SADC urged to ‘safeguard’ regional human rights court
By Alex Bell
18 June 2012
Leading Southern African legal rights groups have called on regional
governments to safeguard the still suspended SADC Tribunal, and to fully
reinstate the court with a strengthened human rights mandate.
The court was suspended more than a year ago for a 12 month review, in what
was described as a serious blow for the rule of law in Southern Africa and
for the protection of human rights. The suspension was also slammed for
appearing to side with the Robert Mugabe regime, which was held in contempt
by that court for ignoring a 2008 ruling on the unlawful land grab campaign.
The review process is now being finalised, with regional justice ministers
finishing a draft amendment to the Tribunal Protocol, which is set to
dictate some key changes in the role and functions of the court. These
recommendations will be handed to the SADC Council of Ministers ahead of a
SADC summit in Mozambique in August, where it is hoped the court will
finally be reinstated.
Three top legal groups have since urged the ministers to safeguard the role
of the Tribunal by agreeing on recommendations that “protect the core
mandate of the Tribunal and ensure it is finally allowed to function again.
The SADC Lawyers Association, the Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC)
and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) made a joint submission to
the SADC ministers last week, reminding them of their duty to protect the
Tribunal.
SALC’s Lloyd Kuveya told SW Radio Africa on Monday that there are key issues
that are set to determine the whole region’s future in terms of human rights
and the rule of law. He explained that these issues, which are feared to
become recommendations to the Council of Ministers, will drastically change
the mandate of the Tribunal.
Kuveya explained these changes include blocking access to the court to
individuals, NGOs and private companies, and also removing the court’s human
rights mandate.
“We want a Tribunal that is accessible to all and SADC should not diminish
the human rights jurisdiction of the court. In fact that should strengthen
this mandate,” Kuveya said.
He added: “If these changes go ahead then SADC leaders will have shown that
they are only paying lip service to the rule of law, so there are serious
implications.”
According to its current mandate the court is meant to provide access to
legal recourse to all SADC citizens, when the courts in their own countries
fail them. It is also supposed to be a neutral legal ground for citizens to
take grievances against their own countries governments.
This was the case for the late former Chegutu farmer Mike Campbell and his
son-in-law Ben Freeth, who took the Mugabe regime before the court for the
land grab campaign. The court ruled this campaign was unlawful and ordered
the government to compensate farmers who lost land and protect the remaining
farmers from further attack.
None of this happened and the Tribunal repeatedly held the regime in
contempt for ignoring the 2008 ruling. But instead of protecting the
jurisdiction of the court, which was enshrined in the SADC Treaty, regional
leaders chose to suspend it instead.