Burkina Faso

By Jackson P. Barr

Introduction

Burkina Faso is a country found in West Africa north of Ivory Coast and Ghana, landlocked with a tropical environment. Burkina Faso is, as of April 2022, under a military junta that has suspended constitutional elections scheduled for the summer of 2024. The present dictatorship of Ibrahim Traoré, and the rise of Islamic terrorism a heavily Muslim population, help contextualize what political institutions are reacting to with regard to matters of speech and press. The rights of speech, once formerly guaranteed within the constitution of Burkina Faso, are no longer protected under the present duress. Burkina Faso was rated by Freedom House, an advocacy organization concerned with political rights and civil liberties, at 27 out of 100 and labeled as “Not Free” in 2023, a significant drop from its score of 53 out of 100 in 2022 [9]. Reporters Without Borders rate them 58 out of 180 countries when it comes to freedom of press and safety of journalists [12] . To speak on the freedoms of speech and press in Burkina Faso is to reconcile with both a colonial past and a present instability.

Historical Background

The first task is to briefly chart the historical course of Burkina Faso, what peoples lived in the area, and how they were conquered by France and thus established as a colonial protectorate. The modern history of the country starts with the independence from France on Aug. 5, 1960. The short-termed constitutional republic was followed by a number of coups ranging from nationalists to socialists. The early 2000s saw Burkina Faso come back to a constitutional republic, but coups starting in 2022 and recently two in 2023 have taken away any constitutional trust the people have between them and the state.

About half the population is Mossi culture with a sizable population of Fulani people and some other minorities. Half of the nation practices in one way or another some form of Islam, mostly of the Sunni variety. This country’s borders were decided by following the Volta River’s boundaries, and it should be noted that it was by French design. This places Burkina Faso in the same situation as many postcolonial nations when it comes to how people one day woke up to find that they were citizens of a nation whose borders and citizens never shared a common governmental bond before.

The political entity known as Burkina Faso begins its present story in 1958 when France granted the nation of Upper Volta independence. The Republic of Upper Volta was short lived, suffering from internal instability, reliance on France and appeasement in French interests, and elimination of political parties under the presidency of Maurice Yaméogo. The first military coup occurred in 1966 led by Lt. Colonel Sangoulé Lamizana who opposed the explicit incompetence and corruption of the republic. “But with very little capital coming into the country (the only manufacturing plants are two breweries and a moped assembly), it was the ruling military and civil service who were the power base of the neo-colonial state” [6]. Blaise Compaore, who kept the political office of the presidency until 2014 and led the country to adopt the current constitution of the republic of Burkina Faso. “Article 31: Burkina Faso is a democratic, unitary and secular State.”[2]. The president of Burkina Faso is the head of the state while the prime minister is head of the parliament. Both share in executive power and recently have been prone to abuse by military dictators which overthrew the government originally in 2014 amid rising social tensions concerned with corruption in the government and terrorist cells within the nation. [1]

Free Speech

The constitution of 1991 contains two articles, articles seven and eight, that deal explicitly with the freedoms of thought and expression. Article 7 confirms the protection of thought and speech to Burkina Faso citizens, and its adoption into the liberal constitution heralded some stability, until the military juntas overthrew the democratic elections of 2014. In January 2022, around 300 protestors gathered in Ouagadougou, the capital city of Burkina Faso, to protest government reaction to Mali receiving sanctions by the West African organization ECOWAS. Authorities had banned the protest, and the police proceeded to detonate flashbangs and shoot tear gas against the illegal protest. One shop owner who observed the actions said, “What is happening now in our country is sad … And now, with all that’s happening, we are told now is not the time to take to the streets. If this is not the time to march, then when is the time?” he asked.” [14].

The freedom of assembly is a privilege explicitly listed out in Article 7 of the Burkina Faso Constitution: “Article 7: “The freedom of belief, of non-belief, of conscience, of religious opinion, [of] philosophy, of exercise of belief, the freedom of assembly, the free practice of custom as well as the freedom of procession and of demonstration, are guaranteed by this Constitution, under reserve of respect for the law, for public order, for good morals and for the human person.”[3]. The military juntas began to regulate protests and speech, even beginning to draft political dissidents into the army under phony pretenses [10]. The hypothetical freedoms of speech are not being applied to cases of free speech abuse by government institutions and especially the military.

The crackdown on speech witnessed in Burkina Faso may be explained in the abuse of the executive decisions of the president. Using the conflict with Islamic terrorist groups to issue calls of mobilization, dozens of journalists, activists, and opposition party members suddenly found out that they were called in for the draft. The country faces what it itself deems an emergency situation with the threat of the terrorist groups, but it cannot help but be noticed that the freedoms of Article 7 have been undermined and the present military juntas are stripping away the rights of its citizenry.

Free Press

The history of free press in Burkina Faso has an interesting beginning, arising from a dictatorship, the issue quickly championed by socialist parties. Thomas Sankara gained notoriety as minister of information for the military dictator before him. What is miraculous about Sankara was how he approached the press, not as instruments of the state which like children need to be chided and disciplined. “But the press was transformed. Journalists were quietly encouraged by him to criticize, to investigate, to give coverage to the activities of unions, progressive organizations, students, etc. Feeling relatively safe under the Minister’s wing, a number of journalists learned during this period outspoken habits and honesty rare in the profession. New political programs were introduced on radio and television” [6]. Sankara appealed to the left as someone critical of the corrupt nationalist juntas before him. Trade unions and student movements in the 1970s and 1980s informed a growing population of urban populace’s politics and thought. Under the Sankara government, Burkina Faso developed its name, meaning “land of the upright people” essentially. The country turned away from its overall reliance on France and saw some progressive rights and programs established.

When Sankara was assassinated in October 1987, the spirit of free press was undermined by President Compaore in his usurpation of political power. An incident in 2013 highlights the Compaore age, when a Burkinabe journalist came under censorship for comments made about government officials. Lohe Issa Konaté acted as the editor in chief of L’Ouragan, a newspaper in Burkina Faso. In 2013, Konaté published two articles which criticized public officials and casually insulted them with this headline: “Counterfeiting and laundering of fake bank notes.” Konaté was prosecuted by the state which found him guilty of defamation, public insults and contempt of court. Konate was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and a fine of around $9,500 U.S. dollars. The case was quickly picked up by the African court on human and peoples’ rights in 2014 which has jurisdiction over member nations in certain legal cases. The justifying reason here is found in an agreed upon charter of rights and responsibilities; “Freedom of expression in the African Charter is governed by Article 9(2), which contains one of the so-called clawback clauses: ‘Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.’ [8].

The African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights found that in the case of Konaté v. the Republic of Burkina Faso, the state had undermined the civil freedoms of its citizens. Burkina Faso argued that Konaté did not register with the state to be a journalist, but the court ruled that the freedom of speech guaranteed in agreement by member states of the African charter extends beyond the approved list of state journalists. What was most targeted in the case was the extreme punishment given to Konaté. “The Court unanimously ordered the state to modify its legislation to be consistent with human rights law, first by eliminating imprisonment for defamation, and second by ensuring that all other penalties foreseen are proportional. The Court Divided 6-4 in holding that a law that punished defamation would not violate human rights law, provided that the penalties were proportional and fell short of imprisonment” [8].

French journalists have recently been censured and barred from publication within Burkina Faso by the military dictatorship. The government has taken issue with journalists attempting to report on the Islamic terrorists. Wassim Nasr is a journalist with the France 24 news; he conducted an interview with a regional leader of an al-Qaeda terrorist group. The government took issue with journalists reporting on the enemy side, and suspended France 24 from the country. The position of the government is that promotion the speech of a state enemy may act as propaganda for Islamic terrorism; one Burkinabe government spokesman said, “Without contesting the freedom of the channel’s editorial choices, the government nevertheless questions the ethics that govern the professional practice of journalism on France 24,”[11].

The Burkina Faso Constitution Article 8 guarantees the freedom of press on paper; “Article 8: “The freedoms of opinion, of the press and the right to information are guaranteed. Every person has the right to express and to disseminate his opinions within the order of the laws and regulations in force”[3]. The recent laws and executive decisions exercised by the military undermine the written law in the constitution. The criticism comes not only from within the country and its journalists but is also evident in the critique of journalists without borders and the case of Konaté. The nation has been closing itself off from outsider press and has cracked down on what is and is not allowed within the present political junta.

Critical Comparison

Comparing the status of the freedom of speech between Burkina Faso and the USA requires us to compare the present circumstances of each country. It is easy to find that since the two political coups of 2022, the privileges and freedoms once enjoyed en masse during the constitutional republic of Burkina Faso have been rolled back in the name of public safety. As noted earlier, the situation has developed where Burkina Faso has banned journalists for claims of ‘fake news,’ and one may see how radical the punishment used to be before a ‘progressive’ amendment was passed to grant more freedom of critique to journalists. “In 2019 the National Assembly voted to amend the penal code banning journalists from reporting any security-related news to preserve national security and prevent the demoralization of the military “by any means.” Attempts to “demoralize” members of the military had previously been a crime.” [5]

Identifiable in Burkina Faso’s war against terrorism is the question of freedom of speech hated by a majority and the suspension of French 24, a French international news channel and paper, as a result of a journalist’s interview with a terrorist leader. The United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio comes to mind when considering speech one does not agree with on ethical grounds. The speech of Islamic terrorists is considered by the government of Burkina Faso to impact people’s perception to the point of hostility to the national government. The 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio established the protection of hate speech, within certain boundaries. The ‘imminent lawless action” standard created in the ruling makes speech acceptable so long as the utterance or sign does not entail immediate action against a particular audience. This differs from speech which may advocate for violence but does not ultimately lead to the desired action; “Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action.”[2] It is questionable how much the journalist’s coverage of Islamic terrorism could influence direct confrontation from viewers; however, the entire censorship of a news team on the basis of an interview with members of the nation who have set the present course of action to an extent put the freedom of the press behind U.S. standards.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Near v. Minnesota in 1931 also closely relates to free press concerns in the nation of Burkina Faso. The decision by Chief Justice Hughes reinforced the security of press to report on government institutions. “[T]he great and essential rights of the people are secured against legislative as well as against executive ambition. They are secured, not by laws paramount to prerogative, but by constitutions paramount to laws. This security of the freedom of the press requires that it should be exempt not only from previous restraint by the Executive, as in Great Britain, but from legislative restraint also” [13]. Jay Near was a bigoted journalist who reported on the alleged connection between Jewish mafia figures and government officials. Konate v. Burkina Faso mirrors the criticism of the government but does not include with it the heinous hate speech of Near. The similarities are that government institutions took issue with the reporting of a particular journalist and sought to censure and punish the perpetrators. Both courts, the U.S. Supreme Court and the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights confirm the importance of a free press, but now, Burkina Faso’s government is not protecting these rights.

The freedom of expression has been seriously attacked in Burkina Faso. The current dictator Traore cracks down on speech critical of the government. “The junta has sought to restrict expression, particularly from its critics. Public figures and ordinary citizens who openly criticize its rule or are accused of acts against the regime have faced detention, harassment, abduction, and forced conscription. In November 2023, for example, the junta used an April mobilization decree to conscript at least 12 people from civil society, political parties, and the media who had criticized its rule” [9]. Comparing these recent developments with the United States views and functions of freedom of thought and press allows us to see just how wide and varied our rights are. Cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan and the high court’s decision have created ideas such as public figures which are able to be criticized in the press and public. Pennekamp v. Florida also comes to mind when considering the relation between press and state. The state is more relaxed in America when it comes to open criticism as opposed to Burkina Faso.

Conclusion

The present military dictatorship and tensions of Islamic terrorism have undermined efforts by previous administrations to ensure free speech and free press in Burkina Faso. The situation with terrorists has allowed leaders of the government to abuse their powers by censoring the press, conscripting dissidents and crushing opposition protests. The similarities are quite interesting to compare with the United States, but the specific antagonisms within Burkina Faso have allowed a small minority of people to forgo the constitutional promises of past democratic governments. Burkina Faso stands at a crossroads where the present government takes hostage all the past winnings of civil liberties. The nation may either change course and throw out its dictatorship or continue its path of despotism rescinding past privileges and rights of citizenry for the interests of the military junta.

This essay was last updated on April 30, 2024.

Works Cited

[1] Anyangwe, C. (2012). Revolutionary overthrow of constitutional orders in

Africa. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB13059040

Www.aljazeera.com, 5 Oct. 2022,

www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/5/coup-in-burkina-faso-what-you-need-to-know.

[2] Brandenburg v. Ohio | Westlaw

[3] Burkina Faso 1991 (rev. 2015) Constitution – Constitute. (n.d.).

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Burkina_Faso_2015

[4]“Burkina Faso: Emergency Law Targets Dissidents.” Human Rights Watch, 8

Nov. 2023,

http://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/08/burkina-faso-emergency-law-targets-dissidents.