Violation of Human Rights in Labara: A Case Study

This case study examines the violation of human rights in Labara due to the forced relocation of its people by LA-Mining. It analyzes the facts, laws, and provides recommendations for justice.

Case Study
1

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Main context....................................................................................................................................3
Fact...............................................................................................................................................3
Law...............................................................................................................................................5
Analysis........................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
Recommendation.............................................................................................................................8
References........................................................................................................................................9
2

Introduction
LA- Mining was in the process of establishing a factory in Labara by taking the help of the
government of Africa. The region was going through a major transformation since the arrival of
LA- Mining. The main source of income of the people of Labara was agriculture. LA- Mining
had to transfer hundreds of families who were living and working in the factories within that
region. It was considered to be a huge problem between the company and the local population.
LA-Mining outsourced the works to a third party company called Mind which was specialized in
settlement activities (Abbott, Pendlebury&Wardman, 2013). Mind was responsible for
explaining the process of resettlement as LA-Mining had developed a new residential zone,
which included healthcare, school, and water facility at the doorstep. The citizens were
dependent on agriculture as it was the only source for them to earn for their family members.
Harvesting was also a major concern for them because they were not sure whether they will be
able to continue with it. People of Labara had been asked to leave their home. Many of them had
denied to leave their houses and to deal with the situation the government sent a police force to
clear the place. Somewhat around 2891 people were shifted to a new location. LA-Mining had
hired unskilled labors for woodcutting and electric jobs and when the installation of mining was
completed large number of unskilled labor were dismissed. The land that had been granted for
housing and farming was only half of the land. Oil sterile was another issue for agriculture
(Spohr, Barros & Gomes, 2016).
Main context
Fact
The people of Labara were protesting against the government and LA- Mining Company as they
were shifted to a new place forcefully. Zaki was the community leader who born and rose in the
region. When the relocation process was carried out, the people were being explained about the
process. However, they had many questions which required explanation, such as where would
they plant their corps? Would there be water for all? Would the member of a single family live in
the contiguous house? Neither government nor LA- Mining answered these questions.
The people of Labara had been hired by LA-Mining for woodcutting and electric jobs. After
completion of the installation of the mine, they had been dismissed from their job. The
3

residential that had been allocated to the citizen of the Labara was not appropriate. It is being
seen that within a year of relocation, the wall of the houses started racking (Baumann-Pauly&
Nolan, 2016). The citizens were not feeling safe in their new homes because when it rained the
water flooded into their houses. Faucets were also installed outside which was being used by
many households. Sometimes the pump used to get failed and days were passing without access
to the water. The land which had been given to them was only half of the land. Another problem
was the oil; it was sterile and inadequate for agriculture. The lack of adequate irrigation was
making farming even more difficult. They had to use fertilizer for improving the quality of the
corps but it involves huge cost and most of them were not in a position to afford it. The local
population had demanded that the agreement which had been signed between the government
and LA-Mining needs to be available for public but it was never been done and no one had the
access to the negotiation terms (Ohchr, 2019).
Law
It was being found out by Malika that the United Nation had approved a document called
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Buhmann, Roseberry &Morsing, 2011).
According to the fundamental principle of UN (1) has a responsibility for protecting human
rights. The state has to protect human right abuse by implementing strict law and regulations.
States need to take suitable action for minimizing, examine and redress this kind of abuse by
following effecting legislation, policies, regulations, and adjudication. UN (2) shows that it is
very important for states to set out a clear expectation for business enterprise domiciled in their
territory to maintain human rights during their operations. According to Operational Principles,
(3)(a), in order to protect the community, the state must enforce laws for the business enterprises
to respect human rights and to access the capability of such laws and address any breaches.
Operational Principles (3)(c) need that states must deliver effective direction to the business
enterprise on how to respect human rights during their processes. UN (4) need additional steps
must be taken by the state for protection against human rights abuses that might cause by a
corporate enterprise being owned or control by the state. UN (5) shows that it is important for
states to exercise adequate oversight for meeting their international human right obligation when
they are coming under contract with business enterprise for providing services might affect the
employment of human right (Mares, 2012). It has been found that the risk of gross human right
4

abuse increased in the conflict-affected area. It is a responsibility of a state for ensuring that the
business enterprise is not involved in this kind of abuse.
Corporates are also responsible for protecting human rights. According to Fundamental Rights
(11), the Business enterprise has to respect human rights (Emerson, 2016). It means that they
must avoid trespassing human rights of others and needs to address adverse human right effects
in which they are involved. Fundamental Rights (12) shows that human rights need to be
respected by corporate enterprise and the internationally recognized human rights must be
understood by them. Fundamental rights set out in the International Labor Organization's
Declaration on Fundamental principles and right to work. Fundamental Rights (13)(a) shows that
business enterprise should avoid causing adverse human right impacts by their own activities and
needs to address those impacts if they arise. Fundamental Rights (b) need that a business
enterprise must look for preventing human right impacts that are associated with their operations
by their business relationship, even though there is no contribution of them on those impacts.
Fundamental Rights (15)(a) need that a business enterprise must have in a policy commitment
for meeting their responsibility to respect human right. Fundamental Rights (c) required that
there must be a process for enabling the remediation for opposing human right impacts caused by
them. Fundamental Rights (17)(a) required that the impact of adverse human right needs to be
covered as a business enterprise might impact human rights through its own activities.
Fundamental Rights (18) (b) shows that it is important for them to involve in meaningful
conversations with the group who is affected and other relevant stakeholders. There is also a
violation of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that all individuals
have the right to a standard of living adequate for the well-being and health of himself and of his
family, including clothing, food, medical care, housing, and necessary social services.
Analysis
Malika carried out research and examined that it was one of the largest resettlement ever carried
out in Nzambi. It was the responsibility of the government of Africa to protect the right of the
Labara people (Finch &McGroarty, 2010). The government of Africa failed in preventing human
right abuse in the territory because it was an unethical act carried out by the company. It was also
seen that when people were protecting their land and houses, the government sent to police for
clearing the area forcefully. The government had not set out any clear standard for LA-Mining to
5

protect the human rights of the citizen. The government would have expressed its expectation to
LA-Mining regarding human rights during the negotiation period itself. There was no rules and
regulations enforced by the African government for business enterprises to respect the human
rights within the region. This was the reason that only half of the land had been given to the
people for farming even after knowing that they do have any other option for earning money for
their family (McIntyre, 2008).
LA-Mining knew that there was no law that can enforce them for giving entire land to the
citizens (Gavai, 2010). LA-Mining had dismissed many unskilled labors just after completion of
the installation. The government of Africa had not exercised satisfactory rule in order to meet its
international human rights obligations during the contract with LA-Mining. The situation also
depicted the violation of employment law. The business activity of LA-Mining depicted the
violation of human right because the houses which had been provided to the people were
racking, pumps were not working and they do not have access to water. The land which was
given to the people for farming was also getting affected from the oil which was coming from
the mining region. In other words, LA-Mining was affecting the environment and also people of
the community.
Conclusion
The research of Malika had clearly depicted that it was a major issue consisting of violation of
human rights. The people of Labara were shifted to a new location without answering their
concerns (MacIntyre, 2018). LA-Mining did an unethical act by forcing people to move to an
inappropriate place. It was the responsibility of the African government to protect the right of the
Labara people. The government was responsible because there was no law for directing the
organizations while carrying out their operations. The human right should not be violated but it is
seen in this case. The houses which were being provided to the people seen to be inappropriate
and drinking facility was also not there.
Recommendation
Zaki and Malik should put pressure on the government of Africa to get access to the agreement.
The agreement was made between the government and LA-Mining consisting of terms and
conditions (Owen, 2010). It is very important for Niara members to have access to it for
6

examining the terms and conditions. Zaki and Malika should take this matter to the UN as both
parties had violated human rights. The people of the region have the right to get justice. The
international law states that each and every people should be treated fairly and provided with
basic necessities. The examination of the agreement can assist to understand the issue in an
appropriate manner.
7

References
Abbott, K., Pendlebury, N., &Wardman, K. (2013).Business law (3rd ed.). Andover: Cengage
Learning.
Allison, J., & Prentice, R. (2009).Business law (2nd ed.). Austin, Tex.: University Co-Op.
Baumann-Pauly, D., & Nolan, J. (2016).Business and human rights (4th ed.). Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Buhmann, K., Roseberry, L., &Morsing, M. (2011).Corporate social and human rights
responsibilities (5th ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Emerson, R. (2016). Business law (3rd ed.). United States: Barrons Educational Series.
Finch, V., &McGroarty, J. (2010).Human rights (3rd ed.). Dundee: Dundee University Press.
Gavai, A. (2010). Business ethics (5th ed.). Mumbai [India]: Himalaya Pub. House.
MacIntyre, E. (2018). Business Law (5th ed.). Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education
Limited.
Mares, R. (2012).The UN guiding principles on business and human rights (3rd ed.). Leiden:
Martinus Nijhoff.
McIntyre, R. (2008). Are worker rights human rights? (4th ed.). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Ohchr. (2019). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Retrieved from
https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/GuidingprinciplesBusinesshr_eN.pdf
Owen, N. (2010). Human rights, human wrongs (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Spohr, N., Barros, A., & Gomes, M. (2016). Whose wealth is that? Discussing human rights and
mining in the Global South.APGS, 8(3), 27-35. DOI:
8

9