By Sir Ronald Sanders
Daniel Ortega has now said openly what his regime has demonstrated for years: the people of Nicaragua are not to be permitted to remove their rulers through elections.
During celebrations marking the 47th anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution, Ortega declared that there would be “no more elections” through which opposition parties could attempt to take power. He also promised a legislative “wall” against persons his government labels coup plotters and traitors.
The irony is stark. A revolution that overthrew the Somoza family dictatorship has produced another dynastic system, led by Ortega and his wife and co-president, Rosario Murillo.
I responded immediately on X, tweeting: “I unequivocally condemn Ortega’s outrageous announcement that Nicaragua will end elections. This is an assault on democracy and human rights. All responsible governments should condemn this unacceptable act. The people of Nicaragua have suffered long enough.”
However, Ortega’s declaration changed the official rhetoric more than the reality. Elections had already become a gimmick preserving the appearance, but not the substance, of popular choice. Before the 2021 election, opposition parties were outlawed and prospective presidential candidates arrested. Media and civil society organisations were closed or forced into exile. The latest declaration removes the remaining pretence of electoral competition.
Several member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) have condemned Ortega’s announcement. Secretary General Albert Ramdin has rightly described the elimination of elections as a denial of the Nicaraguan people’s sovereign right to choose their government. Neither the Secretary General nor individual governments can, by themselves, express the collective position of the OAS. And, while a month ago, the OAS General Assembly issued a declaration on the deterioration in Nicaragua, the OAS has not responded collectively to Ortega’s subsequent edict.
The delegations of Canada and Chile sought to remedy this silence by preparing a statement for member states. As Dean of the OAS Corps of Ambassadors, I contributed language to that statement, firmly condemning Ortega’s actions and calling for genuine multi-party elections.
At the time of writing, that text has not been considered by the Permanent Council, and the United States has since proposed a separate resolution that is also awaiting consideration. The central issue now before the OAS is how Ortega’s actions should be characterised.
What is happening in Nicaragua is a crisis of representative democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Ortega-Murillo government continues to deprive Nicaraguans of their rights, deepen instability and fear, and drive people to escape repression through irregular migration, creating pressures for receiving states. But this does not transform an internal human rights crisis into a threat to hemispheric peace and security. Nicaraguans fleeing persecution are victims, not security threats to the countries in which they seek safety.
This distinction also matters legally.
Nicaragua withdrew from the OAS in November 2023. I was president of the Permanent Council when the withdrawal took effect. We made clear that the withdrawal did not erase the international human rights obligations applicable to Nicaragua, including those arising from the American Convention on Human Rights.
The government chose withdrawal after a majority of member states resisted its violations of democracy and the rule of law and while suspension under the OAS Charter and the Inter-American Democratic Charter remained possible. Those suspension provisions apply only to member states and therefore no longer provide a course of action.
This does not mean that the OAS must remain silent or inactive. It means that the organisation must distinguish between political and human rights measures within its competence and any coercive measures which would require a different legal basis that is outside its authority.
Within the inter-American system, binding collective sanctions would have to be pursued, if at all, by states parties to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, or the Rio Treaty. This separate procedure is available only to parties to that Treaty and requires a credible determination that the peace of the Americas is endangered. Not all OAS members are parties, and Nicaragua is no longer one.
More importantly, Ortega’s oppression of the Nicaraguan people, while reprehensible, does not constitute an armed attack upon another state or justify claiming that Nicaragua presently threatens hemispheric peace and security. The law cannot be stretched merely because the political conduct being condemned is offensive. Doing so would weaken the rules-based order that defenders of democracy seek to uphold.
There are, nevertheless, meaningful actions that the OAS can and should take.
The Permanent Council can adopt a clear resolution condemning the elimination of meaningful electoral competition and rejecting the exclusion of candidates or organisations solely because they peacefully oppose the government. It can demand the release of political prisoners, the restoration of civil and political rights, and the reopening of space for independent media and civil society.
It can keep Nicaragua under sustained consideration pursuant to the June General Assembly declaration. It can receive regular briefings from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and support the Commission’s monitoring, hearings and precautionary measures.
The OAS can call upon Nicaragua to comply with decisions and provisional measures of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The secretary general can offer good offices, even if the government refuses to engage. Member states can also support civil society in exile, cooperate with United Nations mechanisms to preserve evidence, and protect those forced to flee.
Individual governments may consider their own lawful diplomatic measures. But these should be identified honestly as national decisions, not represented as collective OAS action unless authorised by the organisation’s competent organs.
The message to Ortega and Murillo must therefore be unmistakable. Nicaragua’s withdrawal from the OAS has not placed their regime beyond scrutiny or accountability. The OAS must maintain constant vigilance, document continuing abuses through its human rights institutions, and keep Nicaragua under sustained consideration by its political organs. It must insist that those responsible for violations are held accountable under applicable international law.
Ortega may have abandoned the ballot because he fears the verdict of his own people, but the Inter-American community must neither normalise his conduct nor allow it to disappear from hemispheric attention. Its response should be united, persistent and unambiguous, while remaining firmly grounded in the rule of law.
