Apr 5, 2024 | Advocacy, News, Statements
A range of Zambian organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs) and other civil society organizations (CSOs) – who early in March this year made submissions to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Committee) ahead of its examination of Zambia’s compliance with and implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – have welcomed the Committee’s concluding observations and called on the Zambian authorities to take expeditious steps to ensure their implementation.
Mar 5, 2024 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The International Commission of Jurists – in collaboration with the Mental Health Users Network of Zambia (MHUNZA), Disability Rights Watch (DRW), the Southern Africa Litigation Centre and the Validity Foundation – have made a joint submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Committee), ahead of the examination Zambia’s initial report under article 35 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on 6 and 7 March 2024.
Aug 5, 2019 | News
The ICJ today raised concerns that the proposed Zambian Constitutional Amendment Bill 2019 may negatively impact the independence of the judiciary in Zambia.
The proposed amendments to provisions regarding disciplinary measures and processes against judges and the composition of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court are particularly concerning, according to a statement by a group of organisations including the ICJ.
“The ICJ implores the President of Zambia and the Zambian legislature to ensure the alignment of all constitutional amendments with international human rights standards on the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the separation of powers,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ’s Africa Director.
The joint statement calls upon the President of Zambia and the Zambian legislature to ensure that the proposed constitutional changes are in line with international human rights standards.
According to such standards, individual judges ‘may be dismissed only on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence, in accordance with fair procedures ensuring objectivity and impartiality set out in the constitution or the law’. Examples include ‘incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties’ and ‘physical or mental incapacity that prevents them from undertaking their judicial duties.’
Moreover, disciplinary proceedings regarding judicial officers must be held by an institution independent of the executive and the legislature to secure the independence of the judiciary.
Article 143 (a) of the Zambia Constitution currently provides that ‘a judge shall be removed from office on the following grounds: (a) a mental or physical disability that makes the judge incapable of performing judicial functions; (b) incompetence; (c) gross misconduct; or (d) bankruptcy.’
However, the Amendment Bill worryingly replaces subsection (a) and allows for removal when a judicial officer is ‘legally disqualified from performing judicial functions.’
Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not set out the circumstances or infractions that could lead to the ‘legal disqualification’ leaving the provision open to abuse and in violation of the principle of legal certainty and the rule of law.
“The amendment introduces unnecessary obscurity and vagueness to the Constitution, which, in turn, increases the risk of judges being removed on politically motivated grounds and threatens the rule of law,” Tsunga added.
Another worrying aspect of the proposed amendment is the suggested changes to Article 144 of the Constitution transferring the authority to determine whether judicial officers are removed from the Judicial Complaints Commission to a Tribunal Appointed by the President.
The amendment allows for the possibility of a Tribunal staffed by members of the executive and the legislature, further heightening concerns about threats to judicial independence.
“It is vital that the processes and procedures for the removal of judicial officers in Zambia are constrained in terms of tightly defined constitutional provisions, overseen by independent decision makers without improper influence by the executive and the legislature,” said Tsunga.
The full statement is available here.
The statement is signed by:
Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA)
Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA)
International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
Judges for Judges (J4J)
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)
Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)
Apr 10, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ and the CORE Coalition welcomed the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court to allow a complaint to proceed against Vedanta Resources Plc and its Zambian subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines (KCM), alleging serious harm from extraction activities in Zambia.
The damage to health and livelihood was allegedly caused to local communities living in the Chingola District by the discharge of toxic waste from the Nchanga Mine operated by KCM.
The companies challenged the jurisdiction of the UK courts to hear the complaint for negligence and breach of statutory duty, saying there was no case against them arguable in a UK court and, in relation to KCM, that Zambia was the proper forum where any case would have to be heard.
The judgment, confirming the decision of lower courts, dismissed the appeal by the companies, allowing the case to now proceed to trial on the merits. The ICJ and CORE Coalition acted as interveners in the case.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision will make it possible for the Zambian claimants to find justice, even so long after events took place,” said ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Carlos Lopez.
“The ruling makes clear that, from available evidence at this stage, it is arguable in trial that a parent company like Vendanta owes a duty of care in relation to people living in the vicinity of their subsidiaries and this decision will have important implications to similar cases concerning parent company duties around the world,” said Lopez.
Although access to justice for alleged victims harm from subsidiaries of parent companies has been elusive, the UK Supreme Court clarified that the principles applicable to these cases were “not novel at all.”
“Many other victims face insurmountable hurdles in their efforts to hold companies to account. The case is a reminder of the urgent need for legislation to require companies to take action to prevent human rights abuses, and to make it easier to hold them to account when they fail to do so,” said Marilyn Croser, Director of CORE.
The judgment regarded published material in which Vedanta fairly asserted assumption of responsibility for the maintenance of proper standards of environmental control over activities of its subsidiaries. The Court said that this was “sufficient on their own to show that it is well arguable that a sufficient level of intervention by Vedanta in the conduct of operations at the Mine may be demonstrable at trial.”
Today’s Supreme Court judgment also made clear that Zambian courts could not be necessarily relied on to address claims against KCM and that there was a real risk that the claimants would not obtain “substantial justice” in Zambia.
Contact:
Marilyn Croser, Director CORE Coalition, t: + 44 203 752 5712
Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ, t: + 41 22 9793816
Dec 21, 2018 | News
CORE and the ICJ have been granted permission to intervene in an appeal before the United Kingdom Supreme Court (Vedanta Resources PLC and another v. Lungowe and others).
The two organizations will provide evidence on comparative law and international standards regarding the responsibilities of companies in relation to human rights and environmental protection, in particular the recognition of a duty of care of parent companies in relation to the communities living in the surrounding of companies operations.
In August 2015, 1800 Zambian villagers launched a legal action in the UK against mining company Vedanta Resources Plc and its Zambian subsidiary, Konkola Copper Mines, claiming that their water sources and farming land were poisoned from the copper mining operations of both companies.
Last year, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that the Zambian claimants had a legal right to bring a claim through the courts in the UK and that a parent company may owe a duty of care to third parties affected by its subsidiary. Vedanta is appealing this ruling in the Supreme Court.
CORE and the ICJ have been lead participants in the elaboration processes of all major international instruments in the field of businesses’ human rights responsibilities in the last decade and are also specially situated to provide information on the state of the law in various jurisdictions.
Our submission is that the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Vedanta arguably owed a duty of care to the claimants is supported by: international standards regarding the responsibilities of companies in relation to human rights and environmental protection; material published by the UK government with the aim of implementing those international standards; and comparative law jurisprudence.
The hearing will take place on 15-16 January 2019.
