21 Aug 2007: ISS Today: Mauritania - Criminalisation of Slavery is a Welcome Development, But . . .

21 August 2007: Mauritania - Criminalisation of Slavery is a Welcome Development, But . . .

 

On Thursday, 9 August 2007, the National Assembly (parliament) of Mauritania unanimously passed a bill making the practice of slavery a criminal offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison.  Like the anti-Semitism laws in some European countries, the new law also makes anyone found apologising for the practice liable for up to two years in jail. Many anti-slavery and human rights organizations that had long been campaigning for Mauritania to adopt such a tough legal instrument have welcomed the law, though some have expressed disappointment at some aspects of it, seeing them as being weak and insufficient.

 

Before the new law was passed, London-based Anti-Slavery International welcomed the draft bill but urged the government to include “contemporary aspects of slavery, such as forced marriage, indentured labour and debt bondage.” The organization also suggested that the maximum jail term for perpetrators be increased to 30 years.

 

The practice of enslavement has existed in Mauritania for as long as the country has been in existence; this of course includes the years since it regained independence from France in 1961. Slavery was first abolished in Mauritania in November 1981 by a presidential decree signed by President Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidallah, the country’s fourth leader since independence. But because of the many loopholes in the decree and, most importantly, the lack of any enforcement mechanisms, “slave owners” ignored it and got away with their actions for more than two decades.

 

In July 2003, under the rule of Maaouiya Ould Taya, a bill was passed providing some token enforcement measures. But this was largely ignored for the same reasons as the 1981 decree, although human rights organisations and anti-slavery groups did manage to get many enslaved people freed through pressurising the government and organising awareness campaigns amongst the victims and their “masters”, some of whom renounced to the practice and joined the campaign trail. In addition, some enslaved people escaped by themselves.

 

Then, on 3 August 2005, Mr Taya was overthrown in a military coup while he was attending the late King Fahd’s funeral in Saudi Arabia. A seventeen member “Military Council for Justice and Democracy” took over under the leadership of Colonel Ely Ould Mohamed Vall, previously a high-ranking officer in Taya’s presidential guard since 1987. Following the tradition of almost all military juntas, the new rulers of Mauritania dissolved parliament but reassured the international community that their regime would respect “Mauritania’s commitment to all the international treaties and agreements which it has signed.” Conscious of the new political order on the continent (especially coming just a few months after a similar military take-over in Togo and the shower of criticism that had attracted), they attempted to minimize criticism by affirming that they “will not rule for longer than the necessary period required to prepare and create the genuine democratic institutions,” and that this period “will not exceed two years at the most.”

 

At the time, the impression of many observers, including the author of this article, was one of scepticism.  But nineteen months later Colonel Vall and his colleagues honoured their promise by organising the first multiparty elections in Mauritania and by leaving power at the announcement of the winner in March this year.

 

On 30 May, delivering on one of his campaign promises, the elected president, Sidi Ould cheikh Abdellahi re-opened the issue of slavery by asking the country’s lawmakers to revise the previous laws with the aim of strengthening their enforcement capacity. A draft bill was soon submitted to parliament for comments and suggestions for possible amendments. While it is true that the new draft bill was stronger than all the previous ones, it still remained vague on many important aspects. Many anti-slavery organisations expressed concerns that unless strengthened further, its impact may not be much different from that of its predecessors.

 

Of all the pressure groups, one anti-slavery organisation in particular, SOS-Slavery Mauritania, did not limit itself to voicing its concerns through press releases only. As an effective home-grown lobbying group, SOS-Slavery Mauritania engaged in an extensive lobbying campaign among lawmakers and, particularly, members of parliament. It submitted written proposals to these officials and kept up a lively public debate on the issue. The group’s amendment proposals included, for instance, expanding the definition of “slave” to include any practice of unlawfully exercising authority over a person which deprives him or her of some of his/her basic rights. Another proposal that was taken into account by the MPs was proposal for an increase in the jail term for which perpetrators are liable, up to a maximum of 10 years.

 

With the passing of the law in parliament SOS-Slavery’s secretary of foreign relations, Abdel Nasser Ould Othman Yessa, declared in a personal communication with the author that the organisation is generally satisfied with the new law “because the lawmakers adopted the majority of our amendment proposals, especially with regard to the enlargement of the scope of the definition of slavery and the adoption of relatively severe punishments for law breakers.” But Mr Yessa had a caveat: to him, the real battle is now in how to translate the law into practice.

 

This is truly a matter of concern, especially given how rooted the practice of slavery is in Mauritanian society, both among victims and perpetrators. Challenges of enforcement abound. For example, Article 9 of the law, which applies to the apologists of slavery, prescribes a two-year prison term for the author of a cultural or artistic production that justifies or glorifies slavery, and instructs that such product be seized and destroyed. The law goes on to say that should the author of such a production be an institution or group, said group or institution would be liable for a fine equivalent to 5 million ouguiya, about US$ 20,000. But why should the directors or managers of such a group not be both punished and fined? Is the rich cultural heritage of Mauritania, which is surely a reflection of the society, really free of such glorifications or justifications? Will the law be interpreted in a way that offending songs and films will be taken off air in both public and private media, and their continuous usage by other means banned? 

 

Some have recommended that government enjoin former “slave owners” to pay compensation to their erstwhile servants. Others have gone further to argue that the government itself should adopt a policy of “positive discrimination” vis-à-vis the descendants of former “slaves” (the Hartanis), as suggested by the MP for Hatem, Honourable Saleh Ould Hannane during the discussions about the bill in parliament. These are good proposals. Although some view them as being problematic, pointing to how blurred the boundaries are between many so-called masters and their servants in terms of financial assets, the Mauritanian government can surely afford this in the near future, given the country’s newly-found oil wealth.

 

For now however, it must be acknowledged that the adoption of the new law is a triumph for social justice and a positive step forward. Anti-slavery organizations and other civil society groups, especially local ones, must continue to lobby the government and the country’s lawmakers so that effective enforcement of the provisions of this law is achieved and the weaknesses in the current legislation are addressed over time. Education and campaigns of awareness-raising about this shameful practice by some Africans over their brethren must now be the other priority of all concerned.

 

Issaka K. Souaré, African Security Analysis Programme, Tshwane (Pretoria)