Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

No compromise: Language-fair trial rights

16 January 2024 | Story Valentino Ndaba and Dr Cindé Greyling | Photo Sonia Small

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

Letter to students from Prof Jonathan Jansen about student protest action at the UFS

2015-10-21

Dear Students

Student protest action at the University of the Free State

I wish to make clear that the senior leadership of the University of the Free State understands and supports the demands from students and their leaders that higher education be accessible to all students, especially the poor. For the past six years we have done everything in our power to meet that commitment to students who are academically talented, but simply cannot afford to pay; that is why our tuition fees remain among the lowest in the country. Our efforts to raise private funding have enabled thousands more students to study at the UFS than would have been possible on the government subsidy only. Whether it is the Staff Fund contributions (yes, our staff empty their pockets to support student fees) or the No Student Hungry (NSH) bursary programme (yes, we raise funds for food bursaries), we will continue our drive to fund students who cannot afford higher education. Let me repeat, no student with a solid academic record will be denied access to studies simply because they cannot pay.

Now, to the matter at hand. There is a national demand from students for a 0% fee increment for 2016. The Minister’s response, after consultation with stakeholders, was that universities should cap their 2016 fee increases at 6%. Despite this initiative from government, the protests continue on virtually all campuses across South Africa for the ‘no fee’ increase.

Our response, as the UFS leadership, is to continue engaging the SRC as the chosen leadership of our students in trying to negotiate a settlement on the matter. We have worked around the clock to be available to student leaders to find some resolution on 2016 fees. While we understand the demands of students, as university leaders, we can only work with the government subsidy we receive. Any agreement reached, cannot and must not place the university at academic and financial risk in its ability to deliver public higher education to the country - if that happens, everybody loses. Still, no matter what happens in terms of the response from government, the leadership door at the UFS remains open to finding a mutually acceptable solution to all parties in these deliberations.

Students, we are deeply concerned by the violence, intimidation and threats from the small group of protesting students. These dangerous and demeaning behaviours, like disrupting classes and verbally abusing students and staff, undermine the legitimate quest of students for relief concerning tuition fees. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable and the university will take action where required. We must also remember that we have an obligation to all 30 000 students whose right to learn without fear of violence and intimidation must be respected.

In conclusion, over the past few years we have worked hard to build a culture of mutual respect and embrace as we worked through some very difficult challenges on campus. You would have noticed that the university leadership responded quickly and sympathetically to reason and respect in difficult situations of rage and demonstration. A minority of students, with some outsiders, have come onto the campus to break down that culture in which, while we might disagree, we continue to work on the basis of mutual respect. I urge all students that, as we engage of this important problem of enabling greater access to higher education, we continue to remain true to the core values of our Human Project.

Best Regards

Prof Jonathan Jansen
Vice-Chancellor and Rector
University of the Free State

Letter to students from Prof Jonathan Jansen about student protest actions at the UFS (Pdf format)

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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