The Global Legal Monitor is an online publication from the Law Library of Congress covering legal news and developments worldwide. It is updated frequently and draws on information from official national legal publications, and reliable press sources. You can find previous news by searching the Global Legal Monitor.

For questions about articles or copies of materials in the Law Library’s collections, contact us at glm@loc.gov.

Current News

Namibia: Police Chief Calls for Gun Law Reform

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403602_text

(May 20, 2013) It was reported on May 20, 2013, that Sebastian Ndeitunga, Namibia's Police Inspector General, said that the country is "too armed"; that the process for obtaining arms is too lax; and that the country should quickly move to tighten the governing law, the Arms and Ammunition Act of 1996. (Shinovene Immanuel, Top Cop Admits Nation Is Too Armed, THE NAMIBIAN (May 20, 2013).) He highlighted the fact that there are no rules banning the carrying of firearms and other weapons, such as knives, in public as particularly problematic. (Id.) He also acknowledged the prevalence of cross-border trafficking of illegal arms, resulting from the region having been mired in various conflicts not long ago, particularly South Africa's armed resistance against apartheid rule, which lasted until the early 1990s, and Angola's civil war, which ended in 2002. (Id.)

The current regulatory regime imposes a host of requirements for obtaining a firearms license. With the exception of certain limited instances, it prohibits possession of a firearm without a license. (Arms and Ammunition Act 7 of 1996, § 2, GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA, No. 1338 (June 26, 1996), available at EBOOKBROWSE.)

Before a firearms license can be issued, the applicant is required to have a strongroom or other mechanism for the safekeeping of the firearm. (Id.) If a police officer, "on the ground of information contained in a statement made under oath or affirmation," believes that a person is a danger to himself or others, including due to his/her recklessness in handling a firearm, mental condition, propensity towards violence, or substance abuse problem, that officer may initiate a process to have the person declared unfit to possess a firearm. (Id. § 10.) In addition, a person convicted of the offense of possession of a firearm without a license; an offense during the commission of which a firearm was used; or certain other offenses such as intimidation, rape, or malicious injury to property, may be declared unfit to possess arms. (Id.)

The regulatory regime does not appear to require an applicant for a license to undergo a competency assessment of any kind, including for the purpose of ensuring that the applicant has had sufficient training to handle firearms or that he is mentally fit.

The law allows for a person to obtain a license for up to four arms at a time and permits an unlicensed person to borrow a firearm from a licensed person to whom he/she is not related for up to 21 days without permission from the authorities. (Id. §§ 3 & 8.)  

Namibia, a country of about 2.2 million people, has issued 148,000 firearms licenses since 1998. (Shinovene Immanuel, Gun Toting Namibia, THE NAMIBIAN (May 17, 2013).) In 2011, the country granted 7,100 applications for firearms licenses and rejected only 69. In 2012, 7,600 applications were approved and 109 applications rejected. (Id.) A 2007 survey estimated privately held arms in Namibia at 260,000, with the rate of 12.6 arms per 100 persons, making the country the 51st highest ranked in number of firearms per population. (Namibia — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law, INTERNATIONAL FIREARM INJURY PREVENTION AND POLICY (last visited May 20, 2013).)

Author:

Hanibal Goitom More by this author

Topic:	Firearms More on this topic
	Police More on this topic

Jurisdiction:

Namibia More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top

European Union: Response to Factory Collapse in Bangladesh

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403598_text

(May 20, 2013) In a statement issued on April 30, 2013, Catherine Ashton, the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Karel De Gucht,the Commissioner for Trade, expressed the EU's commitment to assisting Bangladeshi authorities in any possible manner in the wake of the April 2013 factory collapse in Bangladesh. (Joint Statement by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht Following the Recent Building Collapse in Bangladesh (hereinafter Joint Statement), CONSILIUM (Apr. 30, 2013).)

The accident, which was the worst of its kind in Bangladesh, killed 1,127 garment workers out of the 3,000 in the building. As of May 13, 2013, the authorities have discontinued their search for survivors. (Bangladesh Ends Search for Collapse Victims; Final Toll 1127, USA TODAY (May 13, 2013).)

The EU officials urged Bangladesh "toact immediately to ensure that factories across the country comply with international labour standards including International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions." (Joint Statement, supra.) In the Joint Statement, the EU also warned the Bangladeshi authorities that it is contemplating appropriate action, through the Generalized System of Preferences by which Bangladesh receives free quota? quota-free. and duty-free access to EU markets under the "everything but arms" program, "to incentivise responsible management of supply chains involving developing countries." (Id.)

The EU adopted the policy of "everything but arms" in 2001, to assist the least developed countries by granting them free access to the EU market for all their exports, except arms and armaments. Bangladesh is among the 49 current beneficiaries of this policy. (European Commission, Everything but Arms (EBA) - Who Benefits, EUROPA (Apr. 30, 2013).) The EU initiated its trade relationship with Bangladesh in 1973. Trade relations culminated in the signing of a cooperation agreement on partnership and development in 2001. Since then, the EU has been Bangladesh's largest trading partner. (Cooperation Agreement Between the European Community and the People's Republic of Bangladesh on Partnership and Development (Apr. 27, 2001), 2001 O.J. (L188) 48.)

In addition, the EU urged European and international companies doing business in Bangladesh "to promote better health and safety standards in garment factories in Bangladesh in line with internationally recognized Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) guidelines." (Joint Statement, supra; see also Shameema Rahman, Bangladesh: High Court Orders Property of Collapsed Building Owner Confiscated, GLOBAL LEGAL MONITOR (May 13, 2013).)

Author:

Theresa Papademetriou More by this author

Topic:

Labor More on this topic

Jurisdiction:

European Union More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top

Chad: Journalist Imprisoned

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403595_text

(May 20, 2013) On May 6, 2013, Eric Topona, the General Secretary of Chad's Union of Journalists, was arrested after being invited to the Justice Palace that morning. Topona's father is a political opponent of the current government and head of the National Union for Development and Renewal, an opposition political party. The charge on which he is being held is causing "trouble to the constitutional order." (Daniel N'Doh Nadjitan & Franz Wild, Chad Arrests Journalist over Government Criticism, Union Says, BLOOMBERG (May 6, 2013).)

Topona is being held in a prison on the outskirts of the capital city, N'Djamena. His lawyer, Sobdibe Zoua, said of the situation, "[t]he arrest in itself does not surprise me. … It is the charge itself that surprises. When you talk of attempt at constitutional order, you see that the intention is there to deal ruthlessly. It is a very very very serious offense." (Chad: General Secretary of the Chadian Union of Journalists Locked Up, RFI ONLINE (May 8, 2013), World News Connection online subscription database, Doc. No. 201305081477.1_23ed0025a2446e4f.)

Under Chad's Penal Code,attacks, plots,and other abuses against the constitutional order and the integrity and securityof the country can be punished, depending on circumstances, with confiscation of property, fines, lifetime or limited time forced labor, or the death penalty. (Code Pénal, arts. 81-91, CODE PÉNAL (N'Djaména, Jan. 2010).)

The arrest occurred in a time of tension in Chad, due to the arrest on May 1 of four officials who are accused of having planned a coup d'etat. Two generals and two legislators were arrested; it was alleged that they had been plotting the coup for four months.(Dany Padire, 4 Chad Officials Accused of Failed Coup Attempt, AP (May 2, 2013).)

The organizationReporters Sans Frontières (Reporters Without Borders) has expressed concern about Topona on several occasions, including upon this recent arrest. (Chad: General Secretary of the Chadian Union of Journalists Locked Up, supra.) In a statement published the day of his arrest, the organization noted that Topona's arrest follows that of a blogger detained since March 22 and said, "[t]he arrest and charging of Topona, who has been harassed several times in the past in connection with his journalistic activities, are unacceptable and constitute a flagrant violation of freedom of information. … We call for his immediate and unconditional release." (Journalist Arrested After Being Summoned to Law Courts, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS (May 6, 2013).)

Author:

Constance Johnson More by this author

Topic:

Freedom of the press More on this topic

Jurisdiction:

Chad More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top

Thailand: Move by Parliament to Amend the Constitution

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403594_text

(May 20, 2013) On April 7, 2013, the Thai Parliament voted to approve three bills in furtherance of the government's plan to amend the Constitution. The bills were submitted separately, because there are three very different subjects addressed by the amendments: the authority to conclude treaties, the senators, and the "overthrow of the democratic regime."

The bill that has received the most public attention is the one that proposes amending section 68 of the Constitution on the overthrow of the government. The bill was proposed by Somsak Kiartsuranon, the President of the Parliament, along with 311 coalition MPs. (Enacting a Bill to Amend Article 68, Political Divisions Heating Up [in Thai], DAILY NEWS (Apr.7, 2013).)

Proposed Changes to Section 68

Section 68 of the Constitution currently states in paragraphs 1 and 2:

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person. (Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), Senate of Thailand website.)

The bill on the proposed amendment of section 68 includes the following two changes.

The first change is to replace "in the Constitution" in section 68, paragraph 1, with "under Chapter 3 (Rights and Liberties of the Thai People) of the Constitution." The government has said that they want this section to be clearer. The change would mean that a person would be penalized for an act to overthrow the democratic regime only if the act falls under the categories of proscribed acts set forth in Chapter 3, rather than if the act violates any part of the whole Constitution, as is currently the case. (Section 68 [in Thai], DAILY NEWS (Apr.15, 2013).)

The second proposed amendment would make it clear that the Prosecutor General has the sole authority to decide whether to move a motion to the Constitutional Court. The underlined part would be added to paragraph 2 of section 68:

… have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts. After the Prosecutor General examines and agrees that the act is designed to overthrow the democratic regime or acquire the power to rule the country by any means not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution, then the Prosecutor General can submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act…" (Id.; underlining added by author.)

However, the People's Alliance for Democracy, an alliance of protesters against Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister of Thailand, has taken issue with the government proposal. The group states that the politicians who support the bill are intentionally narrowing the rights of the people by preventing direct submission of a motion by an individual citizen to the Constitutional Court under section 68, by requiring that such a motion can only be made if it concerns the individual person's rights and liberties (under Chapter 3 of the Constitution). The Alliance believes that the provision does not need to be changed. (The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) Makes a Statement Against the Changes to the Constitution [ in Thai], MANAGER ONLINE (Apr. 4, 2013.)

Reasons Behind Amendment of Article 68

The currently effective Constitution originated from a coup d'etat in 2006 led by the Council for Democratic Reform. The Council had been established by the former military regime headed by Army Commander General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, which had governed Thailand after ousting Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Due to the coup d'etat withdrawal of the previous 1997 Constitution, the current Constitution of Thailand was established by the military junta. The Constitution thus did not come from the people, which the current government, elected in 2011, views as unjust. (Enacting a Bill to Amend Article 68, Political Divisions Heating Up, supra.)

The government is purportedly trying to amend section 68 because this section had been used against the government when it had tried to amend section 291, on amendment of the Constitution itself. The opposition party had claimed that the government's plan to amend section 291 could be viewed as an attempt to overthrow the democratic regime and should be stopped by virtue of section 68. (Constitutional Court Dismissed the Motion on Overthrowing the Democratic Regime [in Thai], DAILY NEWS (July 13, 2012).) The government claimed that under section 68, paragraph 2, the Court does not have the power to accept an opposition party motion before the motion has been submitted to the Prosecutor General. (Constitution Amendment [in Thai], DAILY NEWS (Mar.28, 2013).)

Therefore the arguments on the amendment of section 291 had brought into play the applicability of article 68, and particularly whether the Prosecutor General or the Constitutional Court has the authority to accept a motion for the Court to issue an order to stay acts to overthrow the regime or unconstitutionally acquire power, and whether the Court can accept the motion directly or must go through the Prosecutor General first. (Amendment of Section 68 a Game of Confiscation of the Power of the Constitutional Court [in Thai], DAILY NEWS (Mar.19 2013).)

The Stance of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court ruled on July 13, 2012, that it has the authority under section 68, paragraph 2, to directly accept motions and that the Prosecutor General's authority is only to check the facts and file a motion with the Court. The Court also ruled that, after the opposition party has proposed the motion to the Prosecutor General, the party had the right to file a petition with the Constitutional Court directly. (Constitutional Court Decision No. 18-22/2555 [in Thai], Constitutional Court of the Kingdom of Thailand website (last visited Apr. 25, 2013).)

On May 8, 2013, the committee responsible for the current bill reached the conclusion to include in a third paragraph the following phrasing:

the Prosecutor General has to check all the facts as set forth in the second paragraph within 30 days from the day of receipt of the motion. If the Prosecutor General cannot do it in that period of time, the person who proposed the motion can directly submit it to the Constitutional Court, but must do so within 30 days from the day the Prosecutor General fails to submit the report. (Committee Responsible for the Amendment of Section 68 Concluded That the Motion Has to Be Submitted Through the Prosecutor General Only, DAILYNEWS (May 8, 2013).)

The amendments have not yet become law. After the committee meeting the proposed amendments were sent back to the Parliament for a second and third reading. (Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550, § 291.)

Written by Nichaya Soothipan, Intern, Law Library of Congress, under the guidance of Sayuri Umeda, Senior Foreign Law Specialist.

Author:

Sayuri Umeda More by this author

Topic:

Constitutional law More on this topic

Jurisdiction:

Thailand More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top

United Kingdom: Queen's Speech for 2013

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403599_text

(May 20, 2013) The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland recently laid her annual speech before Parliament for 2013. The speech sets out the government' legislative agenda for the upcoming year. There are many items included this year, with the focus being on continued measures to improve and strengthen the UK's economy, to ensure that it is globally competitive, and on immigration reform, to ensure that that people who contribute to the UK's economy can enter the country and those who abuse the system or enter illegally are identified and removed. (Oral Statement to Parliament: The Queen's Speech 2013, GOV.UK (May 8, 2013) [the text of the speech].)

Specific legislative measures that will be put before Parliament include:

• an immigration bill to attract people who contribute to the country, combined with measures to tackle the problem of illegal immigration by denying illegal migrants access to the services to which they are not entitled, making the removal of the immigrants easier; increasing fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants; regulating access to the National Health Service by migrants; requiring landlords to verify the immigration status of their tenants; and prohibiting illegal immigrants from obtaining driving licenses;
• a bill to reform how offenders are rehabilitated and to reform the police;
• proposals to assist the investigation of online crimes, including consideration of a single-user Internet Protocol address to ensure that Internet phone calls can be properly traced;
• new measures on how defense equipment is procured;
• measures to tackle dogs that are dangerously out of control;
• a bill to tackle anti-social behaviour, such as vandalism and loitering;
• a bill to provide payments for individuals suffering from asbestos-related cancer if no liable party can be determined; and
• a bill to improve the political institutions of Northern Ireland with the intent of promoting long-term peace and stability. (Id.; At a Glance - Queen's Speech Sets Out Government Agenda for Next Year. Plus What's Not on It, THE INDEPENDENT (London) (May 8, 2013).)

The Queen's speech has attracted attention this year more for the subjects not included than those included. Missing from the agenda are:

• a referendum to determine whether the UK should remain part of the European Union;
• legislation to ensure that the UK spends 0.7% of its gross domestic product on foreign aid;
• the requirement of plain packaging for cigarettes;
• more restrictions for political lobbyists; and
• the ability to remove mid-term Members of Parliament who have behaved improperly, through a by-election. (At a Glance - Queen's Speech Sets Out Government Agenda for Next Year. Plus What's Not on It, supra.)

There have been reports that the Labour party, currently the opposition party, is offering its assistance to the Prime Minister to push some of these dropped policies through Parliament. Even though these items are not contained in the Queen's speech, they can still be introduced, and some of the more high-profile items will likely be introduced in the form of Private Member's bills. (Rowena Mason, Queen's Speech: Labour Offers David Cameron Help Passing Laws Blocked by Backbench Tories, THE TELEGRAPH (London) (May 8, 2013).)

Author:

Clare Feikert-Ahalt More by this author

Topic:

Legislative power More on this topic

Jurisdiction:

United Kingdom More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top