AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND THE QUESTION OF DOUBLE STANDARDS: ARE AFRICAN GOVERNMENTS JUDGED BY A DIFFERENT MEASURE?
By Nando Sebitwane
Human rights are universal. They do not belong to Europe, America or any particular political establishment. They belong to every human being, regardless of nationality, race, political affiliation or social standing. Yet an important question continues to arise in international affairs: are human rights organisations applying their principles consistently, particularly when dealing with African governments?
Amnesty International has built its reputation on defending human rights, challenging abuses of power and demanding accountability from governments. Its work has contributed to exposing serious violations across the world. However, its interventions in African political affairs raise questions that deserve public discussion, especially when the actions of African authorities become the subject of international condemnation.
The issue is not whether human rights should be protected. They must be protected everywhere. The issue is whether the same standards are applied to everyone, including the world’s most powerful presidents and governments.
WHEN WASHINGTON IS INVOLVED, WHERE IS THE SAME OUTRAGE?
Consider the record of United States President Donald Trump.
In 2025, the Trump administration pursued mass deportations, restricted access to asylum and introduced immigration enforcement measures that attracted widespread criticism. Amnesty International itself documented serious human rights concerns, including arbitrary detention, restrictions on peaceful protest and the treatment of migrants.
In September 2026, Amnesty International published further findings on alleged widespread human rights violations during US immigration enforcement operations and called for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These are not minor interventions. They demonstrate that Amnesty has publicly criticised the United States.
Source: Amnesty International, “We Had Whistles, They Had Guns”, 30 September 2026.
The question, therefore, cannot honestly be that Amnesty has never spoken against Trump. The more serious question is whether the organisation’s interventions receive comparable visibility, urgency and sustained international attention when powerful Western governments are involved, and whether its public messaging about African governments gives sufficient attention to the full circumstances of each case.
What about other powerful governments whose military operations, detention policies or security measures have resulted in civilian suffering and allegations of grave human rights violations? What about the international consequences when powerful states use their economic, diplomatic and military influence to pursue their interests?
Human rights scrutiny should not end at the borders of powerful nations. Nor should it become a political instrument that places African countries permanently in the dock while powerful states retain the privilege of explaining away their own conduct.
AFRICA MUST NOT BE TREATED AS A CONTINENT WITHOUT LAWS
One of the most troubling perceptions in international discourse is that when African authorities arrest a controversial politician, investigate a prominent critic or pursue criminal proceedings, the action is sometimes discussed almost exclusively through the lens of political persecution.
Of course, African governments must be held accountable. Arrests can be unlawful. Prosecutors can abuse their powers. Governments can use state institutions to intimidate opponents. Where there is credible evidence of such conduct, human rights organisations have every right to intervene.
But there is another principle that deserves equal recognition: African countries have laws, courts, investigative institutions and constitutional responsibilities. Public figures are not automatically exempt from the law because their cases attract political controversy.
If an individual is suspected of committing an offence, the appropriate authorities should investigate the allegations lawfully. If sufficient evidence exists, the case should proceed through an independent and impartial judicial process. The accused must be afforded legal representation, the presumption of innocence and a fair trial.
That is the rule of law.
An arrest is not proof of guilt. Equally, the political prominence of a suspect is not proof that the investigation is politically motivated.
International organisations should examine the evidence before reaching conclusions. They should not presume that every prosecution in Africa is legitimate, but neither should they presume that every prosecution of an opposition figure is persecution.
THE EMMANUEL JAY BANDA QUESTION
The case involving former Petauke Central Member of Parliament Emmanuel Jay Banda illustrates why this debate requires careful consideration.
In June 2024, Amnesty International and Chapter One Foundation called on Zambian authorities to investigate the alleged abduction of Jay Banda and ensure that anyone suspected of responsibility was brought to justice through fair trials.
In September 2026, Amnesty International also criticised the cancellation of passports belonging to several Zambian political figures, including Emmanuel Jay Banda, arguing that arbitrary cancellation could violate freedom of movement.
These interventions are documented on Amnesty International’s own platforms.
The important distinction is that the alleged abduction, any subsequent criminal allegations against Banda, the actions of law enforcement and the cancellation of his passport are separate matters. Each must be assessed on its own evidence and legal merits.
If a person is suspected of an offence, the state has a responsibility to investigate. If authorities violate that person’s rights, those violations must also be challenged. Neither responsibility cancels out the other.
The public should not be asked to choose between law enforcement and human rights. A functioning democracy requires both.
The question that should be asked of Amnesty is whether its public interventions consistently explain these distinctions, recognise the legitimate responsibilities of African law enforcement institutions and apply the same evidentiary standards regardless of the political identity of the person involved.
Sources: Amnesty International, 17 June 2024; Amnesty International USA, 14 September 2026.
THE WESTERN PRESIDENT MUST ALSO ANSWER FOR HIS ACTIONS
There is a broader international problem that goes beyond any single president or organisation.
Powerful states have considerable influence over international institutions, diplomatic relationships and global media narratives. When their governments are accused of wrongdoing, they often have the resources to defend their actions, challenge investigations and shape the political conversation.
African states do not always enjoy the same influence.
This imbalance makes consistency particularly important. A human rights organisation must be prepared to challenge an African president and a Western president with the same determination whenever the evidence warrants it.
If a government detains people arbitrarily, restricts peaceful assembly, suppresses journalists or uses excessive force, the conduct deserves scrutiny whether it happens in Lusaka, Washington, London or anywhere else.
If a government conducts a lawful investigation with appropriate safeguards, that reality should also be acknowledged, regardless of whether the suspect is a government supporter, opposition politician or prominent activist.
Human rights are not a political privilege. They are not reserved for people who oppose a government, nor can they be withdrawn from people who support one.
IS THE PROBLEM BIAS, OR THE PERCEPTION OF BIAS?
It would be unfair to conclude, without a systematic comparison of Amnesty International’s statements, reports, funding and advocacy practices, that the organisation deliberately protects Western governments while targeting African ones.
Its own reporting on the Trump administration demonstrates that it has publicly challenged abuses in the United States. Its reports on Zambia also raise concerns about restrictions on political freedoms and civic space.
Nevertheless, the perception of selective scrutiny deserves serious examination. The timing of statements, the language used, the prominence given to particular cases and the attention paid to abuses by powerful states can all influence public confidence in an international organisation.
Amnesty International should welcome questions about consistency rather than treat every criticism of its work as hostility towards human rights.
African citizens are entitled to ask whether their countries are being assessed fairly. They are also entitled to demand accountability from their own governments when genuine abuses occur.
The answer is not to dismiss every human rights report as foreign interference. It is to demand transparent reasoning, verifiable evidence and equal standards.
AFRICA DESERVES JUSTICE, NOT FAVOURITISM
Africa does not need immunity from international scrutiny. It needs impartial scrutiny.
Our governments should respect constitutional rights, protect journalists, uphold judicial independence and ensure that political differences do not become grounds for persecution. Where abuses occur, they should be investigated and remedied.
At the same time, international organisations must recognise that African states have legitimate responsibilities to enforce their laws. The correct response to suspected criminal conduct is a lawful, evidence-based process—not automatic condemnation or automatic approval.
The standard must be clear: investigate fairly, charge only where legally justified, present evidence before an independent court and respect the rights of every accused person.
That standard must apply to Emmanuel Jay Banda, to any other politically prominent individual, and to presidents and government officials in the most powerful countries in the world.
If human rights are truly universal, no government should be above scrutiny and no country should be presumed guilty simply because it is African.
The real test of Amnesty International is not whether it criticises African governments. It is whether its principles remain consistent when the government being challenged is powerful, politically influential or strategically important.
Human rights must never become a weapon used selectively against some governments while others escape equivalent scrutiny. They must remain a universal standard by which every government, without exception, is judged.