Latest Articles

All years
Top judges jolt magistrates, prosecutors over slack handling of drugs cases

TWO high court judges in Namibia have strongly criticized magistrates and prosecutors in that country’s lower courts for not taking drug abuse offences seriously enough. The two judges, one of them Judge President Petrus Damaseb, were reviewing the conviction and sentence of a drug dealer who had been selling cannabis to children at a primary school. After the prosecution put to him the count of possession only – and not the second count of dealing – the prosecutor proposed that he be dealt with under a section that limits sentence to a fine. The judges said the purpose of their strongly-worded judgment in the case was to emphasise to prosecutors and magistrates “the need to reflect on the approach currently adopted in the lower courts which, unfortunately, often operates against the interests of justice.” The judges, who said they confirmed conviction and sentence only reluctantly, urged that a clear message should now emerge from the court that crimes of this nature would no longer be tolerated and that sentences would from now on be “appropriately severe”.

Judges lash ‘disingenuous’ magistrate for ‘mind-boggling’ action

A provincial magistrate has come under fire from two judges of the high court in Zimbabwe for “conducting himself as a loose cannon” and for not telling the truth to an accused about what the judges had ordered in their review of the original trial court sentence. The magistrate first imposed a hopelessly lenient sentence on a bus driver whose negligence directly caused the death of six people and then misrepresented to the accused the high court’s order on review. The judges said the magistrate’s behaviour was “mind boggling”, that he had been “untruthful”, had “taken leave of his senses” and “embarked on a frolic of his own”. They also ordered that their judgment be brought to the attention of the chief magistrate who was to ensure that the conduct of the magistrate concerned “is not repeated”.

Top Kenyan officials must pay damages personally in Miguna case - high court

We start the new year with a sensational turn to the high-profile dispute between the Kenyan government and controversial political figure Miguna Miguna: the high court has ordered that six top government and police officials must together personally pay his legal costs in a case testing the validity of his arrest, torture, and deportation. Not just that, the six officials must also jointly pay the Kshs7m Miguna was awarded in damages by the court for the violation of his rights. Miguna was arrested a year ago under dramatic circumstances and twice deported to Canada within a few weeks, despite judicial orders that he be produced before the high court. Those court orders are still being ignored by government officials and Miguna was unable to attend argument in his case as he is still in Canada and prohibited from entering Kenya. Among other shocking allegations the court heard that state agents blew off the doors to Miguna’s house when they first arrested him, and that he was held for days in a toilet cubicle at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport before he was injected with a tranquilizer to subdue him so that he could be deported for a second time.

Nigerian flags at half-mast over death of former chief justice

NIGERIA’S judiciary declared seven days of mourning after the death of a former chief justice last month. Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi, who was buried on 24 October, 2018, was 78, and had served as chief justice from 2007 to 2009.

"Disgraceful abuse of legal authority" - attorney re-writes court's judgment before delivery
"Disgraceful abuse of legal authority" - attorney re-writes court's judgment before delivery

In what two high court judges have described as misconduct “unprecedented in the annals of SA judicial history”, a magistrate has been found to have allowed an attorney to re-write his judgment before delivery. Even worse, the attorney concerned had appeared for one side in the case that led to the judgment. The magistrate, who has since died, initially wrote a judgment four pages in length, but after the attorney’s re-write this increased to 10 pages. The case involved a civil claim against the minister of police who, on hearing that the final judgment had been written by the attorney representing the opposing parties, asked for the judgment to be set aside by the high court. Reviewing the matter, the judges strongly criticized the magistrate and attorney involved and ordered that the case be heard again, from scratch, by someone from outside the district where the first trial was conducted. They also ordered that the legal practice council investigate the conduct of the attorney involved, and that the magistrate and attorney pay the legal costs of the review on a punitive scale.

Christmas is coming, so we're putting you in jail

In the midst of bad stories about the quality of justice being experienced in Zimbabwe’s courts comes a high court judgment that sees the accused as an individual – and that sets aside his trial sentence in the lower court as a shocking expression of the magistrate’s whims about burglars at Christmas.

No gvmt budget to pay damages’ award is no excuse – high court
No gvmt budget to pay damages’ award is no excuse – high court

What is a litigant supposed to do when the government simply ignores court orders to pay damages? The problem can be starkly seen in this case of a Kenyan man who nearly lost his life when he was attacked and severely beaten by soldiers almost 30 years ago. Decades later, George Waithaka is still struggling to get the compensation due to him on the orders of the court. Faced by authorities who do nothing to ensure his payment, Waithaka has now won a contempt of court order against the official who should have signed the cheque.

“Ogoni 9” case back in the spotlight, this time in the Netherlands
“Ogoni 9” case back in the spotlight, this time in the Netherlands

The families of nine environment and human rights activists executed by the Nigerian government in 1995, have their hopes for justice pinned on a court in the Netherlands, where a preliminary round was argued this week.

Valentine's Day winner: New Tanzanian court rules improve experience of justice by vulnerable groups
Valentine's Day winner: New Tanzanian court rules improve experience of justice by vulnerable groups

Tanzania’s Chief Justice, Ibrahim Hamis Juma, has promulgated new rules that could greatly change how people from vulnerable groups experience courts and the justice system. That is why this is Jifa's winning Valentine's Day 2019 good news story: we like the care it shows for normally-forgotten people with no one else to champion their cause. The rules prioritise cases involving disadvantaged people, and set deadlines for finalizing matters in which they are involved. The new rules also provide that visually impaired people will get a free braille copy of any judgment or order in a case where they are involved, and that a specially assigned employee at each court will be responsible for making everyone at that court more sensitive to “vulnerability issues”.

Malawi’s CJ, JSC acted illegally over new appointments – high court
Malawi’s CJ, JSC acted illegally over new appointments – high court

When a number of court clerks obtained an order temporarily stopping the country’s Judicial Service Commission and the Chief Justice from recruiting and appointing a certain category of magistrate until their employment dispute was fully considered by the high court, the stage was set: some high court judge would have to consider whether Malawi’s top judge and judicial appointment authority were acting illegally. Judge Zione Ntaba drew the short straw. Faced with this difficult and sensitive question she said the JSC had to devise policy on crucial human resource issues, so that decisions on the appointments of magistrates should be clear, unambiguous and consistent.