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 agreement on staff salary adjustment of 7.5%
2011-11-10

 
At this year's salary negotiations were from the left, front: Mr Lourens Geyer, Director: Human Resources; Ms Ronel van der Walt, Manager: Labour Relations; Ms Tobeka Mehlomakulu, Vice Chairperson: NEHAWU; Prof. Johan Grobbelaar, convener of the salary negotiations; back: Mr Ruben Gouws, Vice Chairperson of UVPERSU, Ms Esta Knoetze, Vice Chairperson of UVPERSU, Mr David Mocwana, fultime shopsteward for NEHAWU; Mr Daniel Sepeame, Chairperson of NEHAWU, Prof. Nicky Morgan, Vice-Rector: Operations; Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the UFS; Ms Mamokete Ratsoane, Deputy Director: Human Resources and Ms Anita Lombard, Chief Executive Officer: UVPERSU.
Photo: Leonie Bolleurs


Salary adjustment of 7,5%

The University of the Free State’s (UFS) management and trade unions have agreed on a general salary adjustment of 7,5% for 2012.
 
The negotiating parties agreed that adjustments could vary proportionally from a minimum of 7,3% to a maximum of 8,5%, depending on the government subsidy and the model forecasts.
 
The service benefits of staff will be adjusted to 9,82% for 2012. This is according to the estimated government subsidy that will be received in 2012.
 

UVPERSU and NEHAWU sign
 
The agreement was signed (today) Tuesday 8 November 2011 by representatives of the university’s senior leadership and the trade unions UVPERSU and NEHAWU.
 

R2 500 bonus
 
An additional once-off, non-pensionable bonus of R2 500 will also be paid to staff with their December 2011 salary payment. The bonus will be paid to all staff members who were in the employment of the university on UFS conditions of service on 31 December 2011 and who assumed duties before 1 October 2011. The bonus is payable in recognition of the role played by staff during the year to promote the UFS as a university of excellence and as confirmation of the role and effectiveness of the remuneration model.
 
It is the intention to pass the maximum benefit possible on to staff without exceeding the limits of financial sustainability of the institution. For this reason, the negotiating parties reaffirmed their commitment to the Multiple-year, Income-related Remuneration Improvement Model used as a framework for negotiations. The model and its applications are unique and have as a point of departure that the UFS must be and remains financially sustainable. 
 
 
Capacity building and structural adjustments
 
Agreement was reached that 1,54% will be allocated for growth in capacity building to ensure that provision is made for the growth of the UFS over the last few years. A further 0,78% will be allocated to structural adjustments.
 
Agreement about additional matters such as funeral loans was also reached.
 
“The Mutual Forum is particularly pleased that a general salary adjustment of 7,5 % could be negotiated for 2012. Taken into account the world financial downturn, marked cuts in university subsidies and the growth of the university, this is a remarkable achievement,” says Prof. Johan Grobbelaar, Chairperson of the Mutual Negotiation Forum. 
 

Increase for Professors, Deputy and Assistant Directors
 
According to Prof. Grobbelaar the Mutual Forum is also pleased that Professors and Deputy and Assistant Directors will benefit from the structural adjustments. These increases will align the positions with the median of the higher education market. The 1,54% allocated for growth will ensure that appointments can be made where the needs are the highest. The special year-end bonus of R2 500 is an early Christmas gift and implies that the employees in lower salary categories receive an effective increase of almost 9,5 %.
 
“The UFS is in a unique position when it comes to salary negotiations, because the funding model developed more than a decade ago, has stood the test of time and ensured that the staff receive the maximum possible benefits. Of particular note is the fact that the two majority unions (UVPERSU and NEHAWU) work together. The mutual trust between the unions and management is an example of how large organisations can function to reach specific goals and staff harmony,” says Prof. Grobbelaar. 

The implementation date for the salary adjustment is 1 January 2012. The adjustment will be calculated on the total remuneration package.

 

 

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