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 staff to get a minimum of 4,71 percent salary increase
2005-11-25

The University of the Free State (UFS) management and trade unions have agreed on a minimum of 4,71 percent salary increase for 2006 as well as a once-off non-pensionable bonus of R1200 payable in December 2005.

The agreement was signed today by representatives of the UFS management and the trade unions, UVPERSU and NEHAWU, in Bloemfontein.

Prof Niel Viljoen, Chief Director: Operations at the UFS and chairperson of the UFS Council’s representatives, and Prof Johan Grobbelaar, chairperson of the joint Union Forum, said: “The bonus is payable in December 2005 in recognition of the role that staff played during the year to promote the UFS as a university of excellence.”

He said the intention is 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.

Proff Viljoen and Prof Grobbelaar said one of the factors that influence the model and therefore the negotiations is the level of subsidy the UFS receives from the government.

“As the state subsidy level is unfortunately not yet known, remuneration could vary several percentage points between a window of 4,71 and 5,5 percent. Should the state subsidy be such that the increase would fall outside this window then the parties will renegotiate.”

Proff  Viljoen and Prof Grobbelaar said the R1200 bonus is payable to staff members who were in the employ of the UFS on UFS conditions of service on 21 November 2005 and who assumed duties before 1 October 2005. There are however some exceptions.

The agreement signed today also provides for restructuring funds of R752 000 to address partial backlogs in support services, including an increase in the medical allowance of 640 staff members.

The implementation date for the salary adjustment is 1 January 2006, but could be implemented on a later date due to logistical arrangements.

Proff Viljoen and Prof Grobbelaar said the UFS and unions could reach an agreement despite the declining phase in income and the generally more difficult financial environment in which universities operate.

Prof Grobbelaar said salary negotiations are never easy, but the model is an important tool. The model made it possible to tie up salary negotiations for November 2006. “This is unique for any higher education institution.”

Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel:  (051) 401-2584
Cell:  083 645 2454
E-mail:  loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za
24 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