View previous stories
	The African Court needs more support for its human rights mandate by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International   Oct. 2026   Zambia’s poisoned children have waited long enough. Africa needs to act, write Allan Ngari, Juliane Kippenberg from Human Rights Watch   For generations, children in Kabwe, Zambia, have grown up in the shadow of a toxic legacy. They have played on contaminated soil, breathed dangerous dust, and faced threats to their health and development from one of the world’s most lead-polluted places. Their suffering is the consequence of decades of inadequate environmental protection, insufficient corporate accountability, and government failure to address a public health crisis whose dangers have long been known.   On 20 October, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, an African Union body responsible for monitoring implementation of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, is scheduled to consider a complaint against Zambia concerning the continuing lead poisoning of children in Kabwe.   The meeting coincides with International Lead Poisoning Prevention Week, observed from 18 to 24 October. This year’s theme, “From Detection to Prevention”, highlights that identifying lead poisoning is only the beginning. Governments need to act to prevent further exposure and protect rights.   Toxic colonial legacy   Lead and zinc mining began in Kabwe during British colonial rule. Although the mine closed in 1994, an estimated 6.4 million tonnes of uncovered waste and tailings remained, exposing surrounding communities to lead dust. Medical researchers have estimated that more than 95 percent of children living near the former mine have elevated blood lead levels. As many as 200,000 people may have been exposed.   Lead is particularly dangerous for children. The World Health Organization warns that exposure can damage the developing brain and nervous system, impair learning and cognitive development, and cause serious, irreversible health consequences. Severe exposure can be fatal. Lead exposure of pregnant women can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, and premature birth.   The contamination in Kabwe is made worse by current mining and processing operations that seek to extract minerals from the former mine’s waste. Businesses have recklessly removed, transported and processed lead-bearing waste, and the Zambian government has licensed such activities despite the risks to nearby communities.   In late 2025, Zambia permitted the Chinese company Hua Yu Sheng to take control of most of Kabwe’s lead waste for zinc extraction. The company has not responded to a Human Rights Watch request about its steps to identify and prevent environmental health risks.   Landmark complaint to the African Union   In April 2026, the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, working with Zambian civil society organisations and affected families, filed a complaint before the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.   The complaint alleges that Zambia has failed to meet its obligations under the African Children’s Charter and asks the committee to require urgent measures to prevent further exposure, provide testing and treatment, clean up contaminated areas, and ensure accountability.   Zambia has taken some steps to address contamination in Kabwe, including health and clean-up measures funded by the World Bank, and the creation of a multi-stakeholder technical committee. But these measures have not addressed the source of the contamination, so the toxic waste remains.   For years, efforts in Kabwe have focused on documenting the scale of contamination and identifying affected children. But a meaningful response requires the government to address the source of contamination.   First, the Zambian government should urgently contain hazardous mine waste and suspend mining or processing activities that contribute to children’s continued lead exposure.   Second, it should ensure comprehensive blood lead testing and medical treatment for children and women of childbearing age. Children already harmed should receive long-term health, educational and developmental support.   Third, the government should adopt and implement a fully funded, time-bound remediation plan to clean up the former mine, contaminated residential areas, schools, and other places where children live and learn. The plan should be based on the best available science and be developed with the participation affected communities.   Finally, mining companies and mineral processors need to be subjected to rigorous environmental oversight and enforcement, public disclosure of relevant information, and effective accountability for their contributions to contamination.   The environmental costs of commercial activities should not be transferred to affected families. Those responsible for pollution must contribute to remedying the harm.   The significance of this case extends beyond Kabwe as governments and multinational corporations across Africa intensify their pursuit of critical minerals needed for the global energy transition, digital technologies, and industrial development. But the pursuit of economic growth cannot justify exposing communities to toxic substances or sacrificing children’s health.   A strong response by the African Union to the Kabwe complaint could help clarify how the African Children’s Charter applies to corporate conduct and environmental harm from historical mining operations. It could also demonstrate that regional human rights institutions offer meaningful avenues for communities whose calls for justice have gone unanswered.   Children demand accountability   At the launch of the African Union complaint, a 15-year-old girl from Kabwe spoke about the aspirations of children living with contamination. “Children in Kabwe also have dreams,” she said, calling for environmental clean-up and a brighter future. Her words capture what is ultimately at stake - the child’s right to a healthy environment.   The African Committee of Experts should give the complaint the urgent consideration it deserves, assess Zambia’s compliance with its treaty obligations, and provide effective remedies through its communications procedure.   The children of Kabwe have already paid a high price for Zambia’s mining legacy. They should not have to wait another generation for justice.   http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/10/20/zambias-poisoned-children-have-waited-long-enough-africa-needs-to-act http://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-toxics-and-human-rights http://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/ToxicsSummary.pdf   July 2026   The African Court needs more support for its human rights mandate, by Japhet Biegon. (Amnesty International)   African Union (AU) member states must ensure full political, legal and financial support for the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court), to enable it to effectively carry out its mandate to protect human rights, Amnesty International said today as it launched a new report marking the Court’s 20th anniversary.   Released on World Day for International Justice, the report, ‘20 years of the African Court – Protect the Court, Protect the People’, examines the successes achieved and the challenges faced in two decades by the Court, which serves as an important regional judicial avenue for individuals and civil society organizations.   “The African Court is an essential judicial avenue for individuals and civil society organizations who cannot obtain prompt, effective and adequate remedy for human rights violations in their own countries. Despite its challenges, the African Court has demonstrated dynamism and agility in examining the cases brought to it, developing strong jurisprudence and expanding the protection of human rights in Africa,” said Japhet Biegon, Deputy Regional Director for East and Southern Africa at Amnesty International.   “It is vital that every AU member state ratifies the African Court Protocol and makes the declaration that would allow individuals and NGOs to directly access the Court, so that the African Court is able to continue to protect human rights in a meaningful way for decades to come.”   Since becoming operational in 2006, the African Court has finalized over 250 cases, including almost 150 in which it determined whether one or several human rights violations had been committed. Many of the Court’s final judgments relate to the rights to a fair trial, to dignity and to be free from torture and other ill-treatment for detainees, and to election-related matters.   In addition, the African Court has issued several landmark decisions, including concerning the protection of the most vulnerable.   Among them, the Zongo and Konate judgments against Burkina Faso in 2014 strengthened media freedom in the law and the fight against impunity for attacks against journalists in the country. The Ogiek case against Kenya in 2017 affirmed the recognition of the rights of an indigenous community while the 2023 judgment against Côte d’Ivoire concerning the dumping of chemical waste by privately-owned Probo Koala cargo ship developed crucial jurisprudence for the protection of the environment and peoples’ right to health.   Most recently in 2025, the Court issued an important decision related to combating discrimination and attacks against persons with albinism in Tanzania.   More support needed from AU member states   Twenty-one AU member states have yet to ratify the Protocol establishing the African Court. Only a dozen have ever made the requisite declaration allowing individuals and NGOs to petition the Court directly. Of these, five states (Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Tunisia) withdrew the declaration, depriving their people of an avenue for justice.   Other actors entitled to bring cases directly to the African Court such as AU member states, African intergovernmental organizations and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights have rarely done so. The Commission, another AU body charged with promoting and protecting human rights, has only referred three cases to the African Court over the last 20 years.   “Limited access remains one of the African Court’s biggest obstacles. We join with civil society organizations, bar associations, academic institutions, and people across the continent in calling for AU member states to enable the African Court to fully live up to its promise. Enabling and protecting the Court would contribute to protecting the rights of the African people,” said Japhet Biegon..   http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/07/african-court-support/ Visit the related web page
	International Court of Justice rules the right to strike is protected by key ILO labor treaty by UN News, agencies   The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that the right to strike is protected under a core International Labour Organization (ILO) convention, in a landmark advisory opinion settling a long-running dispute between workers and employers worldwide.   The 14-judge panel of the International Court of Justice, said the right to strike is protected under the ​International Labour Organization's 1948 Freedom of Association treaty signed ⁠by 158 countries.   "Freedom of association is instrumental in facilitating workers’ organizations to take collective action to further and defend the interests of their members, including through the exercise of the right to strike. Therefore, the Court considers that the protection of the right to strike is in line with the object and purpose of ILO Convention No. 87".   The case was referred to the Court by the ILO’s Governing Body in November 2023, after years of disagreement among the agency’s core constituents – governments, employers and workers – over whether Convention No. 87 protects the right to strike, even though the treaty does not explicitly mention strikes.   At the heart of the dispute was whether the right to organize under Convention No. 87 includes the right of workers and their organizations to take strike action. Workers’ representatives argued that the right to strike is inherent in freedom of association and has long been recognized by ILO supervisory bodies. Employers’ groups claimed that the convention contained no provision to include strike action.   The Court acknowledged that Convention No. 87 “does not contain an explicit reference to the right to strike,” but said the absence of such a provision “does not necessarily mean that the issue is excluded” from the treaty.   The judges found that strike action could fall within the ordinary meaning of workers’ organizations’ “activities” under the Convention, alongside provisions protecting the right of workers and employers to form organizations and defend their interests.   The judges noted that in some cases, the right to strike may be restricted. The opinion “does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope or conditions for the exercise of that right,” court president Yuji Iwasawa said.   The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) representing 191 million workers across 169 countries welcomed the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, confirming that the right to strike is protected under International Labour Organization Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.   "The International Court of Justice has an important constitutional role to play in the institutional governance of the ILO, and the Court has effectively discharged this role making an invaluable contribution to the ILO and multilateralism more broadly.   The Court’s opinion reaffirms decades of consistent international labour jurisprudence and restores legal certainty and credibility within the international labour standards system.   The right to strike is an essential component of freedom of association and a fundamental means through which workers defend their interests, secure decent work and contribute to democratic societies.   The ITUC stresses that today’s opinion is important not only for workers and trade unions, but also for governments and responsible businesses. Legal clarity and predictability on such a critical aspect of international labour law and the ILO standards supervisory system are indispensable for stable industrial relations and effective social dialogue..".   “As any trade unionist will tell you, there is no right to organize without the right to strike!” Christy Hoffman, general-secretary of UNI Global Union, said. “The two are inseparable foundations of any functional and fair industrial relations system.”   Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO—the largest US labor federation—said that “this decision affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: There is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike.”   “When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed.. At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one’s labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law”.   During hearings in October 2025, the court heard from 18 countries and five international organizations, including the ILO, with a number of other countries submitting writing arguments. The majority of participants favored the right to strike, a protection which is already granted in most European countries.   Presenting on behalf of the ITUC at the October ICJ hearings Professor of International Law Harold Hongju Koh from Yale University said: “Simply put, the choice before you is asymmetric. Should this Court answer the advisory question ‘yes,’ you would simply reconfirm what was the settled legal understanding until 2012, when the Employers abruptly abandoned it. … You would strengthen industrial democracy and order by reaffirming a social compact based on peaceful bargaining between employers and workers. But should you rule the other way, Employers will claim that the legality of the right to strike must be decided from country to country, offering multiple positions on interpretive issues regarding other ILO treaties.”   Koh challenged the Employers’ claim that legal recognition of the right to strike would threaten social order. “In real life,” he observed, “the right to strike is a safety valve, a nonviolent bulwark of social peace. Every day, we are served meals and drinks, ride in cars and buses, and work in offices on equipment that is built, prepared, and maintained by committed and conscientious workers. They don’t want to strike; they want to work; to do their jobs for a fair and honest wage. But behind their toil is constant awareness that if their rights are abused, they hold the fundamental right to withhold that work in fellowship with their co-workers.”   In closing, he argued: “your decision here will affect every worker in the world. However you rule, workers will still strike. Will you be the judges who tell them that, under Convention No. 87, they no longer have that right?”   The ILO said its Governing Body is expected to consider the matter at its November session, including any follow-up. The case is only the second time in ILO history that a question concerning interpretation of an international labour convention had been referred, and the first such request to the ICJ since its creation in 1945.   ICJ advisory opinions are not binding judgments, but they carry significant legal and political weight, shaping debates and national and international law. Based in The Hague, the ICJ is the United Nations’ principal judicial organ and is composed of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council.   http://www.icj-cij.org/case/191 http://www.icj-cij.org/multimedia/205741 http://www.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-welcomes-ICJ-confirmation-of-the-right-to-strike http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/10/1166044 http://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/freedom-association-and-protection-right-organize-convention
	View more stories