Latest Articles

All years
Major new development for law and rights related to African refugees, migrants
Major new development for law and rights related to African refugees, migrants

A new ‘centre of excellence’, focused on law that deals with refugees and migrants in Africa, was announced this week. Based at the University of Cape Town, the project has three major backers: the UNHCR (the UN’s refugee agency), the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges and the Judicial Institute for Africa. Among its chief objects, the project will focus on university-certified training in refugee and migrant law for judges, magistrates and others working with refugees in Africa. It will also provide an immediately accessible, constantly updated database of relevant decisions, legislation and policy documents from around Africa that can be used by judges and magistrates as well as lawyers working with refugee and migrant clients, policy-makers and others.

Courts consider litigation by deaf drivers, TV viewers
Courts consider litigation by deaf drivers, TV viewers

The rights of deaf people have been considered by the courts in two recent decisions, one in Zambia and the other in the UK. In the first, the applicants challenged Zambian provisions in terms of which deaf drivers are not entitled to driving licences. In the second, a deaf woman claimed the UK government discriminated against her and others in her position by not providing a British Sign Language interpreter for government live briefings to the public about Covid-19.

Uganda prepares for new law on ‘human sacrifice’: here’s what a case of ‘human sacrifice’ looks like
Uganda prepares for new law on ‘human sacrifice’: here’s what a case of ‘human sacrifice’ looks like

Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni has just signed a long-anticipated piece of legislation into law. The new legislation, aimed to deal with ‘human sacrifice’, was originally introduced as a private member’s Bill but won widespread support in parliament. Among other tough provisions, the new law prescribes life imprisonment for anyone found to unlawfully possess human body parts as well as ‘instruments associated with human sacrifice’. As the law becomes part of the state’s options for dealing with cases like this, a recent decision of Uganda’s court of appeal, involving just such a matter, brings home the horror it involves.

State must take tougher steps to ensure people's fundamental rights are not violated - Kenya’s apex court
State must take tougher steps to ensure people's fundamental rights are not violated - Kenya’s apex court

The supreme court of Kenya has delivered a significant judgment on the right to shelter. It involved people who had been living in two informal settlements since the 1960s, when it was effectively public land. In 2013, they were forcibly evicted by a private entity, the Moi Educational Centre, with the help of the state via the police and others. The high court found in favour of the people who were evicted, saying there was an ‘unapologetic admission’ by the Moi Centre that it had evicted the people and had their homes demolished, all without a court order. The high court ruled that fundamental rights were indeed violated, and awarded damages to the petitioners. Much of this was set aside on appeal, and the petitioners then approached the supreme court for its view. The five supreme court justices unanimously ruled that the petitioners’ rights were infringed by the Moi Centre, the police and other arms of government, and affirmed the original high court finding as well as an award of damages.

Police act against two Kenyan high court judges, search chambers
Police act against two Kenyan high court judges, search chambers

Two judges of the high court in Kenya were questioned and their chambers searched last week, sparking widespread concern about whether this was a symptom of worsening relations between the judiciary and the executive. After the arrests – detectives now dispute that the judges were in fact ‘arrested’ – and questioning for several hours, the judges were released. Their lawyers said afterwards that the judges’ chambers had been searched, apparently for money that might have been evidence of bribery, but that nothing had been found. This week, however, the directorate of criminal investigations (DCI) claimed it had seized Ksh6million in the search. At this stage the situation is still confused – and confusing. But a useful article gives some guidance as to how the police ought to approach the question of arresting a judge and searching his or her chambers.

No justiciable rights to shelter in Zimbabwe – supreme court
No justiciable rights to shelter in Zimbabwe – supreme court

Zimbabwe’s supreme court has confirmed that the country has no justiciable right to shelter, saying reference to shelter in the constitution was ‘essentially hortatory in nature’, operating merely as a kind of reminder or guideline to government in formulating policy. Given that shelter and housing is a major issue in Zimbabwe, this is an important decision that, along with the particular reasoning of the court, will impact on how human rights lawyers handle cases raising such issues in future.

Judge sued by counsel over behaviour that supreme court rules is ‘unacceptable’
Judge sued by counsel over behaviour that supreme court rules is ‘unacceptable’

One of the legally most distressing cases ever to be argued in the courts of Zambia has reached a crucial point: the scandalous matter of a senior advocate suing a high court judge with allegations that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the judge, has now been considered by the country’s highest court. The supreme court has ordered that the matter be properly heard in the high court, but with the judge no longer named as respondent. This part of the decision followed a reaffirmation by the court of the principle that judges cannot be sued in their personal capacity. But the three supreme court judges also used the opportunity to chastise the judge concerned for his behaviour, saying that to call his behaviour ‘unacceptable’ would be an ‘understatement’. And they then went on to change the court rules to prevent such behaviour in the future. The dispute originally started when the judge did not announce a time for handing down his original decision and left counsel waiting, as the client’s costs escalated, until an 11pm delivery.

Zambian statesman Kenneth Kaunda ‘not an ordinary person’ – high court
Zambian statesman Kenneth Kaunda ‘not an ordinary person’ – high court

The family of Zambia’s first president, Kenneth Kaunda, approached a high court judge with an application to set aside the government’s decision for a state funeral and a two-stage burial for Kaunda, who died in June. The judge, Wildred Muma, refused the application. Though most readers know that he said, as part of his decision, that Kaunda was ‘not an ordinary person’, little is known about the legal reasons he gave for rejecting the application.

School’s demand that Rasta boy cut his dreadlocks ‘unconstitutional’, court finds
School’s demand that Rasta boy cut his dreadlocks ‘unconstitutional’, court finds

The future of an academically gifted senior high school boy is in the balance again. The prestige school to which the boy had earlier won admission refused to enroll him unless he cut off his dreadlocks. Ghana’s high court recently declared that, in doing so, the school had infringed his rights and he had to be admitted. Almost immediately the decision was handed down, however, the school, which claimed its ultimatum in no way discriminated against the boy for his religious Rasta beliefs, said it would appeal against the high court’s decision.

Death penalty case re-visited by Kenya supreme court
Death penalty case re-visited by Kenya supreme court

Kenya’s supreme court has given special directions in relation to follow-up of its landmark 2017 decision in relation to the mandatory death penalty. At a special sitting of the court, its members questioned a number of court decisions delivered in the wake of the watershed case of Francis Muruatetu and said that the confusion that had arisen needed to be resolved. The special sitting also made clear that the national assembly, along with the senate, the attorney general and the Kenya law reform commission, had not met the court’s deadline to propose a new framework for such cases.