take an intervention, but it is important the Committee gets some clarity on this. What is different in data protection terms about the rogue employers that are named, shamed and listed by the Government? Why can the deviation or derogation from the Data Protection Act in that respect not apply in this respect, to empower tenants?

[Teresa Pearce]

I completely agree. We should be protecting people from engaging in a legal lease with someone who the local authority knows should not be offering that because they have been banned. We would therefore like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.