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

Pansalb’s Language Rights Monitor Project launched at the UFS
2007-01-25

 

 Attending the launch of the Language Rights Monitoring Project were, from the left: Mr Edward Sambo (acting head of Pansalb), Prof Engela Pretorius (Vice-Dean of the Faculty of the Humanities at the UFS), Prof Theo du Plessis (Director: Unit for Language Management at the UFS) and Mr Vusi Ntlakana (head of the Free State provincial office of Pansalb).

 
 Pansalb’s Language Rights Monitor Project launched at the UFS
 
The Unit for Language Management at the University of the Free State (UFS), in collaboration with the Pan-South African Language Board (Pansalb), today launched the Language Rights Monitor Project on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein.
 
In accordance with the Pansalb Act of 1995, Pansalb is responsible for the promotion and protection of language rights in South Africa, and is the chief funder of the project.          
 
The Language Rights Monitor Project was initiated in 2002 for a trial period of three years, with the aim of reporting to Pansalb, on an annual basis, on language-rights issues in South Africa, as reflected mainly in the printed media.
 
Since then, three reports have already appeared, covering various aspects relating to language rights, including, inter alia, language-rights complaints, language-rights issues, language litigation, as well as research on language rights in South Africa. Profs Johan Lubbe and Theo du Plessis, as well as Dr Elbie Truter, all associated to the UFS, were responsible for the compilation of the first three reports.
 
During 2006, Pansalb decided to establish the project for an unspecified period of time at the Unit for Language Management at the UFS. It is precisely for this reason that the project is being launched. The South African Language Rights Monitor will henceforth appear annually as a prestige publication of Pansalb, compiled by staff associated with the Unit.
 
However, Pansalb has also decided to further consolidate the project, as a result of the need for a more immediate report, as well as the need to include records drawn from newspapers published in the African languages. It was therefore decided that, as from September 2006, a monthly South African Language Rights Bulletin would also be launched. 
 
Such a bulletin would provide an overview, on a monthly basis, of developments in South Africa concerning language rights, and would enable Pansalb to become more actively involved in crisis situations in which mediation is urgently needed. Two monthly bulletins have already appeared, and were favourably received by Pansalb. During the launch of the project, this bulletin was also introduced to the public for the first time.
 
With the official launch of Pansalb’s Language Rights Monitor project in the Free State, emphasis will be placed on the leading role played by this province, and more specifically by the UFS, in the development and implementation of a multilingual policy.
 
In future, more information on the situation regarding language-rights issues in South Africa will be made available from Bloemfontein, for the benefit of South Africa’s language-rights watchdog, Pansalb, but also for the benefit of other institutions involved in language-rights issues.
 
A constructive contribution will thus be rendered to the cultivation of language justice, an important element of the democratisation process in South Africa.
 
Issued by:
Prof Theo du Plessis
Unit for Language Management, UFS
 
 
Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel: (051) 401-2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
24 January 2007

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