TIGblogs TIG | TIGblogs GROUP TIGBLOGS LOGIN SIGNUP
Believe Africa - My Blog
Believe Africa - My Blog
« previous 5


BURUNDI: RELEASE CIVILIANS DETAINED WITHOUT CHARGE
Related to country: Burundi
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic


Stop Arbitrary Arrests, Beatings of Alleged FNL Members

(Bujumbura, May 30, 2008) – Burundian police and judicial officials should immediately release the scores of persons still detained solely as suspected members of a movement long opposed to the government, Human Rights Watch said today. They should also instruct security forces to cease such arrests.

More than 300 alleged members of the Party for the Liberation of the Hutu People-National Liberation Forces (Parti pour la Libération du Peuple Hutu-Forces Nationales pour la Libération, Palipehutu-FNL), many of them civilians, have been arrested throughout Burundi since mid-April. Police released 102 detainees on May 29, 2008, in what they called a “gesture of good faith from the government” and said that they may release others soon.

“Some people have been in detention for weeks, even though Burundian law clearly prohibits holding anyone without charge for more than seven days,” said Alison Des Forges, senior adviser to Human Rights Watch’s Africa division. “Officials should release civilian detainees, or charge them if there is evidence that they committed crimes.”

On April 17, 2008 the FNL, a military wing of the party, bombarded the capital city of Bujumbura in violation of a September 2006 ceasefire agreement. Officials immediately began rounding up FNL supporters. On May 26, the FNL and the government signed a new ceasefire, bringing combat to a halt once again.

Membership of the Palipehutu-FNL is not illegal, although recruiting combatants and disseminating FNL propaganda are violations of the ceasefire agreement. Some detainees are FNL combatants, whose release will be addressed in the course of peace talks. But a number of detained young people, including several minors, belong to the FNL’s civilian youth wing, the Patriotic Hutu Youth (Jeunesse Patriotique Hutu, JPH). Other detainees told human rights monitors that they belong to opposition political parties other than the FNL.

Dozens of detainees are crowded into irregular detention sites, including military installations and camps of the Rapid Mobile Intervention Group (Groupement Mobile d’Intervention Rapide, GMIR), a unit of the police that is not authorized to detain civilians.

While police and military spokespersons have confirmed that FNL membership alone can not be the basis for a lawful arrest, no steps are being taken to ensure that the law is being properly implemented.

Some officials have acknowledged that the continued detention of FNL members is illegal. One judicial police officer in Bujumbura told Human Rights Watch: “Many of the alleged FNL detainees have committed no crimes, [but] we can’t release them. It’s political.”

A provincial governor said that he had ordered the arrest of four civilians who had once been FNL combatants in order to “intimidate” them into not rejoining the rebels. He acknowledged, “You’re right that from the point of view of human rights, it’s not legal, but administrators are obliged to preserve order.”

Soldiers and police have beaten and otherwise mistreated many detainees. Of 17 detainees selected at random from those held at a Bujumbura jail, Human Rights Watch found that nine had been beaten (seven by police officers and two by soldiers) and one had been subject to death threats by intelligence agents.

One detainee recounted: “I was arrested by a military officer and beaten by four soldiers at a military camp. They beat me on my legs, arms, stomach and back with batons. My whole body swelled up.” One young woman, a member of the JPH arrested in Bujumbura Rurale province, spent four days at a military camp where she was beaten with the butt of a Kalashnikov on her legs, back, arms, and head before being transferred to a civilian jail. A Human Rights Watch researcher observed that her entire body was heavily bruised. Several other detainees said they had been punched and kicked by police officers, while another said he had spent five days and nights in handcuffs.

Police use irregular security forces in making some arrests. Many irregulars were once combatants from the National Council for the Defense of Democracy-Forces for the Defense of Democracy (Conseil national pour la défense de la démocratie-Forces pour la défense de la démocratie, CNDD-FDD), the former rebel group that is now the dominant political force in the Burundian government.

According to one detainee interviewed by Human Rights Watch, demobilized combatants in civilian clothing and armed with pistols aided police officers in arresting him. “They said I was FNL,” he recounted, “and put me in handcuffs. They removed their belts and beat me over the head.” One month after the arrest, the marks of a beating on his head were clearly visible to a Human Rights Watch researcher.

Another detainee arrested by demobilized combatants said he saw these same men, armed with pistols, grenades, and Kalashnikovs, regularly threaten JPH members in his neighborhood. A local official confirmed that a group of demobilized CNDD-FDD combatants works closely with the police on occasion.

According to high-ranking police officials, detainees will remain behind bars until negotiations result in an agreement on the release of political prisoners. Given the slow progress in previous ceasefire talks, that could take weeks or months. A member of the international facilitation team said there was no reason civilian FNL members could not be released immediately.

“Police and judicial officials have the duty to keep order, but they can’t do that by violating the law themselves,” said Des Forges. “Locking up persons without charge or having them arrested by civilians who have no legitimate authority is no way to enforce the law.”

Background

Following more than a decade of conflict, the Palipehutu-FNL and the Burundian government signed a ceasefire agreement in September 2006, but efforts at implementation stalled, in part because of disagreement over the release of political prisoners. In July 2007, the FNL abandoned talks and returned to the bush, protesting the alleged bias of the South African facilitator. While both sides continued to give lip service to the ceasefire agreement, it was violated a number of times in late 2007 and early 2008, particularly by the FNL. FNL combatants attacked government-protected camps housing persons claiming to be former FNL combatants who left the movement in search of peace. They killed several police officers and soldiers, apparently to capture their weapons, and also pillaged the homes of rural residents, forcing thousands to flee.

As the FNL stepped up its activities, unidentified assailants attacked people thought to have been former FNL combatants and JPH members in Bujumbura. A prominent civilian FNL supporter and his 12-year-old son were shot and killed in January 2008, as were the aunt and uncle of an alleged FNL combatant. In both cases, witnesses said assailants were demobilized combatants from the CNDD-FDD. No one has been arrested for either killing.

Several CNDD-FDD local officials and agents of the National Intelligence Service (Service National du Renseignement, SNR) were also killed in early 2008, in what local authorities interpreted as revenge killings carried out by the FNL.

According to several FNL and JPH supporters, they were so afraid of the demobilized combatants that some went into hiding while others rejoined – or joined for the first time – FNL combat units. One student and former FNL combatant said: “I made a promise to my church ... that I would give up combat, but in Bujumbura I am afraid I will be killed by the demobilized guys from the CNDD-FDD. I feel I would be more secure if I were to go back and join the FNL in the bush.”

In late March 2008, FNL leaders based in Tanzania announced they would return to Bujumbura to discuss implementing the September 2006 ceasefire if the parliament would adopt a law guaranteeing them “provisional immunity” from arrest. The government had granted similar guarantees in the past, including for members of the CNDD-FDD. The “provisional immunity” covers ordinary crimes, but not grave violations of international humanitarian law like war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The Burundian parliament has been in a political deadlock and has passed no laws in months. Unable to obtain the “provisional immunity” they sought, the FNL bombarded Bujumbura on April 17. The Burundian army successfully counterattacked and pushed the FNL back into the hills surrounding Bujumbura. After suffering heavy losses during a month of fighting, and in response to a May 5 ultimatum from Tanzania demanding that FNL leaders leave the country within 10 days, the FNL resumed negotiations on May 16 and signed a new ceasefire on May 26.

Arrests of alleged FNL members began immediately following the attacks. Although police in some provinces gradually began to free detainees whom they recognized had committed no crimes, in other provinces the arrests continued even after the FNL delegation returned to negotiations.

HRW

May 30, 2008 | 4:54 PM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


EGYPT: EXTENDING STATE OF EMERGENCY VIOLATES RIGHTS
Related to country: Egypt
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic


Repressive Law Renewed in Place of Promised Reforms

(New York, May 28, 2008) – The Egyptian government’s abrupt extension by two years of the country’s decades-old state of emergency shows contempt for the rule of law, Human Rights Watch said today. Parliament rushed through the extension on May 26 with little debate and despite vociferous objections from the opposition and rights groups.

Egypt has been governed under emergency law almost continuously since 1967, and without interruption since Hosni Mubarak became president in October 1981 after the assassination of president Anwar Sadat. The law has been repeatedly renewed since then. The law gives the executive – in practice the Ministry of Interior – extensive powers to suspend basic rights such as prohibiting demonstrations, censoring newspapers, monitoring personal communications, and detaining people indefinitely without charge. Egyptian defense attorneys and human rights groups say about 5,000 people currently remain in long-term detention without charge or trial. Some prisoners held under the emergency law have been in jail for more than a decade.

“By extending the state of emergency, Cairo has once again run roughshod over the rule of law,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The emergency today in Egypt is a government that refuses to govern without routinely resorting to extreme measures that deprive people of basic freedoms.”

On May 20, 2008, Egypt’s official National Council for Human Rights said in a statement, “Nothing any longer justifies the extension of the state of emergency, all the more so as Egypt is experiencing a period of stability.”

Top government officials, including Mubarak, have repeatedly said that they would not seek to renew the state of emergency beyond its expiration on May 31, 2008. Since Mubarak’s 2005 election campaign promises that the law would be replaced by new counterterrorism legislation, his government has renewed the law twice, in May 2006 and again this week.

Emergency Law No. 162 was first passed in 1958 but not implemented until 1967. It permits the executive to refer civilians to military or exceptional state security courts, whose composition is determined by the president and where the accused has no right of appeal, in violation of international fair trial standards. In February 2006, days after a civilian court dismissed all criminal charges against Khairat al Shatir, deputy supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 15 other senior members of the group, President Mubarak, acting in his capacity as commander-in-chief, transferred their cases and those of 24 other persons to a military tribunal. On April 15, 2008, the military tribunal sentenced Shatir and 24 other civilians to prison terms of up to 10 years.

The emergency law allows authorities to prohibit strikes, demonstrations and public meetings; censor or close down newspapers and other media, and monitor private letters and phone calls. On April 6 and 7, 2008, security forces prevented textile workers from striking in the Nile delta city of Mahalla, violently dispersed protests against rising costs of food and basic goods, and detained scores, including many online activists who had promoted the strike. When Egypt’s prosecutor-general ordered the release of 20 detainees a week later, the Interior Ministry invoked the emergency law to re-arrest them, according to news reports.

The government of President Gamal Abd al-Nasser drafted the emergency law to be used during war, internal disturbances or natural disasters that endanger public security or public order.

On Monday, Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif told the Egyptian parliament that “Ordinary laws are not sufficient to resist terrorism,” adding that the government had not had time to prepare counterterrorism legislation. Six months earlier, in December 2007, the counterterrorism law’s drafting committee told Human Rights Watch that it was near-complete.

Human Rights Watch has called for the planned counterterrorism law to abolish the administrative detention regime provided for under emergency rule, as well as guarantee the protection of basic rights of speech, association, assembly, and the right to a fair trial. The government in March 2007 held a hastily scheduled referendum to approve constitutional amendments which effectively waive protections against arbitrary search and seizure in cases the government designates as terrorism-related.

“If and when Cairo finally introduces its long-awaited counterterrorism legislation, it should allow time for a full parliamentary and public debate,” Whitson said. “It shouldn’t resort to its usual practice of railroading the law through a compliant parliament that owes its large government majority to tainted elections.”

A day after the extension, on May 27, Egyptian authorities reportedly arrested up to 18 members of the Muslim Brotherhood on charges of belonging to a banned group.

As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which it ratified in 1982, Egypt is obligated to ensure that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. The covenant says that, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.” Egypt also has a legal obligation to ensure that, “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

In November 2002, the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommended that Egypt lift its “permanent state of emergency.” That same month, the UN Committee Against Torture concluded that “the fact that a state of emergency has been in force since 1981” hindered “the full consolidation of the rule of law in Egypt.”

In a May 14, 2008 joint statement, 14 Egyptian human rights organization called for “an end to the epoch of emergency,” and warned that the lack of legislative supervision or judicial review over the executive branch’s powers under the emergency law had eroded “the legal foundations of the state.”

Egypt was elected to the UN Human Rights Council in May 2007, after making 31 specific pledges relating to “the full realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, emphasizing, in this respect, the promotion of democracy, rule of law and good governance.” Egypt’s pledges included ”lifting the current state of emergency upon the completion and adoption of a new anti-terrorism legislation, the objective of which is to achieve the delicate balance between protecting the security of the society and the respect of human rights,” and “preserv[ing] the freedom of the press [and] the independence of the judiciary.”

HRW

May 28, 2008 | 5:50 PM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


SIERRA LEONE: WAR CRIMES RULING BOLSTERS VICTIM PROTECTION
Related to country: Sierra Leone
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic


Reason for Fighting Cannot Reduce Penalties

(New York, May 28, 2008) – The decision by Sierra Leone’s war crimes court to reject sentence reductions for two convicted militia members because they fought for a “legitimate cause” is crucial in ensuring justice for all victims of human rights violations, Human Rights Watch said today.

The appeals chamber of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone handed down its judgment on May 28 in the sentencing of Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa. They were leaders of the government-supported Civil Defence Forces during Sierra Leone’s brutal armed conflict that ended in 2002.

Both men were convicted of war crimes involving extreme acts of violence such as mutilations against civilians. The trial chamber of the court had reduced their sentences on the grounds that they had engaged in the conflict to secure democracy. The appeals chamber rejected that portion of the ruling. Consistent with this and other findings, the appeals chamber increased Fofana’s sentence from six to 15 years and Kondewa’s sentence from eight to 20 years.

“This decision rightly affirms that there is no excuse for attacking and mutilating civilians regardless of the purpose in fighting,” said Elise Keppler, international justice senior counsel at Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch has analyzed why motives behind waging war are not an acceptable basis to mitigate sentences in a memorandum.

The Special Court trial chamber found the defendants guilty of very serious violations of international humanitarian law following testimony from more than 100 witnesses who described barbaric crimes that included mutilations, targeting, and deliberate killing of unarmed men, women, and children, and the murder of women who had sticks inserted and forced into their genitals.

“The ruling reinforces the principle that all parties in a conflict must abide by the same rules and be subject to the same punishment,” said Keppler. “To do less would provide victims unequal protection under the law depending on who their attackers are.”

It is unprecedented at international courts for the political motivation of a perpetrator in taking up arms to be accepted as a mitigating factor in reducing sentences, Human Rights Watch said. The international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda previously have rejected similar claims.

“The Special Court has been an important force in bringing justice for horrific crimes committed in Sierra Leone,” said Keppler. “This decision is a further step in that direction and strengthens similar decisions by other international criminal courts.”

Background

The Special Court is charged with bringing to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for grave crimes committed since November 1996, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, other serious violations of international humanitarian law, and certain violations of Sierra Leonean law. Created in 2002 through an agreement between the United Nations and the Sierra Leonean government, the Special Court represents a significant new model of international justice, often referred to as a “mixed” or “hybrid” tribunal.

Sierra Leone’s Special Court has thus far tried eight individuals associated with the three warring factions during the conflict – Revolutionary United Front, Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), and Civil Defence Forces – in Freetown. Liberia’s former president Charles Taylor is being tried by the Special Court, for crimes allegedly committed in Sierra Leone, at the facilities of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Taylor’s trial was relocated from Liberia due to security concerns in the region.

The only other trial in which a judgment has been handed down is in the AFRC trial. In a judgment affirmed on appeal, the three defendants were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity and sentenced to 45 and 50 years.

HRW

May 28, 2008 | 5:13 PM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


Angola: Resume Negotiations with UN Rights Body
Related to country: Angola
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic


Government Seeks to Avoid Scrutiny Before Elections

(New York, May 25, 2008) – As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Angola should reconsider its March 2008 order that the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Angola cease activities by the end of May 2008, Human Rights Watch said today.

“Angola is going back on its word to support a constructive dialogue and increased cooperation with the UN human rights office,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The government made that commitment in writing to the president of the UN General Assembly before joining the Human Rights Council in May 2007. Angola should keep its promises.”

The closure of the OHCHR field office in Angola comes three months ahead of Angola’s parliamentary elections scheduled for September 5-6, 2008 – the first to be held in the country since 1992.

“The Angolan government’s decision to shut down this important human rights office signals growing government intolerance of human rights scrutiny and other criticism in the run-up to September’s elections,” said Gagnon. “It’s worrying that the already limited space for human rights defenders could be restricted further.”

The government issued its order shortly after the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteur for the Freedom of Religion or Belief made public their Angola mission reports at the 7th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2008. Angolan officials rejected out of hand many of the working group’s findings, denying there had been any case of torture and claiming excessive pre-trial detention in Angola had stopped by the end of 2007.

The Angolan government has sought to justify its decision to close the OHCHR office on the grounds that the presence of the office in Angola is no longer necessary now that peace and democratization has been consolidated and functioning national human rights institutions established. The government has also stated that the office had no legal status in the country and as such never existed. Moreover, in March 2008, the minister of justice suggested at the Human Rights Council that the UN high commissioner for human rights’s criteria for establishing field offices were not transparent and may have “political motivations.”

As Human Rights Watch has found, peace has still not taken root in the enclave of Cabinda, and national human rights institutions such as the Provincial Human Rights Committees are yet not fully operational. The government continues to restrict the activities of independent media in much of the country.

The government’s argument that the OHCHR had no legal status is not convincing since it had agreed that the office should continue technical cooperation in Angola after the departure of the UN peacekeeping mission in 2003. The OHCHR field office has played an important role, assisting the government in establishing national human rights institutions and alternative justice mechanisms, drafting reports to UN human rights bodies and training the police to be more aware of human rights. It also facilitated access for Angolan nongovernmental organizations to UN human rights mechanisms.

In 2007, the OHCHR tried to persuade the government to permit the office to operate with a full human rights protection mandate. This would have been a major step toward sustaining ongoing reform efforts and ensuring an open environment for human rights defenders in the country.

Human rights defenders told Human Rights Watch how the OHCHR’s presence in Angola guaranteed them some degree of protection from government intimidation. This is particularly important as civil society organizations are increasingly worried about the government’s ongoing revision of the legal framework governing civil society, which could again threaten their existence. In 2007, government officials publicly accused several organizations of illegal activities, without ever substantiating such claims, and threatened to close the organizations.

Human Rights Watch called on the government of Angola to immediately reestablish dialogue with the OHCHR and quickly negotiate a solution that strengthens human rights capacity and allows for effective UN human rights monitoring to be resumed in the country. Human Rights Watch also urged the government to guarantee space for national and international civil society to operate freely in Angola before and after the upcoming elections in September.

HRW

May 25, 2008 | 6:19 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


Government Should Ensure Returns Are Voluntary and Secure
Related to country: Kenya
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

KENYA: STOP FORCING DISPLACED PEOPLE TO RETURN HOME


(London, May 23, 2008) – The Kenyan government should immediately stop forced returns of internally displaced people and ensure that all returns are safe and voluntary, Human Rights Watch said today.

On May 5, the Kenyan government launched Operation “Rudi Nyumbani” (Return Home), aimed at returning thousands of men, women, and children to their homes, which they fled in the violent aftermath of the December 2007 elections. However, on May 8, the provincial commissioner for Rift Valley province announced that all displaced persons camps in the province would be closed within three weeks. Since the announcement, there have been mounting reports of forced returns and inadequate services once people reach their homes.

“How can you have a voluntary return program with a deadline?” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Internally displaced people have the right to return voluntarily, when they feel safe, not when it suits the government.”

More than 250,000 people were newly displaced by the post-election violence in January and February 2008, and more than 100,000 were still in camps as of May 8. Many people fear that their home areas remain unsafe and that adequate reconciliation between hostile communities has not taken place. In the past weeks, there have been attacks on returning persons in Trans-Nzoia and Molo districts. Moreover, many people are being forced to return to areas where there is no food or shelter and the government has not provided any services.

In Trans-Nzoia district, in the northern Rift Valley, international nongovernmental organizations described to Human Rights Watch how police officers forcefully emptied camps in the Kitale area and ordered displaced people to leave. For instance, on May 13 in Kitale town, aid workers witnessed armed police dismantling occupied tents and the district commissioner beating a woman who refused to return home.

This account is just one of many incidents in which displaced persons have been driven out of camps in recent weeks without food or shelter. Many have gone back to the camps or simply set up informal camps closer to their home areas because their homes are still not safe. A man was killed by hostile neighbours in Patwaka when he returned two weeks ago. A group of 145 people who were moved from Explosion camp to Kitwamba on May 13 returned to Explosion because there was no food. According to the Nairobi-based National Internally Displaced Persons Network of Kenya (IDP Network), residents in Kuresoi complained that they had no shelter and no food upon reaching the places where their homes used to be; some went back to the camps on foot. Newspapers have reported at least two people were killed in Molo district by hostile neighbors unhappy at their return.

The UN’s Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons state that “Internally displaced persons … have the right to be protected against forcible return to or resettlement in any place where their life, safety, liberty and/or health would be at risk.” The Guiding Principles reflect international humanitarian law as well as human rights law, and provide a consolidated set of international standards governing the treatment of the internally displaced. Kenya has ratified the Great Lakes Pact which incorporates the Guiding Principles.

Forcefully returning displaced persons is not only a violation of the rights of those who had already been forced to flee their homes, but it also risks fuelling further conflict in an already volatile environment. The situation of internally displaced persons in Kenya is complex and requires a much broader examination and response. Many of the recently displaced people, as well as many others, were previously displaced from their homes and were never compensated for the losses they suffered during previous rounds of violence as far back as 1992.
“Returning people to unsafe or contested areas in a hurry will only lead to an illusion of peace, and in the long run it may make matters worse,” said Gagnon. “With the National Dialogue and Reconciliation and the new coalition government, Kenya has an opportunity to right historical injustices and address the problem of displacement in its totality.”

Even before the 2007 election, Kenya had a massive number of displaced persons due to decades of land disputes and conflict. In 2006, the IDP Network estimated that the total number of displaced persons in Kenya was between 250,000 and 365,000.

Successive governments have failed to solve the underlying causes of the displacement: disputes over land ownership and allocation as well as political violence fuelled by the political manipulation of ethnic tensions and communal mistrust.

Human Rights Watch called for the government to address the short-term concerns of security and assistance by engaging internally displaced persons in discussion about the return and resettlement process. The government should keep the camps open until such time as internally displaced persons feel safe to return. In the meantime, the government should continue to meet its obligations to provide people with security, assistance, and basic services such as health and education.

A durable solution to Kenya’s endemic problem of violence and displacement will only be realised when the government seriously addresses the long-running disputes over land rights, corruption, and unequal land ownership.

HRW

May 23, 2008 | 5:47 PM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


« previous 5


BELIEVE AFRICA's Profile

BELIEVE AFRICA's Friends


Latest Posts
In South Africa, rape...
South Africa swine-flu...
Aid agencies say G8...
Strike halts...
Absa's ATM...

Monthly Archive
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

Change Language


Tags Archive
africa andinothernews... angola archive business congodr epidemics international militarytricks national nigeria other sport sudan swineflu uganda zimbabwe

Filter By Type
Travel
Topics

Friends
'Gbenga Sesan
'Tunde David
A Better Community for All (ABC4All)
abbo
abolaarin musodiq
ADEOLA
adewole taiwo
African
agnes
Ahed Ali
ajlink
Akindele Oyeyemi
Alex
Alex B. Hill
Amalu
AMESH
angelviny
Anna Lieberg
Anu maheshwari
Arif Reza Anwary
ASHISH SHARMA
ashpaa
Atta ur Rehman Qureashi
AZIZ
Bakka
Belal jahjooh
BENGA
Benn
Bismah Haq
Brian
Camelia
carmen cabrejos carrasco
Carolina
Caroline Damba
cedrino
Cheikh Mamina Diédhiou
Chika
Chinwe
Christabell
clarita zarate
Dabesaki
DAKE KOFI SELORM
DAN
Dave Matthews
David katamba
davyk
Dennis Dames
diana
DOUMBIA
Edgar
Edionseri Endurance Omorogiuwa
Elijah Nyakina Odundo
Elizabeth Arceo
enock
Eric
esra
Faïd Souhaïli
Fi McKenzie
Francis Anyaegbu
Francisco Pereira
frank
Germain
GHANA FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE FOUNDATION
gypo3
Hafiidhaturrahmah
Hajie Bah
harisstavr
harrison akadidi
harya
Henry Davids
Herman
Herman
Humphrey
Ibukun
Ikahota
ISIAKA AKANNI WAHAB
Islam
Jacques
Jean-Yves
Joel
john
Jonathan Kidney
Judith Bosire
ken
King TUT JR.
Kirsten
KOUYATE
Kristle Calisto-Tavares
Kylee
LauraK
Liam O'Doherty
lief strong
lloyd
lucasrc
Maged Hassan
Malcolm Lawrence
Malkia Affiah
Margie Brand
Mark Okowa
Maz!n Khal!l
Medaer Frans
meddahi
Meniru Hamilton Chidozie
Mfon Usen
Mohammed Lamarana Barry
Monik Kumwenda
Mpasua Msonobari
Ms Saky
Muhammad Rauf
MUKAMA Nicholas
Muma Laura Sirri
Nabil Chemli
Neema Mgana
niang aly
Niombo Sylvie
Nosiku Ketata
oladimeji
Olebogeng Eunice Morebodi
Olowoyeye Oluwatosin Anu
Ooma
ostatee
Patricia Sudi
PEACE-SEEKER
Peter Koll
Reality
Richie
Robert Masenamela
Sabrine Herrira
Sah Ahmed
sahr yillia
Saladin
Saladin Abuhamdieh
salam
Samira Hassan
Sessi
Shymal
Stephen Kasoma
Stephen Ojeremen
Sulmaz Ghoraishi
Tebogo M Thekiso
teema
thatoski
Thembi Ngulani
Timothy G. Branfalt Sr.
Timothy Odiaga
Tk Mawuli Azaglo
Topsy
Tracy Webb
Trevor Kellogg
UGIRASHEBUJA Jean Luc
Usigbe George
vridhi sinha
vrman
wako-joel
Waleed Sorour
wilfried fink
Yashoda
zidanye
Весна

Links
Believe Africa Website


100584 views
Important Disclaimer