Armel Niyongere, a Burundian lawyer and human rights defender, looks back on ten years of legal battles.
While the domestic situation in Burundi is causing growing concern due to an unprecedented crackdown on civic space, unlimited repression, and a considerable deterioration in economic conditions, Burundian voices are struggling to be heard. Against a backdrop of security tensions and armed conflict in the Great Lakes region, there is a high risk that the narrative on Burundi will be shaped by others.
As president of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture in Burundi (ACAT-Burundi) and secretary-general of SOS Torture Burundi, Armel Niyongere has been working tirelessly, rigorously, and with commitment for decades to defend the fundamental rights of Burundians and ensure that victims have access to justice. In our first interview, he spoke about the 2015 political crisis and the subsequent repression that has fallen upon the country. He then addressed the issue of refugees and the current political situation, as well as the racist nature of the Burundian regime. In this final section, he describes his legal fight.
African Facts: You were recently the subject of a communication from the United Nations Committee Against Torture, along with three other lawyers, in which the Committee ruled in your favour. Could you tell us more about this?
Armel Niyongere: In fact, we participated in the session during which Burundi was evaluated by this committee in July 2016. We provided a great deal of detailed and well-documented informations on the practice of torture in Burundi. On its side, the Burundian government had clearly adopted a strategy of non-cooperation on substantive issues, dismissing the experts’ work as “biased”. After the session, the government delegation, led by the then Minister of Justice, Aimée Laurentine Kanyana, asked the Bujumbura Bar Association to strike us off the roll. We proved that this was in retaliation for our collaboration with the United Nations, so we asked the committee to reinstate our rights. It took a long time, but we welcome the committee’s decision.
— These are findings, not a judicial decision, aren’t they?
— The Committee against Torture is not a judicial mechanism. However, its findings will nonetheless be reflected in United Nations reports. There are lawyers who have been victims of reprisals and who must be restored to their rights.
— How did the organisation SOS Torture Burundi come about?
— After fleeing the country, we wondered what we could do, as the traditional organisations that had been very active in Burundi were no longer in a position to monitor the violations being committed in the country. Their observers were known, their members identified and their structures exposed. Most of their leaders had already left the country. That is when SOS Torture Burundi was created by human rights defenders to continue monitoring events in the country.
It was established following the attacks on 11 and 12 December 2015 in the Musaga neighbourhood of Bujumbura [after barracks were attacked by protesters, the army responded with blind repression, Ed.]. The military killed many residents of this neighbourhood. There was no organisation monitoring the situation and people in the country were too afraid to publish any information about it. SOS Torture Burundi began operating on 19 December 2015 to document the massacre. Since then, a report has been published every week.
— How did you organise yourselves?
— We set up a new structure based on a network of covert observers deployed in various parts of the country. For security reasons, these observers do not know one another, and the network operates under a strict compartmentalisation system designed to reduce the risks of identification and reprisals. This arrangement makes it possible to collect, verify and document cases of serious human rights violations — including acts of torture and extrajudicial executions — while identifying, where possible, the alleged perpetrators of these violations.
— What was your first action in parallel with these reports?
— Our strategy was to ensure that Burundi remained on the United Nations agenda, to prevent the situation from being forgotten on the international stage. We advocated all the way up to the the United Nations Human Rights Council to establish a credible and independent mechanism. There was nothing in the country. The National Human Rights Commission was being manipulated by the ruling party and was unable to produce credible reports on human rights violations.
We were heard, and the United Nations set up the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, which has since been replaced by the Special Rapporteur on Burundi. With the establishment of this mechanism, Burundi was supposed to submit a report on the situation three times a year.
— The United Nations Commission of Inquiry was created in 2016. What changed in 2017?
— Cases of violations began to be submitted to the UN mechanism. However, Burundi has always refused to cooperate with it. This was a significant problem. Burundi rejected all the mechanisms, claiming that they had been set up unilaterally without their agreement. Nevertheless, the regime was afraid. This was because the United Nations could monitor human rights violations in Burundi.
— What international mechanisms have been mobilised since 2015?
— We mobilised to refer the matter to African and UN human rights protection mechanisms. By African mechanisms, I am referring to the East African Community (EAC) Court. We referred the matter to this court to challenge the legal basis for Pierre Nkurunziza’s third term, and the court ruled in our favour, deciding that this term was illegal and violated the EAC treaty. On the continent, we have also referred certain cases related to human rights violations to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
At an international level, we referred the case to the International Criminal Court because Burundi had signed the Rome Statute. However, it withdrew in October 2017 after noting the substantial amount of evidence we had submitted. The case is still under investigation. Recently, we met with the Court’s Deputy Prosecutor, who reassured the victims. The Burundian case has not been abandoned. It is still active and reportedly at a very advanced stage. We therefore believe that important developments will occur in the near future.
We also referred cases to certain United Nations mechanisms, such as the Committee against Torture, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and others. As Burundi is a party to these international conventions, we submitted complaints on behalf of victims and are beginning to see results. We also submitted alternative reports to the Human Rights Committee, since Burundi has signed the International Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights, Ed.]. It should therefore comply with its provisions.
— In strictly judicial terms, is the EAC Court’s ruling on the legality of the third term the only decision so far?
— Yes, that is the only one.
— Aside from this ruling, what concrete results have you achieved regarding human rights violations in Burundi?
— Recently, in 2024 and 2025, the Committee Against Torture addressed several cases. It took a long time. More than seven years. But we are starting to see results. That will help us.
In addition, all these communications and findings by the mechanisms will be included in United Nations reports, showing that Burundi is not respecting human rights. This could affect the current regime. Would people invest in a country where it has been demonstrated that the justice system is ineffective and is being exploited by the ruling party?
— How is Burundi reacting?
— Whether it’s the decisions of the EAC Court or the recommendations of African and UN human rights protection mechanisms, the problem remains implementation. This is because Burundi does not want to cooperate.
For example, Burundi is a member of the East African Community Court and Burundian judges sit on it. The ruling was handed down under the presidency of a Burundian judge, Nestor Kayobera, and was made public during a session held in Bujumbura. We do not see why Burundi is unwilling to implement a judgment delivered by an institution that is part of a regional mechanism of which it is a member and within which Burundians hold senior positions.
— What conditions are the victims living in?
— The victims have been waiting for justice for almost ten years. They are, of course, in difficult situations. Some are suffering from the after-effects of torture, are disabled as a result, and cannot receive proper treatment or work. Some live in exile and some in Burundi. In all these situations, however, we continue to protect them rigorously so that they do not suffer reprisals. They have the right to justice for what happened to them. That is why we will never let them down. We will continue to represent them, fighting to ensure that victims have their rights restored and obtain compensation.
— If you could address a message to those who are still hesitant to take steps or even to testify, what would you say to them?
— To those who are still hesitant about taking steps or giving testimony, I would like to say that their fear is legitimate and understandable. No one should be exposed to unnecessary risks. The pursuit of justice must never come at the expense of the safety of victims and their families.
However, when conditions allow and within secure frameworks, it is essential not to abandon the quest for justice. We must break free from fear to fight impunity. Gradually emerging from silence, in a protected and supported manner, is an indispensable step in the struggle against impunity. Victims and their loved ones must know that justice remains the only sustainable path out of this crisis, one that can establish the truth and, ultimately, lead to reparations.
Bearing witness does not mean putting oneself in danger alone: it means engaging in a collective, structured and secure process aimed at documenting violations so that those responsible may one day be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with the law.
