Good news - and bad - for African judiciary charged with wrong-doing

20 September 2019 · Carmel Rickard

For two senior African judges, this is a particularly momentous month. Justice Joseph Wowo of Nigeria, former Chief Justice of Gambia, has been effectively exonerated by a regional court after his humiliating treatment at the hands of the courts in Gambia and his dismissal by the then-President, Yahya Jammeh. Justice Wowo has also been awarded significant damages for the way he was treated. But though his trials and tribulations may now be over, serious trouble is only just starting for a member of Kenya’s Supreme Court, Justice Jackton B. Ojwang’. Chief Justice David Maraga is reported to have written to President Uhuru Kenyatta, recommending that a special tribunal be established to consider the impeachment of his suspended colleague, Justice Ojwang’.

Justice Joseph Wowo, originally of Nigeria, was jailed on corruption charges in January 2014. His trial was seen by many as involving trumped-up charges and he has now won a kind of vindication via the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas).

In a special statement, the Ecowas court has announced that it has ordered Gambia to pay $200 000 in “nominal damages” to Justice Wowo. Unfortunately, however, no judgment has been released that explains the court's decision.

According to the statement, the damages are in respect of the violation of the judge’s rights to a fair hearing. They are also related to his “unlawful imprisonment and removal from office on allegation of corruption, false information and the abuse of office”.

Justice Wowo had originally claimed $20m in damages, but without any judgment it is not possible to explain the basis on which the Ecowas court found that $200 000 was appropriate.

One of the chief complaints of Justice Wowo was that he had been tried by a judge who was himself on trial before Justice Wowo for corruption. That alone, he argued, would constitute evidence of the violation of his fair trial rights.

The Ecowas court had further held that Gambia’s acts relating to Justice Wowo’s “removal from office, trial and conviction were biased, lacking in independence, inconsistent with due process, in breach of natural justice and thereby constituted a gross violation” of his fair trial rights.

According to Gambia, however, he had been removed from office “by the President in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission after investigation and due deliberations”.

The court ordered that $150 000 be paid directly to Justice Wowo “as restoration, mindful of (his) claims of inability to secure employment and the time spent in prison after he was wrongfully tried and sentenced although he was subsequently cleared”. The balance is to be paid to him as legal fees as he has not been working since his removal from office and had struggled to pay his attorney.

Justice Wowo is not the only Gambian Chief Justice to enjoy a very short term of office. His replacement, the first woman to hold the office in Gambia, was Mabel Yamoa Agyemang of Ghana. She lasted just six months before President Jammeh dismissed her without explanation. The next Chief Justice lasted just as long and though no official reason was ever given for his dismissal, commentators pointed out that it followed the decision to acquit a prominent member of the navy on treason charges.

In Kenya, meanwhile, Chief Justice David Maraga this week told the media that he had written to President Uhuru Kenyatta recommending that a tribunal be established to decide the future of fellow Supreme Court justice, Jackton Ojwang’.

Preliminary investigations indicated there were grounds for a tribunal to be set up, the CJ said.

Justice Maraga said he regretted that Justice Ojwang’ had ignored a Judicial Service Commission summons to defend himself before their initial hearing.

According to local media, Justice Ojwang’ is accused of “conspiring” with a prominent local politician to build a road to the judge’s private residence “in exchange for a favourable ruling in a case”.

The CJ’s recommendation is likely to be followed by the suspension of Justice Ojwang and then by the appointment of a tribunal.

Another Kenyan Supreme Court justice, deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, is also having problems on the other side of the law. She was arrested at the Supreme Court last year, and now faces charges related to corruption and non-payment of tax among others.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.