Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Latest Articles

Desperate Afghan judges ask UK high court for review of government’s refusal to allow them entry

The alarming case of two Afghan judges, refused entry into the UK after the Taliban took over Afghanistan, is instructive. The two face the very real possibility that they will be found and executed by the Taliban, and yet the UK government has flatly refused to allow them in. Among other things, this illustrates how vulnerable judges, as a group, sometimes are, persecuted precisely for the work that they do as judges. When they seek asylum, it is difficult to say that they are simply ‘making things up’, an accusation often levelled at other would-be refugees. At the same time, however, the case shows how incredibly difficult it must be for ordinary people to gain legal entry into a country as asylum-seekers, if even judges, clearly committed to promoting the rule of law, are turned down.

Impact on asylum seekers of South Africa’s tardy officialdom

For many reasons, South Africa is not an easy place to seek asylum, and new research by human rights lawyer Jacob van Garderen highlights some of the difficulties faced by asylum seekers as well as other migrants. Among the worst issues he found were ongoing problems over access to safe housing, difficulties around documentation because of a government system that doesn’t appear to be working – and the ever present threat of xenophobia.

Malawi high court judge on anti-graft unit’s powers
Malawi high court judge on anti-graft unit’s powers

In a major new decision, the high court in Malawi has clarified a number of issues critical to the country’s criminal justice system. The decision comes in the wake of attempts by a former cabinet minister, Kezzie Msukwa, dismissed because of corruption charges against him, to challenge the basis on which investigations into his alleged wrong-doing were carried out. Among other questions, Msukwa argued that the anti-corruption authorities in Malawi ought not to have made a cooperation arrangement with their counterparts in other states without going through Malawi’s attorney-general, and that the material gathered for use as evidence as a result of that cooperation, ought to be rejected by the court.

Zambian high court scraps lawyer from the roll of practitioners for dishonesty
Zambian high court scraps lawyer from the roll of practitioners for dishonesty

A Zambian legal practitioner who failed to pay over money from his client intended to settle a bank loan, has been disciplined by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) and has now been struck off the roll of practitioners by the high court. This was despite the disgraced lawyer’s claim that his client had settled matters amicably and that there was now no dispute between them. The court held that this did not matter: the court and the LAZ were obliged to investigate the lawyer’s behaviour regardless of whether the original complaint was withdrawn or not.

Jifa in talks for proposed new African association of judicial training organisations
Jifa in talks for proposed new African association of judicial training organisations

Jifa (the Judicial Institute for Africa) has for some time been aware of the need to establish an African association of judicial training organisations, and co-hosted a three-day meeting in Dakar, Senegal, earlier this month to investigate the possibility. A group of anglophone and francophone training institute directors and representatives attended. Jifa director, Vanja Karth, said afterwards that the meeting, sponsored by the German development agency, GIZ, had been a great success and led to the group (pictured) formulating the ‘Dakar Declaration’. This declaration 'concretised the shared vision of an African body, and committed the parties to a validation meeting in November.’

Top court delivers major victory for Zimbabwe’s children
Top court delivers major victory for Zimbabwe’s children

A new decision by Zimbabwe’s constitutional court (a separate chamber of the supreme court), has found sections of the criminal law unconstitutional because it completely fails to protect children aged 16 – 18 from sexual exploitation. The judgment also found sections that permit child marriage, involving children under 18, unconstitutional. The new judgment contains a harsh critique of an earlier high court decision that found the criminal law was valid, even though it did not conform to the constitution.

Court chides counsel for ‘scurrilous allegation’ against newly-appointed judge
Court chides counsel for ‘scurrilous allegation’ against newly-appointed judge

Counsel for a former presidential adviser on strategy, charged under Malawi’s anti-corruption laws, has come in for a tongue-lashing over the argument he put up in a judicial review application. During the course of the corruption trial so far, the presiding magistrate, Patrick Chirwa (pictured), was appointed as a judge of the high court. Counsel for Chris Banda, the accused, wanted a different magistrate to take over the corruption trial, but the magistrate, now a judge, said he would continue hearing the matter to completion. Counsel suggested this was improper and that the magistrate, now a judge, was refusing to ‘let go’ of the matter as he had a ‘personal interest’ in the case. The high court said it was ‘deeply troubled’ by this suggestion and roundly criticised counsel for this ‘scurrilous allegation’.

Lesotho’s CJ fights back after apex court’s critical judgment
Lesotho’s CJ fights back after apex court’s critical judgment

The Chief Justice of Lesotho, Sakoane Sakoane, has reacted sharply to a judgment by the country’s appeal court that found he ought to have recused himself from presiding in a major treason and murder trial. The court found that the prosecution’s claim to have a reasonable apprehension of bias by the CJ was well founded, and ordered that another judge take over the trial. But in reaction, the CJ has questioned whether ‘foreign’ judges ought any longer to preside over cases heard in Lesotho. He has also raised questions over the legality of part of the appeal court’s order.

Amnesty International death penalty report: a time for judges to reflect
Amnesty International death penalty report: a time for judges to reflect

In prisons across Africa, many thousands of prisoners sit on death row, uncertain whether they will be allowed to live. But as the numbers of condemned prisoners climb, with an estimated 5 843 awaiting execution in prisons all over Africa, debate over the death penalty is also growing. The newest report from Amnesty International, released this week, shows some stark contrasts. While, for example, Botswana is often considered to be a country that respects human rights, it is the only state south of the Sahara to have carried out executions (three in 2021, the year considered by Amnesty’s latest report). And while Kenya and Malawi have seen vigorous judicial discussion about mandatory death sentences, in Nigeria at least 3 036 people are imprisoned under the death sentence, one of the highest numbers recorded for any nation, worldwide.

Judges recall when their lives were threatened during contentious legal challenge in Malawi
Judges recall when their lives were threatened during contentious legal challenge in Malawi

Two participants at a human rights training course for judges from 11 African countries, held in Cape Town mid-May, have first-hand experience of what making a bold human rights decision may sometimes demand. Judges Michael Tembo and Redson Kapindu were both on the bench, part of a five-judge panel in what they say was, without doubt, the most significant case in Malawi’s history. It was a case that left them physically shaken and traumatised, but all the wiser from the experience and more determined than ever to live up to the demands of their judicial oath of office. Pictured in their bulletproof vests are (left to right) Justice Dingiswayo Madise, Justice Ivy Kamanga, Justice Healey Potani, Justice Michael Tembo and Justice Redson Kapindu.

Lesotho CJ ‘wrong’ to punish lead counsel in high profile murder, treason case – appeal court
Lesotho CJ ‘wrong’ to punish lead counsel in high profile murder, treason case – appeal court

A new decision from Lesotho’s highest court has made some uncomfortable findings about the country’s Chief Justice, Sakoane Sakoane. Three judges from outside Lesotho, brought in to hear the matter to ensure there could be no allegations of partiality given those involved, found that the Director of Public Prosecutions was not unreasonable in her apprehension of bias on the part of the CJ. The judges also found he had wrongly ‘punished’ controversial advocate Shaun Abrahams, lead counsel in the trial over which the CJ was to preside, both by finding that he had acted improperly, and by imposing a punishment not prescribed by the law. The high-profile trial, involving charges of murder and treason, must now continue before another judge.

State of the judiciary: new report on Malawi, Namibia, South Africa
State of the judiciary: new report on Malawi, Namibia, South Africa

For many judges it will come as a relief to hear some good news for once, in the form of largely positive public perception about the judiciary and its role in society. The good news emerges from a just-published report on the state of the judiciary in Malawi, Namibia and South Africa. Every member of the bench in those three countries will be only too well aware of the short-comings of their own judicial system, exacerbated by the restrictions imposed by the Covid pandemic, among a number of other problems. But the three-part report by the Democratic Governance and Rights Unit of the University of Cape Town’s law school found generally positive views by court users about how judges in these jurisdictions are doing their work. Another key finding is that perceptions of corruption in the court are significantly lower in the closely-targeted court user surveys, than had been found in opinion surveys of the general public.

Another ‘No’ for Eswatini’s LGBTI community
Another ‘No’ for Eswatini’s LGBTI community

A new judgment from Eswatini’s high court effectively supports a decision by the registrar of companies who refused to register an association called Eswatini Sexual and Gender Minorities. Two judges of the three-court bench held that the registrar’s decision had been properly made. In a dissenting decision, the third judge approached the question very differently. He found that in terms of the law, the registrar of companies should have taken the decision whether to register the association, but that the ministry of commerce and industry made the decision instead. As this was a misuse of administrative power, the decision should be set aside and the registration of the association should be allowed. But there was a glimmer of light for Eswatini’s sexual minorities: despite its conclusion on the registration issue, the court’s majority wrote that members of the LGBTI community had ‘a right to life, liberty, privacy or dignity’ among other rights.

International Child Abduction
Judge orders at least two years of state-funded therapy for 10-year-old raped by her uncle
Judge orders at least two years of state-funded therapy for 10-year-old raped by her uncle

A South African judge has ordered that a child, raped by a close family member, must be provided with state-funded counselling for at least two years to help her recover from the trauma of the sexual attacks. Further sessions may be added at the end of the two years, depending on whether the child needs more help at that stage. Despite an epidemic of child and adult rape in South Africa, such an order, made in this case as part of judgment on sentence, is extremely rare.

Key rulings have major implications for lawyers
Key rulings have major implications for lawyers

Two recent decisions from the courts in Zambia have serious implications for lawyers. In one, the appeal court rescued legal practitioners from a decision of the high court that found lawyers in private practice weren’t allowed to accept full-time employment. In the other, the appeal court had strong words for lawyers representing clients on trial for criminal offences: they should be sure that fee arrangements were recorded in writing and that there was genuine negotiation between the two sides over what would be charged.

African Commission finds judicial dismissal by Eswatini violated African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
African Commission finds judicial dismissal by Eswatini violated African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

Since 2011, Thomas Masuku has been in a kind of judicial limbo following a decision by the authorities in Eswatini to remove him from office as a judge. He was, however, welcomed with open arms in Namibia, where he serves on the high court bench. Now, in an extraordinary development, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has found that his removal from office by Eswatini violated key articles of the African Charter. The commission has also urged that the government of Eswatini compensate Masuku for the violation of these rights and that it take other steps to amend the situation.

One case, two high court judgments: Namibian supreme court concern about ‘grave irregularity’
One case, two high court judgments: Namibian supreme court concern about ‘grave irregularity’

The supreme court in Namibia was busy preparing a written judgment in a rape case appeal when it discovered something was very wrong. Unknown to it at the time the case was argued, there had actually been two high court decisions on the same matter. The first of the two had refused leave to appeal as part of an unsuccessful application for condonation of late filing, with the court holding there were no prospects of success on appeal. Three months later, the same applicant had brought another application, for appeal. This time the court found there were indeed prospects of success on appeal and gave leave for the matter to be heard at the supreme court. What made the conflict between these two high court decisions even more remarkable was that one of the two judges in the first decision also sat in the second application and in fact wrote the judgment that, this time, came to a completely different conclusion from what had been found in the initial decision. Now the supreme court has decided that the second application to the high court was wrongly brought and that it amounted to a ‘grave irregularity’ for the second high court to overrule the order given by the high court the first time round. Making the story even more controversial is the fact that the convicted man, Vincent Likoro, was appointed as to a high-level ‘think tank’ of the ruling Swapo party after his rape conviction, a decision that was stoutly defended by a top Swapo official at the time.

Reproductive rights win in Botswana after woman’s nightmare hysterectomy experience at hands of state healthcare providers
Reproductive rights win in Botswana after woman’s nightmare hysterectomy experience at hands of state healthcare providers

Women’s reproductive rights include more than access to safe, affordable abortion and contraceptives. These rights are also about proper state care for any associated surgical procedure, for example, along with state obligations not to deny access to services that only women require, and to ensure the good quality of such services. The high court in Gaborone, Botswana, has just delivered an important decision related to this question, holding the state accountable for the shoddy treatment of a women who underwent a hysterectomy. Her treatment, both during the operation and afterwards, has caused serious physical and mental problems. The court found there was medical negligence and lack of proper post-operative care and, with some strongly-worded criticism of the way she was treated, awarded her P400 000.

Judgment highlights ambiguity of abortion provision in Kenya’s constitution
Judgment highlights ambiguity of abortion provision in Kenya’s constitution

In a judgment already welcomed by many, but likely to prove hugely controversial, the high court in Kenya has decided a constitutional petition centred on the question of whether – and under what circumstances – abortion is lawful in that country. The case involved a teenage girl who presented herself to a health centre because she was experiencing pregnancy ‘complications’. Diagnosing a partial abortion, the clinical officer completed the abortion, but both the patient and the clinic officer were subsequently arrested and charged. They later brought a wide-ranging petition to the high court contesting the lawfulness of the action taken against them. In his decision, Judge Reuben Nyakundi said that it was a woman’s right to access a safe abortion and that legal action taken against the girl and the clinical officer was ‘marked with irregularities from the outset’. However, the case once again illustrates a problem, stressed a few years ago in another high court constitutional petition on abortion: the constitution’s provision on abortion is ambiguous, and no guidelines or legislation are in place to clarify under what conditions an abortion would be legal. As a result, both the women who might seek an abortion, and the doctors or clinical officers who could offer the procedure, are unsure about what is allowed. The situation is so uncertain that a woman could be arrested and charged even if the abortion was spontaneous rather than procured, while a doctor or clinical officer could also be charged even if they are merely attending to the aftermath of an abortion.

Recent news

Categories