BRIEFING PAPER: ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION IN NAMIBIA M ‘ In Africa, some governments have used the threat of terrorism as a pretext for introducing draconian legislation aimed more at suppressing political opponents and journalists than dealing with actual terror suspects. ’ any countries around the world have revamped, extended or introduced anti-terrorism legislation since the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks in the US and subsequent attacks around the world, such as Madrid (2004) and London (2005). Following ‘9/11’, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which obliges member states to create legal frameworks to counter terrorism, including criminalising the financing of terrorism. Many governments have since introduced measures that extend security agencies’ powers of investigation, arrest and detention, and to various extents limit civil liberties. In addition, such laws often include wide-ranging definitions of ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist activities’. Such reforms have also sought to bring domestic laws in conformity with international conventions, treaty obligations, and UN Security Council resolutions, particularly on issues such as the financing of terrorist activities and the freezing of assets belonging to proscribed individuals. In Africa, some governments have used the threat of terrorism as a pretext for introducing draconian legislation aimed more at suppressing political opponents and journalists than dealing with actual terror suspects. For example, Swaziland has used the Suppression of Terrorism Act to crackdown on political protest against the rule of King Mswati III.1 In Ethiopia dozens of journalists and political activists have been arrested or sentenced under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation of 2009.2 A new anti-terrorism law introduced in Kenya in late 2014 has been challenged in court. Kenya faces a significant terror threat from Somalia-based terrorist group alShabaab, which has launched a number of deadly attacks in the country. The new law hands Kenyan authorities the power to hold suspects for nearly a year without charge and threatens journalists with up to three years behind bars if their reports “undermine investigations or security operations relating to terrorism”.3 A false start Namibia did not join the rush to introduce a prevention of terrorism law post-9/11. The drafting of an anti-terrorism law proceeded haphazardly and with little sense of urgency until it became clear that Namibia’s failure to introduce a law could have international repercussions. Prior to 2012, the main piece of Namibian legislation referring to terrorism was the Defence Act (No. 1 of 2002). Chapter VI of the Act deals with national defence, terrorism, armed conflict, internal disorder and other emergencies, and includes a provision for the mobilisation of a reserve force to prevent and suppress terrorism. Section 1 of the Defence Act defines “terrorism” as: The use of violence against persons or property, or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce the government, the public or any section of the public in order to achieve or promote any tribal, ethnic, racial, political, religious or ideological objective. Only in December 2012 did Namibia follow international trends by introducing an anti-terrorism law: the Prevention and Combating of Terrorist Activities Act – Act 1 2 3 See ‘Suppression of Terrorism Act undermines human rights in Swaziland’ http://www.amnesty.org/en/ library/info/AFR55/001/2009 See ‘UN Experts Urge Ethiopia to Stop Using Anti-Terrorism Legislation to Curb Human Right’, Addis Standard, September 18 2014 See http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2015/01/kenya-security-law-faces-legal-hurdle-2015121420379 6518.html PAGE 1