Dec 17, 2016 | News
The ICJ jointly convened a two-and-a-half day training workshop with the Raoul Wallenberg Institute.
The meeting congregated lecturers from the four law schools from around the country to look into options for the development of clinical legal education programmes.
One of the objectives of the meeting was to acquaint and equip law schools with the various models and approaches to clinical legal education.
To that end the workshop covered issues including: an overview of clinical legal education programmes and models for law clinics; developing clinical legal education curricula; clinical/interactive teaching methods; and practical placement of students with local, regional and international organizations.
This initiative was a first step in a Clinical Legal Education Programme which is a response by the ICJ to concerns from judicial officers on the quality of legal graduates.
The clinical legal education programme is part of a broader ICJ intervention, which is looking to better equip and motivate lawyers to effectively contribute to the maintenance of the rule of law and preservation of human rights.
The process was jointly facilitated by Professor David Mcquoid-Mason (President, Commonwealth Legal Education Association) and Alex Conte of the ICJ and the University of Sussex.
The 17 participant academics (ten males and seven females) who attended the meeting where drawn from the four law schools in Zimbabwe: the Faculty of Law from the University of Zimbabwe; the Herbert Chitepo Law School at the Great Zimbabwe University; the Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University; and the Midlands State University.
Additional participants where drawn from the Institute for Peace, Leadership and Governance, at Africa University.
The workshop was held with the support of the European Union Delegation to Zimbabwe (EU).
Dec 15, 2016 | News
The ICJ and the Judicial College of Zimbabwe (JCZ) have assisted senior prosecutors in their role in strengthening the rule of law and protection of human rights in the country.
The Zimbabwe National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) held a pilot training of trainers for senior prosecutors on fair trial standards and human rights from 15-16 December 2016.
The NPA received substantive legal and technical support for this training from the Judicial College of Zimbabwe (JCZ) and the ICJ.
In consultation with the ICJ, the JCZ designed the training curriculum.
The JCZ has a statutory mandate to provide continuous professional development to various justice sector actors including the prosecution.
The content of the curriculum includes prosecutorial conduct in upholding the rule of law, constitutional and legislative protection of the rights of accused persons, general powers of the prosecutor general and his/her nominees, and the relationship with the other justice actors, such as the police.
In addition, the training focused on aspects relating to warrants for further detention, bail, right to remain silent, admissibility of statements obtained through illegal or abusive means, discharge at close of state case, sentencing and the prosecutors code of ethics.
The framing of the various topics is informed by universal, regional and domestic law and standards on the role, duties and mandate of the NPA, and individual prosecutors.
Fifty (50) senior prosecutors from different provinces and districts were selected to attend this inaugural intensive human rights training, facilitated by Mr. Shana, the JCZ principal, and Mr. Andrew Chigovera, former Attorney-General, former Commissioner, African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 73 131 8411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Oct 26, 2016
13 leading non-governmental organizations have called for Burundi to be suspended from membership in the UN Human Rights Council, due to its flagrant refusal to cooperate with the UN regarding the gross and systematic violations occurring in the country.
The NGOs cite recent findings by an independent UN panel of experts of ‘continuing and systematic, gross human rights violations which may amount to crimes against humanity’ in Burundi.
The UN experts further found that ‘responsibility for the vast majority of these violations should be laid at the door of the Government’.
The authorities of Burundi have rejected all cooperation with the international human rights system, including by refusing to appear at a hearing of the UN Committee against Torture, by making threats against human rights lawyers and other civil society actors who have provided information to the UN, and by an official government communiqué declaring that Burundi will no longer cooperate in any way with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and that each of the UN experts tasked with investigating the situation will be formally barred from visiting the country.
The open letter setting out the detailed grounds for the call for suspension may be downloaded in PDF format here:
burundi-hrc-suspension-advocacy-open-letters-2016-eng
Sep 22, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today spoke to continuing concerns for human rights and the rule of law in Swaziland, during discussion at the UN Human Rights Council of the outcome of Swaziland’s Universal Periodic Review.
The statement read as follows:
The ICJ is concerned by the lack of implementation of recommendations accepted by the Government of Swaziland during the first UPR cycle.
The Swazi Government undertook to take concrete and immediate measures to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. However judges continue to be appointed on the basis of corrupt patronage. The current Chief Justice and another Supreme Court judge are generally perceived to have been appointed on the basis of their traditional roles as former headman and chief, respectively, in the absence of any formal or transparent merit-based recruitment process.
Swaziland still has not ratified key international instruments, including the Rome Statute, the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which they accepted during the last cycle.
The police have continued to ban and disrupt peaceful protests, relying on the Suppression of Terrorism Act, the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act and Public Order Act. Human rights defenders and political activists continue to be arrested and charged with criminal offences for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
Swaziland has not enacted into law the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill, or any other law guaranteeing gender equality.
For these reasons, the ICJ calls upon the Government of Swaziland to accept and fully and promptly implement UPR recommendations from this cycle relevant to:
- Ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judiciary;
- Ratifying and domesticating the international instruments they accepted at the last cycle;
- Aligning national laws with international standards to guarantee freedom of expression, association and assembly;
- Enacting the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill into legislation.
The statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: hrc33-upr-swaziland-2016
Sep 20, 2016 | News
The ICJ expresses its deep concern at recent developments in Botswana in respect of impeachment proceedings initiated against four judges and their suspension from office pending a disciplinary hearing.
The four judges, constituting one-third of the 12 Member High Court of Botswana, Justices Key Dingake, Modiri Letsididi, Ranier Busang and Mercy Garekwe, were suspended under section 97 of the Botswana Constitution on allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute.
The ICJ calls on all involved judicial and executive authorities to scrupulously respect the principles governing the independence of the judiciary in their conduct in addressing this serious situation, including in their actions throughout the course of any impeachment and disciplinary proceedings.
On 28 August 2015, the President of Botswana, Ian Khama, suspended the four judges after they, along with the other eight members of the Court, signed a petition directed to the Chief Justice.
The petition had objected, among other things, to alleged poor conditions of service, as well as disparaging comments the Chief Justice was said have made about another judge’s ethnicity and defamatory statements related to corruption.
The petition also advocated for the Chief Justice’s impeachment and was copied to all judges of the High Court.
The Chief Justice and the President took issue with the contents and tone of the petition, alleging it to be disrespectful of the Chief Justice and causing disrepute of the judiciary in the eyes of members of the public.
On the 4th of September 2015, the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) issued a statement in which it condemned the actions taken by the Chief Justice and President against the four judges.
The LSB considered that the case ought to have been resolved administratively rather than through what it said was “selective” impeachment of only four out of the 12 judges, particularly as no prima facie evidence existed that a crime had been committed.
The LSB alleged that “the selective approach in suspending and subjecting to a Tribunal only four (4) of the twelve (12) Judges who had signed the Petition, supported the widely held view that the action was a witch-hunt intended to remove certain Judges and ensure a more Executive Minded Bench.”
On the 23rd of September 2015, the LSB issued another statement following reports that three of the 12 judges had withdrawn their signatures to the petition after the judges had been “offered an ‘amnesty’ against any possible action being taken against them if they retract their association and / or apologise”.
The LSB went on to criticize an amnesty “made only to a select few of the Judges and not all” the 12 judges who signed the petition.
On 24 September 2015, the LSB issued a further statement calling on the Chief Justice to resign or face impeachment after the JSC offered amnesty to three other judges, who had signed or associated themselves with the petition.
The amnesty extended to any possible action being taken against them if they retracted their association and / or apologized. The offer of amnesty was not made to all 12 judges that had signed the petition, and in particular, it was not made to the four suspended judges.
On 28 September 2015, the Impeachment tribunal was to have commenced hearing of the matter, but the four concerned judges instituted litigation against appointment of the Tribunal and their suspension, which litigation is still pending.
Since then, the courts have been irregularly issuing instructions, contrary to proper procedure, through the Registrar of the High Court in the pending litigation, and given that the Registrar is party to the litigation, this creates an inherent conflict of interest.
These developments surrounding this case have raised serious concerns over the independence of the judiciary generally but more specifically the prospects for an independent, impartial and fair hearing for the suspended judges.
Read mor
botswana-impeachment-judges-news-web-stories-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
