Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
16 January 2024 | Story Valentino Ndaba and Dr Cindé Greyling | Photo Sonia Small
Dr Catherine Namakula
According to Dr Catherine Namakula, language-fair trial rights are entrenched as constitutional imperatives in many African countries.

Dr Catherine Namakula is Senior Lecturer of Public Law at the University of the Free State and a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent. In her latest book, Fair Trial Rights and Multilingualism in Africa, she incorporates a ‘language-fair trial rights code’ – an amalgamation of 31 principles proven by case law and trial practice as best approaches to ensuring language-fair trial rights.

The code advances the minimum language guarantees for vulnerable participants, especially persons with speech and hearing disabilities, sign language users, accused persons making confessions, and victims of gender-based or sexual violence. Bult discussed her research in more depth with her.

Your research spans multiple jurisdictions in Africa, from the Sahel region to the Horn of Africa and the Cape. What country-specific practices have you found regarding fair trial rights in these regions?

Language-fair trial rights are entrenched as constitutional imperatives in many African countries. They are non-negotiable. Nigerian and Kenyan courts have exceeded rhetoric and lip service to language-fair trial rights and actually declared trials absolute nullities due to lack of comprehension of proceedings by accused persons. Indigenous languages are languages of record in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Somalia, and Tanzania.

Rwanda elevates the standard of linguistic competence of an accused to thorough competency, whereas in Lesotho this translates to the mother tongue. In Canada, even jury panellists are subjected to language competency tests, and in South Africa, judges are assigned cases according to their proficiency in the language indicated by the trial participants as the preferred language of trial. Almost all the studied countries express no compromise on the principle that a confession must be recorded in the language used by the person making it.

Multilingualism is a significant challenge in legal processes across Africa. What were some of the most common issues or difficulties related to language that you identified during your research, and how do these impact the fairness of trials?

There is a gap bordering on disconnection between the formal courts and the population they serve – to the extent that legal processes are perceived as elitist and foreign, mainly because of the language question. Trials require unequivocal expressions, whereas African tradition for the most part considers sexual language as pervasive. This constrains the trial and punishment of sexual violence.

Investment in the standardisation of sign languages is limited, making the trial of persons with speech disabilities in their ‘home-made’ languages impracticable. There is heavy reliance on translation and interpreting to propel trials, often leading to resource constraints and recourse to controversial measures, such as engaging police officers as interpreters.

Transplanting African customs from indigenous languages to fit court situations by way of translation leads to loss of meaning and watering down of concepts. African courts battle with evaluating interpretative competency against the backdrop of a lack of training of judicial interpreters on the continent. Measuring linguistic comprehension is an actual challenge for courts, often manifesting in asking people whether they know what they do not know, but this research presents the objective test based on special circumstances advanced by the Supreme Court of Justice of Ontario that would resolve this hurdle.

Your book also mentions the potential applicability of lessons from African jurisdictions to those outside of Africa.

Contrary to popular opinion, the study confirms that African languages are already serving as channels for trials; they are not merely colloquial speech, but carriers of identities and human dignity. They should not be ignored but recognised and promoted. A trial that must proceed in a language that an accused person does not understand is a trial in absentia and the safeguards governing such trials must apply.

As the legal landscape and languages in Africa continue to evolve, what recommendations or measures do you propose to improve existing approaches to ensuring fair trials in multilingual contexts?

Decolonial discourse and reparation to Africa from the legacies of enslavement, colonialism, and apartheid should characterise the rise in esteem of African languages in all spheres of society. The use of intermediaries in Kenya and South Africa to protect and support vulnerable victims – especially children and victims of gender-based violence – in their communication with the courts should be emulated by other countries and extended to persons who are illiterate, in order to mitigate the intimidating sophistication of the courts on our people.

News Archive

UFS responds to revocation of the accreditation of the SA Doping Control Laboratory by WADA
2017-07-01

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) yesterday informed the South African Doping Control Laboratory (SADoCoL) at the University of the Free State (UFS) that the WADA accreditation status of the laboratory has been revoked.

This revocation does, however, not include the analysis of blood samples for the Athlete Biological Passport for which SADoCoL has been re-accredited in August 2016 and which the laboratory will continue to perform. It also does not impact at all on the testing of urine sport samples by the South African Institute of Drug-free Sport (SAIDS), who will continue to send such samples for testing to other WADA accredited laboratories, while blood samples will be tested at SADoCoL as before.

The revocation follows a year long period of suspension in which the laboratory had to develop its analytical capabilities and instate new systems and methodologies.  “In this period the laboratory worked diligently to realize all of these requirements and according to an inspection team from the WADA Laboratory Expert Group who visited the laboratory in February 2017, much has been done and the Laboratory is in a much better state than it was before the suspension in May 2016,” says prof Marthinus van der Merwe, Director of SADoCoL.

“However, there were certain aspects of these requirements that the laboratory could not achieve within the time-frame stipulated by WADA and therefore the organisation is bound by its rules and regulations to now revoke the accreditation status of the laboratory. Since much effort and resources have been invested in the laboratory in the last two years, the management of SADoCoL together with senior leadership of the UFS decided to go ahead and finalise all development in order to re-apply for WADA accreditation,” says prof van der Merwe. 

“The UFS fully acknowledges the hard work of SADoCoL during the period of development and is committed to support the laboratory in its endeavors to re-attain its status within the very specialised and highly regulated community of world-wide doping control laboratories.  The premium goal of the laboratory is still to fully serve the sporting community of South Africa and Africa according to the WADA guidelines for anti-doping control in Sport and it is confident to attain that with the support of all role players in this field,” says Prof Witthuhn, Vice-Rector: Research at the UFS.

Released by:
Lacea Loader (Director: Communication and Brand Management)
Telephone: +27 51 401 2584 | +27 83 645 2454
Email: news@ufs.ac.za | loaderl@ufs.ac.za
Fax: +27 51 444 6393

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