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

Faculty of Law establishes unique panel of advisors
2005-11-11

Photo: Stephen Collett

Some of the panel members who attended the Collegium Iurisprudentium of the Faculty of Law at the UFS were from the left His Honorable Judge of Appeal Lex Mpati (Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Appeal), His Honorable Judge of Appeal Joos Hefer (former Chief Justice of South Africa), His Honorable Judge of Appeal Frits Brand (Supreme Court of Appeal) and Mrs Alet Ellis (lecturer at the UFS Faculty of Law).

At the back from left were Prof Johan Henning (Dean: Faculty of Law at the UFS), His Honorable Judge Faan Hancke (High Court of the Free State and chairperson of the UFS Council) and Adv Jannie Lubbe Sc.

The Faculty of Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) has established a panel of advisors comprising of all the honorary and extraordinary professors of the faculty.

“The faculty has been known for its excellent practice-orientated training as well as the involvement of law practitioners in the training of LL B-students,” said Prof Johan Henning, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the UFS.

“The faculty was greatly dependent on the services of advocate lecturers, full-time members of the Bar and Side Bar who lectured on a part-time basis at the faculty.  For this reason lecturing in the faculty was mainly done after-hours to part-time students,” said Prof Henning. 

With the shift in emphasis to full-time lecturing and the appointment of full-time lecturers, especially because of the increasing student numbers, the full-time LL B-programme and the increasing pressure on students for quality research inputs, a greater need for meaningful contributions of judges and senior law practitioners to the faculty was experienced.

“To comply with this urgent need, three honorary professors and nine extraordinary professors were appointed.  This group of experts deliver an indispensable contribution to the practice orientation of the faculty by means of formal lectures, public inaugural lectures and guest lectures, direct lectures to graduate and post-graduate students, participation in research projects and the  constant evaluation of lecturers, modules and the content of modules and learning material. The international exposure of students and lecturers is also promoted by their contribution,” said Prof Henning.
“A need to have the involvement of this special class of professors structured in a more organised way was identified and a decision was made to establish an advisory panel called Collegium Iurisprudentium.  It is a privilege to us that all the honorary and extraordinary professors accepted the invitation,” said Prof  Henning. 

The panel will provide the faculty with continuous, distinguished, practice- orientated capability and capacity as well as international expertise, not only for direct inputs to students but also to advise lecturers about the curriculum, the compilation of the content of the LL B and M module, learning material and others, as well as to strengthen the research capacity of the faculty.

“The panel will also deliver a decisive contribution to the faculty’s preparation for the constitutional audit of the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) of the Council for Higher Education (CHE) that will take place in October 2006,” said Prof Henning. 

The Collegium Iurisprudentium, which has been formally constituted, comprises of:

Appeal Court Judge J J F Hefer,
Appeal Court Judge L Mpati
Appeal Court Judge F D J Brand
Appeal Court Judge I G Farlam
Prof B A K Rider
Judge S P B Hancke
Judge A Kruger
Judge D H van Zyl
Adv S J Naudé
Adv J Lubbe Sc
Prof M M Katz
Prof R J Cook
Mr S van de Merwe
Mr W van der Westhuizen
Mr D C M Gihwala

Media release
Issued by:Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel:  (051) 401-2584
Cell:  083 645 2454
E-mail:  loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za
11 November 2005

 

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