Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Africa Month: Continental integration would be an effective means of accelerating economic growth

13 May 2021 | Story Dr Bright Nkrumah | Photo Supplied

DrBrightNkrumah_web read more — Dr Bright Nkrumah, Free State Centre for Human Rights, University of the Free State (UFS)

The year 2021 marks the 58th anniversary of the establishment of the Organisation of African Union (OAU) on 25 May 1963. The month of May is therefore celebrated annually as Africa Month. This piece, in essence, is a craving to respond to an often-articulated question: is Africa Month a moment of celebration or introspection? The former would have been preferred had the various freedoms offered by the organisation been more realistic and dealt with the concrete challenges bedevilling the continent’s population.

At the onset, it ought to be acknowledged that the organisation was not forged with the intent of improving the living conditions of its population but to safeguard the recently won independence and sovereignty of its member states. Against this backdrop, the notion of non-interference in the domestic affairs (Uti Possidetis Juris) of states became its guiding principle, thereby fostering a culture of silence on abuses perpetuate by African rulers against their citizens. Having said that there were notable illustrations of leaders such as Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda, and Samora Machel, who individually and collectively ‘invoked the notion of humanitarian intervention’ and waged crusades to relieve Ugandans from the jaws of Idi Amin.

Indeed, one of the significant achievements of the OAU during this era was the adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Charter) in 1981. The instrument may be seen as a trumpeting of freedom, as it considers the rights and wellbeing of Africans sacrosanct and uncompromising. It is important and perhaps enthralling that all African states are parties to the Charter. While the large-scale ratification could enhance its moral force, it could also be used as a red herring to cover up various atrocities in hostile countries.

Where are we?

In 2002, African rulers meeting in Durban, South Africa, adopted the Constitutive Act, transforming the OAU into the African Union (AU). The new Act perhaps seems to be breathing fresh air into Africa’s rights struggle. In stark contrast to its forerunner, the Constitutive Act authorises the AU to intervene in a situation where citizens are threatened by grave danger perpetrated by their governments or external forces. Remarkably, article 3(k) calls for raising the ‘living standards of African people’. Going by these aspirations, one might speculate that Africans are in for a cheery and jolly ride.

Remarkably, while the Act addresses several aspects of the continent’s socioeconomic issues its operationalisation remains the captive of competing for national interests of AU states. Four key setbacks merit consideration here.

Instability: The landscape of Africa is punctuated by rulers’ embezzlement of public funds, ethnic privilege, and siphoning resources to one’s home village to the detriment of others. This bias tends to incite discontent and hostilities, even as one of the popular rhetoric of the infamous Boko Haram is to addressing Nigeria’s North-South resource disparity. By the same reckoning, hundreds of women and children have been displaced or killed from avoidable hostilities in geographical enclaves such as Cameroon, DR Congo, Mozambique, and Sudan.

Injustice: State security agencies and specifically the police force have evolved to be intimidators rather than the protective machinery they ought to be. More disturbingly, access to justice seems to be a pipe dream, as legal fees and prolonged trials make it burdensome for victims to seek remedies. As a common practice, many judicial systems across Anglophone, Francophone, and Lusophone countries are still modelled on ancient colonial systems, with lawyers and judges using convoluted legal jargon which frustrates rather than assists victims of abuse.

Poverty: 40% of the continent’s population lives in extreme poverty or on <$1 (approx. R14) per day. Indeed, this figure is sobering. A reader might agree that the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad) may be seen as the primary document for reversing this trend. The document has, however, been criticised as given superficial treatment to the basic entitlement of vulnerable groups, and without feasible strategies on issues of underdevelopment. It speaks to enhancing greater access to services, but segregates this aspiration from how the impoverished could access these essentials. Without a commitment to enforceable socioeconomic goods, such as health care, education, food, social security, the document may be seen as placing a stamp on the skewed access to resources already pervasive in local communities.

Covid-19: The onset of the pandemic calls for total marshalling of the continent’s fiscal and human resources. Sadly, the virus has claimed the lives of eminent cadres, teachers, and trade unionists who could have played a key role in this regard. South Africa alone has recorded more than 54,620 deaths, leaving behind hundreds of orphans. Still, the ramifications are likely to be more significant, altering the structures of society and putting a strain on the financial resources of weak states.

What ought to be done?

One golden thread running through these challenges is the weakness of the AU to forge effective institutions to restrain the excesses of states, monitor the government’s compliance with human rights obligations, and accountability. If the organisation seeks to improve human rights in Africa, it ought to revive debates towards Pan-Africanism and regional integration. At present, artificial borders erected by colonisers have created states which are simply not viable economic and political units. To this end, continental integration is the effective means of accelerating economic growth, uplifting the least developed countries, and domestically-based transformative development.

Opinion article by Dr Bright Nkrumah, Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State.

News Archive

The failure of the law

2004-06-04

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept