Expert conference
Details
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ CONFERENCE ON CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA HELD AT PARADISE HOLIDAY RESORT, BAGAMOYO, TANZANIA JUNE 5TH – 9TH, 2007
I. PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Wolfgang Ahner-Toennis, KAF Resident Representative Kenya and Tanzania, formally welcomed the delegates to Tanzania and Bagamoyo in particular. While emphasising the importance of the conference, Mr Ahner-Toennis underscored the strong linkage between the rule of law and development in any modern society by stating that,
‘I dare say that the degree of how the rule of law has been established will determine the degree of how development in the other areas can take place.’
Both Mr. Ahner-Toennis and Mr Gerd Bossen, Director, Konrad Adenauer Foundation Rule of Law Program for Sub-Saharan Africa, who gave a brief background of the program, hoped that the conference would give the delegates an opportunity to deliberate and hopefully get some solutions to the pertinent rule of law problems on the continent, inter alia
•High levels of impunity, disregard to court orders and blatant disobedience of the constitution and the law, especially by those in power;
•Reasons for weak and ineffective judiciaries; and
•The contradiction between the Bill of Rights and the reality of life.
II. KEYNOTE ADDRESS AND OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE CONFERENCE
In his keynote address, Justice Barnabas Samatta, Chief Justice of the United Republic of Tanzania, lauded the tireless efforts of Konrad Adenauer Foundation over the years geared towards fostering constitutionalism in Africa.
He observed that in modern society, courts are increasingly being called upon by vigilant litigants to resolve constitutional issues which have far-reaching consequences on the development of democracy and rule of law in their respective countries. He therefore urged courts in the region to discharge their functions boldly and innovatively in order to meet the growing and dynamic demands. He further urged courts to demonstrate willingness to enforcing constitutions, instruments that would aid the African people realize their hopes, desires and aspirations.
While acknowledging the ‘strongman syndrome’ in Africa, Justice Samatta stated that court decisions must unequivocally reveal that rule of law does not mean rule by law or rule by man and whenever an opportunity arises, courts in Africa must make those in executive corridors recognize and remember that it is not enough to have laws in place, but that those laws must be just in content and must be respected by all. He further stated that Constitutionalism cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as a luxury, and therefore everyone in power must be compelled to accept the truth that no one has a right to govern another person without that other person’s consent; and also that the right to be arbitrary does not exist in the laws of a democratic State.
He thus pointed out that courts in Africa bear a special responsibility of ensuring that governments find no loopholes in national constitutions or other laws that would tempt them to oppress their people.
However, Justice Samatta reiterated that this is only possible if the courts themselves are strong and independent. This independence should be institutional and personal if the rule of law, democracy and development is to be achieved in Africa. He cautioned that compliant judicial minds are a great threat to the development and sustenance of democracy and the rule of law.
He further observed that weak judiciaries quite often give room to emergence of tyranny and therefore called upon judges and lawyers in Africa to rise up to the challenge and exhibit brevity, innovation, independence and courage in defending justice.
SESSION I: Chaired by Justice David Wangutusi, President of the East African Magistrates and Judges Association and Judge, High Court of the Republic of Uganda
CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION IN GERMANY: 50 YEARS EXPERIENCE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT by Prof. Dr. Ernst Benda
In his presentation Prof. Benda highlighted some of the critical issues as relates to the establishment, jurisdiction and operations of the German Federal Constitutional Court.
He informed the participants that this court was established in 1951 and it is the guardian of the Constitution in Germany. This Court is mandated to control the other constitutional organs, as well as interpret and develop the Constitution.
Its members are elected by two-thirds majority of the members of the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) and by the States Chamber (Bundesrat) for a fixed tenure of twelve years, non-renewable.
The jurisdiction of the Court touches upon practically every aspect of state activity and covers all the clauses of the Basic Law of 1949, in particular the citizens’ fundamental rights. In arriving at its decisions, a variety of methods of control and of density of control are used depending on the degree of danger to individual liberty, and also the particular activity of the state involved. However, the central task of the Constitutional Court is to secure and protect the individual rights and liberties as embodied in the Basic Law, i.e. basic rights as stipulated in articles 1 to 19.
Complaints of unconstitutionality can refer to all kinds of violations of rights. During the 50 years of the Court’s existence, these claims formed the main body of the jurisdiction. Within this period, more than 140.000 cases have been decided, and 115 volumes of its decisions published. Out of this total, 95 per cent have been complaints of unconstitutional infringements upon fundamental rights, but only about 2 per cent of these complaints have been successful.
Prof. Dr. Benda also highlighted that the principle of separation of powers as adopted in the German Basic Law (Constitution) is not pure separation of powers as widely understood. It is not the strict separation of powers but mutual control and mutual modification of powers among organs of state. Thus, the principle of separation of powers is understood as "a guiding organizational principle" of the Basic Law. The Federal Constitutional Court has opined that, "the distribution of weights between the three powers of the state as embodied in the Constitution must be maintained. None of the powers must overpower any of the other powers to a degree not provided for in the Constitution. None of the powers shall be deprived of the competences necessary for the fulfilment of its constitutional duties. The core of the powers is unchangeable".
In this context, it is noteworthy that the Constitutional Court itself is one of the constitutional organs, vested with judicial power and therefore, the mentioned principle of equal distribution of weights apply to it as well.
SESSION II: Chaired by Dr. Daniel Ribbens, Legal Expert from the Republic of South Africa
THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN PROMOTING CONSTITUTIONALISM, DEMOCRACY, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE MALAWI EXPERIENCE by Justice Lovemore Chikopa
In his presentation, Justice Chikopa examined the role of the judiciary in two eras namely, the period prior to and post the 1994 Malawi Constitution.
He observed that since independence to 1994, due to a narrow mandate of the courts, restrictive laws, lack of guarantees for human rights and the not so free political climate in Malawi, the Judiciary tended to reflect and uphold the prevailing economic, social and political realities of the time thereby generally rendering itself ineffective.
But as Malawians got closer to the political events that resulted in the adoption of a new constitutional order in 1994, the Judiciary started to play a more robust role. This was largely felt during the 1993 referendum which was to decide whether or not Malawi should become a multiparty state. Inevitably there were disputes regarding the fashion in which the referendum was to be run because Malawi was still legally a single party state with laws and regulations reflective of such status.
The Judiciary made a number of progressive pronouncements that upheld citizen’s fundamental liberties and fostered democracy. These include, the case of Nkhwazi v Referendum Commission (1993) where the High Court reversed the Referendum Commission’s decision barring members of the army from voting; in National Consultative Council v Attorney General (1994) the High Court restrained the police from operating permanent roadblocks; in Aaron Longwe v Attorney General (1993) the High Court set aside a police order banning certain persons from speaking at public rallies; in Mhone v Attorney General (1993) the High Court set aside a police order banning arrested or detained persons from meeting their lawyers without the permission of the Inspector General of Police and in Du Chisiza Jnr v Minister of Education (1993) the High Court held that an order issued by the Minister banning Du Chisiza from performing in secondary schools was an abuse of power and therefore invalid.
Using judicial decisions the Judiciary was able to rein in the abuse of power or excesses by the police, government ministries or other government agencies like the Independent Referendum Commission. It also enabled individuals to fully exercise their right to vote in the referendum apart from leveling the playing field in the referendum process.
At another level, it was able in the absence of specific constitutional guarantees, to protect the people’s right to the freedom of expression, the right to freedom of movement, and the right to legal representation all ordinarily necessary in the promotion and safeguarding of constitutionalism and democracy. Considering that the 1966 Constitution did not specifically guarantee human rights one might say that the Judiciary played the role of accelerating the democratization process by encouraging, through the creative use of its powers, the government of the day to adhere to democratic ideals and principles if not specifically stated in the 1966 Constitution then certainly espoused in the International Bill of Rights whose sanctity Malawi, at the very least, recognized.
The Judiciary continued to play much the same role right up to the first multiparty elections in 1994. In the case of In Re Nomination of J J Chidule (1995) the High Court held that a person was qualified for nomination to contest for a parliamentary seat if he or she is registered in any constituency in Malawi and not necessarily in the constituency in which she or he intends to contest. It was setting the rules of the democratic game. In the context of the politics prior to 1994 it was a vital decision because the opposition tended to have the ‘correct’ candidates in urban areas.
Despite making certain progressive pronouncements, Justice Chikopa also noted that there were moments when the judiciary failed to take on the mantle of promoter and thereafter guarantor of human rights and democratic principles and ideals. For instance, in Chakufwa Chihana v Republic (1992) the Judiciary declined to adopt arguments by defense lawyers that the State’s definition of sedition was in clear contravention of international human rights standards that guaranteed the rights to hold an opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of association and to form, join, leave and participate in the activities of a political party. This decision took the country a step back in the march towards democratization and people felt constrained in the exercise of their civil and political rights.
In Muluzi and Thomson v Attorney General (1993) the High Court declined to issue an injunction restraining the Malawi Police Force from unlawfully stopping the two from publicizing a public meeting in spite of the fact that the same court had in the Longwe case effectively made an identical order when it declared invalid a police order barring certain individuals from addressing public meetings.
With the adoption of a relatively liberal constitution in 1994, a number of positive changes were made that would help the judiciary perform better. For instance, the mandate and the independence of the judiciary were expressly provided for in the new constitution. This gave the judiciary and new lease of life and placed it in a much better position to protect the Constitution thereby promoting constitutionalism and the rule of law in Malawi. Based on section 9 of the 1994 Constitution, the Supreme Court in Attorney General v Dr Mapopa Chipeta (1994), held that the High Court could review a decision of the Speaker of the National Assembly, parliamentary immunity notwithstanding, on any constitutional provision. Thus, the Judiciary could review and if need be, annul a decision of the Speaker, if the same was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution.
On the question of separation of powers, the judiciary in Malawi through its pronouncements has tended to regard the relationship between the three branches of government as one of coequal branches whose powers are separate but independent from each other at an operational level. To enforce such stance the Judiciary has had from time to time to intervene in the affairs of both the legislature and the executive in a manner that acts as a check on the other branches.
In Attorney General v Masauli (2000) the High court held that the National Assembly could not abrogate the right of a party that had won 10% of the national vote to public party funding; in Nseula v Attorney General (1997) the Supreme Court while acknowledging the fact that the Speaker, indeed the National Assembly, had certain privileges which were immune from interference by the Courts, held that the courts could intervene if the decision in question involved the interpretation of the constitution; in The State v President of the Republic of Malawi, Minister of Finance, Secretary to the Treasury ex parte Malawi Law Society (2006) the High Court sitting as a Constitutional Court held that the executive branch had no power to determine the remuneration payable to judicial officers under the Constitution; and in The State v The State President, The Office of the President and Cabinet, The Chief Secretary for the President and Cabinet, the Chief Secretary for the Public Service and the Attorney General ex parte Dr. Cassim Chilumpha SC (2006) the High Court sitting as a Constitutional Court held that the President had no power to dismiss the first Vice President because this was the preserve of the National Assembly through the process of impeachment.
In regard to the protection of human rights, the judiciary has in various cases upheld the principles of fundamental rights and liberties. For instance, in the case of Friday Anderson Jumbe and Humphrey Chimpando Mvula v The Attorney General (2005) the Hi gh Court sitting as a Constitutional Court reiterated the primacy of the presumption of innocence and the right to silence as the necessary ingredients of the right to a fair trial in criminal matters; in Public Affairs Committee v Attorney General, The Speaker of the National Assembly, Malawi Human Rights Commission amicus curiae (2003) the constitutional court declared that an amendment to section 65 of the Constitution that effectively barred MPs from joining organizations or associations that were political in nature was unconstitutional for being unduly restrictive of Members of Parliament’s rights of association, opinion, and other political rights enshrined in the Constitution. This decision not only upheld, protected and advanced constitutionalism but also guaranteed the MPs’ freedom to associate.
In The Law Society, Episcopal Conference of Malawi, and Malawi Council of Churches v The State and The President, The Inspector General of Malawi, Army Commander (2002) the High Court ruled that banning demonstrations by the President was unconstitutional and it infringed the citizen’s right to peacefully assemble and demonstrate, to express oneself and to associate; and in Fadweck Mvahe v R, Richard Chigeza v R and Roy Mangame v R, (2005) the Malawi Supreme Court in defense of the right to liberty held that in any application for bail it was not for the applicant to show exceptional circumstances before they could be released. It is for the State to show why the accused should be kept in prison. This was a major shift of opinion for hitherto the law was to the effect that the accused had, especially in homicide offences, to show exceptional circumstances before he could be allowed out on bail.
Another aspect of the Court’s role in promoting constitutionalism and democracy is that of enforcement of its orders. In Chupa’s case the Mayor and a few senior police officers were convicted of contempt for failing to comply with an order stopping them from stopping a public meeting.
In playing an oversight role over governance institutions, the Courts have a role to play in ensuring that governance institutions play their correct role in upholding the Constitution. This is mainly because of the Judiciary’s overarching mandate under the Constitution of Malawi. In Samuel Ng’andu v Ministry of Information and Tourism, The Ombudsman & The Attorney General (2005) the court set out the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction; and in Trustees of Malawi Against Physical Disabilities v Ombudsman (2002) it set out the nature of the remedies that the Ombudsman can grant.
As far as democracy is concerned, the courts have a task of promoting free and fair elections by safeguarding the citizens’ right to vote freely. In Malawi, in the case of Phambala v Chairman Electoral Commission (1999) the Judiciary ordered the Commission to register prisoners as voters.
Further, the Judiciary has over the years been able act as a safety mechanism to the invariably volatile political process. It has been able to diffuse tension, and thereby averting violence, by providing an alternative arena where political players can fight out heated political battles by proxy through their lawyers. The elections case of Gwanda Chakuamba v Electoral Commission soon after the 2004 general elections is a good example.
Justice Chikopa submitted that one area in which judicial intervention seems to have been less than successful is how to deal with the use abuse of public resources for politicking and the adjudication of electoral complaints. A long line of cases seemed to suggest that noncompliance with electoral laws could only result in the avoidance of an election if the irregularities/noncompliance were such as to have affected the result of the elections.
He further submitted that the judiciary has a role in promoting economic growth and development because no investor will invest in a country that has little observance of the rule of law, or one that suffers from political turmoil which is a necessary byproduct of an absence of the rule of law, constitutionalism and democracy. He noted that perhaps one important area in which the Judiciary’s influence in Malawi has been felt is that of commerce with government. Hitherto one could not execute against government nor could get injunctive relief against government. The result was that businesspeople transacted with the government largely at own risk because government could decide when and if it wanted to honour its commercial obligations. This was not a recipe for economic growth but since the case of B J Mpinganjira the concept of effective remedy has been adopted so that effective remedy whether injunction or execution against the government can be granted by the courts.
SESSION III: Chaired by Ms. Lidwina Shapwa, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Republic of Namibia
THE INDEPENDENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS IN SUB SAHARAN AFRICA: THE SOUTH AFRICA EXPERIENCE by Prof. George Devenish
Prof. Devenish pointed out that the judicial authority in the Republic of South Africa is vested in the courts of law that are declared to be independent and subject only to the Constitution.
Under the 1996 Constitution, the judiciary plays an indispensable role, as the guardian of the Constitution and its ethos and values.
Section 165 of the Constitution protects judicial independence in South Africa, and this has been enhanced further through legislation such as the Constitutional Court Complementary Act which gives the Chief Justice significant, although not complete authority over the budget and staffing of the Constitutional Court; judicial interpretation and the practice of the judiciary and the courts as evidenced in De Lange v Smuts; SA Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath; and van Rooyen v S cases.
The Chief Justice and his Deputy are appointed by the President together with his cabinet, after consulting the Judicial Service Commission. Other judges of the Superior Courts are appointed by the President on the advice of the JSC. In effect this means that the executive does not control the situation as the President is bound to accept the decisions of the JSC. Judges have security of tenure, financial security and there is a limitation of their civil liability. All of these together with an impeachment procedure used for their removal guarantees their independence.
The Constitutional Court in South Africa has exclusive jurisdiction in relation to certain matters listed in section 167(4) of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court, inter alia, takes the final decision whether an Act of Parliament, a provincial statute or conduct of the President is constitutional, and must confirm any order of invalidity made by the Supreme Court of Appeal, a High Court, or a court of similar status, before that order has any force.
A seminal judgment that reflects pertinently on the issues involved in the counter-majoritarian dilemma and the independence and effectiveness of the Constitutional Court is that of Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature v President of the Republic of South Africa. This case was precipitated when President Mandela, acting in terms of the powers granted to him in terms of section 16A of the Local Government Transition Act, amended the principal Act.
The Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court rejected the Western Cape Province’s claim that the amendment Act was unconstitutional; holding that parliament’s amendment of the principal Act had effectively transferred parliament’s highest legislative powers to the President, permitting him to make laws in its place.
The Constitutional Court reversed this decision, invalidating the President’s proclamation and parliament’s amendment of the Local Government Transition Act by invoking the so-called “delegation doctrine”, which is a direct consequence of the doctrine of separation of powers. President Mandela responded to the court’s judgment by stating that “this judgment is not the first, nor the last, in which the Constitutional Court assists both the government and society to ensure constitutionality and effective governance”. He thereby immediately defused a crisis situation which had arisen out of the counter-majoritarian dilemma inherent in the nature of the interim Constitution. This case represents a singular victory for constitutionalism and indicates the independence and effectiveness of the Constitutional Court, since for the first time this Court had invalidated a highly politicised parliamentary statute, passed by a democratically elected and legitimate national legislature and a President, venerated and acclaimed both nationally and internationally for his moral and political courage and sagacity.
Other significant and progressive constitutional interpretations by the Constitutional Court are found in the cases of S v Mhlungu; Government of the RSA v Grootbo; and Treatment Action Campaign v Minister of Health.
In ensuring that Court orders and decisions are enforced and respected, the constitutional court in August & another v Electoral Commission & other for the first time made use of a so-called structured interdict, which directs a violator to take steps to rectify a violation of rights under the court’s supervision. This followed a holding that the Electoral Commission had violated prisoners’ rights to vote by failing to take steps to allow them to register as voters on a national voters’ roll. The court ordered the Commission to make arrangements for them to register, and once registered to vote in the election. A similar order was given by the court in Strydom v Minister of Correctional Services.
Even though the independence and effectiveness of the judiciary in South Africa is relatively high, there have been some worrying signs and threats especially from the government. For instance, the publication of the Constitution of South Africa 14th Amendment Bill on 14 December 2005, that formed part of a package of measures intended to transform and rationalize the judiciary in accordance with Schedule 6 of the Constitution, impacts negatively on judicial independence and the cognate doctrine of separation of powers. This Bill enhances executive’s power and influence in judicial matters at the expense of the judiciary and its independence.
Furthermore, aspects of this controversial legislation are to appear again in the form of two new Bills that are being pushed through by the Minister of Justice albeit with resistance from the judiciary. It remains to be seen how this will be resolved and the ultimate impact it will have on the independence and effectiveness of the judiciary.
Dr Devenish concluded by stating that an analysis of Constitutional Court judgments in South Africa indicates clearly that the Court is fearless in the protection of rights set out in the Constitution and does not readily defer to the executive or legislature. Its jurisprudence reflects boldness without being confrontational, indicating that it is acutely aware of the counter-majoritarian dilemma. This is particularly the position in relation to remedies, where, as was the position in the Western Cape case, it will suspend a declaration of invalidity in order to prevent administrative and political dislocation and confusion
EMERGING ISSUES IN REGARD TO THE INDEPPENDENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
The following were identified as some of the main problems facing Constitutional Courts and Judiciaries in Sub-Saharan Africa:
•Lack of clear and transparent criteria for the appointment and removal of judicial officers. It was observed that in most jurisdictions, the executive have a lot of influence and control of the process thereby undermining the independence of the judiciary. However, it was encouraging to learn that a meeting of Chief Justices from the region held early this year in Maseru, Lesotho, passed a resolution that all judicial appointments should only be done by an independent appointing authority.
•Weak or non-existent Judicial Service bodies. It was further observed that in many jurisdictions where such bodies exist, the executive still play a major role in the appointment of its members thereby compromising their independence and ultimately the independence of the judiciary. Further, such bodies often lack adequate resources to operate effectively.
•Weak Constitutional Courts and in many cases, such courts are established on ad hoc basis making them vulnerable to manipulation by those in government or those high up in the judicial hierarchy.
•Rampant judicial corruption. This is as a result of various reasons such as poor remuneration of judicial officers and appointment of persons with questionable characters as judges among others.
•Lack of adequate resources (personnel, financial, physical facilities among others) and lack of financial autonomy.
•Blatant defiance and disobedience of court orders especially by those in power.
•Weak and sometimes compromised Bar Associations and Civil Society.
•Inaccessible courts due to high cost of litigation; complex and technical judicial procedures; geographical vastness among others.
•Poor case management and tracking systems.
•Lack of legal aid schemes.
•Lack of public awareness.
The following were identified as some of the ways of remedying the aforementioned problems:
Guarantee the independence of the judiciary in the national constitutions. This should encompass institutional, individual and financial independence.
Have clear and transparent appointment and removal criteria for judicial officers that are supervised and governed by an independent body. In this regard, it is paramount that where Judicial Service bodies exist, they should be restructured and strengthened and their independence expressly provided for in national constitutions. In addition, appointment of Acting Judges should be discouraged.
Encourage judicial activism and the use of international instruments and standards.
Encourage regular and continuous dialogue among members of the three arms of government in a bid to understand the functions of each arm and subsequently, forge a coordinated working relationship for the benefit of the people.
Establish time limits within which matters filed in court must be dispensed with, as well as develop appraisal mechanisms that are conducted and managed by an independent Judicial Service body.
Establish an independent, credible and responsive Complaint Mechanism in addition to establishing Peer Review Mechanisms to help maintain high standards of probity.
Develop a Judicial Code of Conduct that promotes adherence to the highest ethical norms and enhances impartiality.
< p>Enhance civic education to sensitize the population on the existence of constitutions and the provisions therein as well as general information on court processes and procedures.
On the specific roles that stakeholders can play to enhance judicial independence and efficiency in the region, it was suggested that:
a) Judiciary
-Must safeguard its own independence at all times by resisting any attempts by any external actors to curtail such independence which is often spearheaded by the executive and legislative arms of government through constitutional amendments or Acts of Parliament.
-Should demystify itself to the public and seek to gain public confidence by deciding cases in a fair and impartial manner.
-Should simplify court processes and procedures to foster accessibility to courts.
b) Executive:
-Should not interfere with court operations and must obey court orders.
-Should formulate policies that are geared towards the promotion and protection of the rule of law.
-Should provide adequate resources (both financial and physical) to help foster accessibility to courts.
c) Legislature
–Should enact laws that are just in content and consistent with the constitution and incase of any errors as may be pointed out by the courts, it must readily rectify such discrepancies.
–Should not be used by the executive arm of government to undermine judicial independence through amendment of the constitution or enactment of contradicting laws.
d) Bar Associations
-Must defend the independence of the judiciary at all times.
-Must weed out and take appropriate disciplinary measures against errant lawyers.
-Should play an active role in the appointment of judicial officers.
e) Media and the Civil Society
-Should assist in raising public awareness.
f) Public
-Should be vigilant and demand accountability from the government.
-Should use its voting power to remove any government or individuals who disobey court orders thereby undermining the rule of law.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Lady Justice Roseline P.V. Wendoh, High Court Judge, Constitutional and Judicial Review Division, P.O. Box 30041, Nairobi, KENYA, Tel. +254 20 221221, Fax +254 20 318172
Justice Milton Asike Makhandia, High Court Judge, Nyeri, P.O. Box 70, Nyeri, KENYA, Tel. +254 733 811991, E-mail: askem@yahoo.com
Mr. Paul Mwangi Kigotho, Council, Law Society of Kenya, P.O. Box 46530-00100, Nairobi, KENYA, Tel. +254 721 315814, Fax +254 20 247167, E-mail: mwangikigotho@hotmail.com
Mr. Wilfred Nderitu, Chairman, Iinternational Commission of Jurists, Kenya Section, P.O. Box 22048, Nairobi 00400, KENYA, Tel. +254 20 2734111, Fax +254 20 2733777, E-mail: wnderitu@nderitulaw.com
Mr. Lucas Wauna, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 30765, Nairobi, KENYA, Tel. +254 722 670483, E-mail: wauna_oluoch@yahoo.com
Justice David Wangutusi, President, East African Magistrates and Judges Association and Judge of the High Court of Uganda, P.O. Box 7085, Kampala, UGANDA, Tel. +256 772 334643, E-mail: dwangutusi@judicature.go.ug
Justice Steven Kavuma, Court of Appeal, P.O. Box 22767, Kampala, UGANDA, Tel. +256 752 505649, E-mail: stevenkavuma@yahoo.com and skavuma@judicature.go.ug
Justice Moses Mukiibi, High Court, P.O. Box 7085, Kampala, UGANDA,
Tel. +256 41 3434471/772 628282, E-mail: mmukiibi@judicature.go.ug
Ms. Eunice Musiime, Uganda Law Society, P.O. Box 426, Kampala, UGANDA
Tel. +256 772 429837, E-mail: emusiime@uls.or.ug
Justice Barnabas Samatta, Chief Justice, P.O. Box 9004, Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA, Tel. +255 22 2116653, Fax +255 22 2116654
Hon. Mathias Chikawe, M.P. and Deputy Minister for Justice, P.O. Box 9050, Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA, Tel. +255 713 325087, E-mail: matt.chikawe@gmail.com
Lady Justice Eusebia N. Munuo, Court of Appeal, P.O. Box 9004, Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA, Tel. +255 22 2121809, Fax +255 22 2116654, E-mail: eumunuo@yahoo.co.uk
Justice Edward M.K. Rutakangwa, Court of Appeal, P.O. Box 9004, Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA, Tel. +255 22 2121809, +255 754 479666, Fax +255 22 2116654, E-mail: edwardrutakangwa@hotmail.com
Justice Thomas B. Mihayo, High Court, P.O. Box 9004, Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA, Tel. +255 754 780078, E-mail: mihayo@africaonline.co.tz
Lady Justice Aisha C. Nyerere, High Court, P.O. Box 9004, Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA, Tel. +255 22 2121809, Fax +255 22 2116654, E-mail: eumunuo@yahoo.co.uk
Justice Robert V. Makaramba, High Court, P.O. Box 9004, Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA, Tel. +255 22 2121809, +255 774 275444, Fax +255 22 2116654, E-mail: makaramba@yahoo.com
Mr. Ferdinand Wambali, Registrar of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice’s Personal Secretary, P.O. Box 9004, Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA,
Tel. +255 22 2110157, Fax +255 22 2116664, E-mail: fwambali@yahoo.com
Dr. John Ruhangisa, The Registrar, East African Court of Justice, P.O. Box 5096, Arusha, TANZANIA, Tel. +255 27 2506093, Fax +255 27 2509493, E-mail: ruhangisa@eachq.org
Lady Justice Hirut Melesse, Federal Supreme Court, P.O. Box 110288, Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA, Tel. +251 9117230121, E-mail: hirutmelesse@yahoo.com
Justice. Tafesse Yirga, Federal High Court, P.O. Box 2882, Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA, Tel. +251 112 765251, E-mail: tafyirga@yahoo.com
Mr. Tameru W. Agegnehu, President, Ethiopian Bar Association, P.O. Box 30504, Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA, Tel. +251 115 531645, Fax +251 115519548, E-mail: tameruw@yahoo.com
Justice Paul Ruyenzi, Supreme Court, B.P. 174, Kigali, RWANDA, Tel. +250 571766, Fax +250 571759, E-mail: unity@rwanda1.com and murabuko@yahoo.co.uk
Mr. Geoffrey Mwine, Legal Officer, National Unity and Reconciliation Commission, B.P. 2179, Kigali, RWANDA, Tel +250 8300742, E-mail: ruyenzi_paul123@yahoo.fr
Mr. Pierre Claver Zitoni, Law Society of Rwanda, B.P. 3914, Kigali, RWANDA, Tel +250 8304158, E-mail: pierreclaverz@yahoo.fr
Justice Ndaye Elysee, President of the Constitutional Court, P.O. Box 151, Bujumbura, BURUNDI, Tel. +257 22 215265, Fax +257 22 218323, E-mail: endaye2005@yahoo.fr
Hon. Sylvestre Bikorindagara, Member of Parliament, P.O. Box 521, Bujumbura, BURUNDI, Tel. +257 77 737246, E-mail: bikosred@yahoo.com
Mr. Jean Baptiste Baribonekeza , Faculty of Law, University of Burundi, P.O. Box 5130, Bujumbura, BURUNDI, Tel. +257 22 226220, cell phone: +257 79 905 295, E-mail: batista20002001@yahoo.fr
Justice Leonard Unyolo, Chief Justice of the Republic of Malawi, P.O. Box 30244, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, MALAWI, Tel. +265 1 870255/9 510606,
Fax +265 1 870213/870677, E-mail: chiefjustice@clcom.net
Justice Lovemore Chikopa, High Court, P.O. Box 12, Mzuzu, MALAWI,
Tel. +265 511055, Fax +265 332563, E-mail: justicechikopa@yahoo.com
Mr. Desmond Kaunda, Director, Malawi Human Rights Resource Centre, P.O. Box 891, Lilongwe, MALAWI, Tel. +265 1 752629, Fax +265 1 759390, E-mail: dkaunda@humanrights.mw and desmondkaunda@yahoo.com
Mr. Pacharo Kayira, Senior Assistant Chief State Advocate, Ministry of Justice, Private Bag 333, Lilongwe 3, MALAWI, Tel. +265 1 789578,
Fax +265 1 788732, E-mail: pkayira@yahoo.com
Mr. Ian Malera, Vice Chairman, Law Society of Malawi, P.O. Box 724, Lilongwe, MALAWI, Tel. +265 1 759381, Fax +265 1 759382, E-mail: ianmalera@yahoo.co.uk
Ms Lidwina Shapwa, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Private Bag 13302, Windhoek, NAMIBIA, Tel. +264 61 2805344, Fax +264 61 234774, E-mail: lshapwa@moj.gov.na
Mr. Phil Ya Nangoloh, Executive Director, National Society for Human Rights,P.O. Box 23592, Windhoek, NAMIBIA, Tel. +264 61 236183/253447,
Fax +264 61 234286, E-mail: nshr@iafrica.com.na
Advocate A.W. Boesak, Society of Advocates of Namibia, P.O. Box 5220, Windhoek, NAMIBIA, Tel. +264 61 257867, Fax +264 61 230162, E-mail: boesakaw@iway.na
Mr. Alfonso Hengari, Council, Law Society of Namibia, Tel. +264 811 273569, E-mail: lawsoc@iafrica.com.na
Dr. Tukur Bello Ingawa, Secretary, Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Crimes Commission (ICPC), 802 Constitution Avenue, Central Area, Abuja, NIGERIA, Tel./Fax +234 9 5236691, E-mail: tingawa@icpc.gov.ng
Mr. Folu Olamiti, ICPC, 802 Constitution Avenue, Central Area, Abuja, NIGERIA, Tel. +234 8033003677, E-mail: olamitifolu@yahoo.com
Prof. Chioma Agomo, Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, NIGERIA, Tel. +234 1 8023116765, E-mail: ckagomo@yahoo.com
Mr. Thami Ngwenya, General Secretary, SADC Civil Rights Network, Suite 801, Forest Rd, 750 Francois Rd, Durban 4001, SOUTH AFRICA,
Tel. +27 31 2619001, Fax +27 31 2619059, E-mail: thami.ngwenya@cpp.org.za
Mr. Hanif Vally, Foundation for Human Rights, Private Bag X14, Arcadia 0007, SOUTH AFRICA, Tel. +27 12 4401691, Fax +27 12 4401692,
E-mail: hvally@fhr.org.za
Prof. George Devenish, University of Kwa Zulu Natal, 565 Moore Rd., Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, Tel. +27 31 2017237, Fax +27 31 2018068, E-mail: devenish@ukzn.ac.za
Dr Daniel Ribbens, Legal Expert, 12 Newlands Av., 7700 Cape of Good Hope, Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA, Tel. +27 21 6869780, Fax +27 21 6869783, E-mail: drlaw@axxess.co.za
Mr. Tafadzwa Mugabe, Projects Lawyer, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, P.O. Box 1393, Causeway, Harare, ZIMBABWE, Tel. +263 4 70537/251461, Fax +263 4 705641, E-mail: tmugabe@zlrr.org.zw
Mr. Bourema Kansaye, Constitutional Court, B.P. E213, Bamako, MALI,
Tel. +223 5256676, Fax +223 2234241, E-mail: bouremakk2000@yahoo.fr
Maitre Amidou Diabate, Director, Societe Civile Professionnelle D’Avocats, B.P. E334, Bamako, MALI, Tel. +223 6740624, Fax +223 2202660, E-mail: scpadiabate@cefib.com
Maître Kadidia Traoré Doucouré, Vice Presidente des Juristes du Mali, B.P. E4830, Bamako, MALI, Tel. +223 6931164/6332356, Fax +223 2223566,
E-mail: cabmaya@afribone.net.ml
Sem. Lompo Garba, President, National Commission for Human Rights (CNDHLF), B.P. 13334, Niamey, NIGER, Tel. +227 96 963163, Fax +227 20 744039, E-mail: ccndhlf@intnet.ne
Mr. Bedi Hima, Vice Président, Association Nigérienne pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (ANDDH), B.P. 12859, Niamey, NIGER, Tel. +227 20 732261, Fax +227 20 732261, E-mail: anddh@intnet.ne and badiehima@yahoo.fr
Ms. Maria Sango, Deputy Public Protector (Ombudsman), Rua 9’ Compresso do MPO, Luanda, ANGOLA, Tel. +244 222 371071, E-mail: mariaalmeidasango@hotmail.com
Mrs. Clarice Mukinda, Instituto de Desenvolvimento e Democracia (IDD), Luanda, ANGOLA, Tel. +244 327644, Fax +244 327644, E-mail: iddemocracia@yahoo.com.br
Mr Laurindo Vieira, Advisor to the Public Protector, Rua 9’ Compresso do MPO, Luanda, ANGOLA, Tel. +244 222 371071, E-mail: ldovieira@hotmail.com
Ms Chandra Kiassekoka, Office of Public Protector & Personal Secretary to the Deputy Public Protector, Rua 9’ Compresso do MPO, Luanda, ANGOLA, Tel. +244 222 371071, E-mail: chandkia@hotmail.com
Mr. Americo Augusto, Office of Public Protector, Rua 9’ Compresso do MPO, Luanda, ANGOLA, Tel. +244 222 371071
Dr. Celestin Tchapnga, Head Department of Public Law and Political Science, University of Dschang, B.P. 66, Dschang, CAMEROON, Tel. +237 77720826, E-mail: tchapnga@caramail.com
Mr. Njukeng G. Ajapmua, Prosecutor and Executive Director, Foundation of Justice, Cameroon, B.P. 53, Menji, Lebialem Division, CAMEROON, Tel.+ 237 77433949, E-mail: njuajap@yahoo.com
Mr. Jean-Marie Nkoulou, Presidential Administration, Office of the President, B.P. 5041, Yaounde, CAMEROON, Tel. +237 99543802, Fax +237 22219342, E-mail: nkoulessomba1@yahoo.fr
Justice Kabineh Ja’neh, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, P.O. Box 1238, Monrovia, LIBERIA, Tel. +231 6533328, E-mail: mafatta2697@yahoo.com
Mr. Oswald Tweh, President, Liberian National Bar Association, Monrovia, LIBERIA, Tel. +231 77512925, E-mail: notweh@yahoo.com
Ms. Stephanie McPhail, Head, Legal Advisory Unit, Legal and Judicial System Support Division of UNMIL, UN Mission in Liberia, Pan African Plaza, Monrovia, LIBERIA, Tel. +231 6826267, E-mail: mcphail@un.org
Mr. Lemuel Reeves, National Judicial System Monitor, Legal and Judicial System Support Division of UNMIL, UN Mission in Liberia,
Pan African Plaza, Monrovia, LIBERIA, Tel. +231 6511012, E-mail: reeves@un.org
Prof. Charles Manga Fombad, Faculty of Law, University of Botswana, Private Bag UB 00705, Gaborone, BOTSWANA, Tel. +267 3552333, E-mail: fombadc@mopipi.ub.bw and fombadmanga@yahoo.com
Prof. Djedjro Meledje, Faculty of Law, University of Cocody, B.P. V179, Abidjan, COTE D’IVOIRE, Tel. +225 22486719, E-mail: djedjromeledje@yahoo.fr
Mr. Thulani Maseko, National Constitutional Assembly & Lawyers for Human Rights, P.O. Box 3639, Mbabane, SWAZILAND, Tel. +268 6025765, Fax +268 4045226, E-mail: trmaseko@yahoo.com and lawyers@swazi.net
Prof. Dr. Ernst Benda, Former President of the German Federal Constitutional Court, Karlsruhe, Germany, E-mail: ernst.benda@t-online.de
Mr. Reagan Kyalo Mwanza, Interpreter, P.O. Box 9038, Nairobi 00200, KENYA, Tel. +254 721 251348, 721 818735, E-mail: tashconsult_reagan@yahoo.fr
Mr. Kindel Ludeki, Interpreter, P.O. Box 9038, Nairobi 00200, KENYA,
Tel. +254 721 251348, 721 818735, E-mail: tashconsult_reagan@yahoo.fr
Mr. Paul Wagwa,Technician, P.O. Box 9038, Nairobi 00200, KENYA,
Tel. +254 721 251348, 721 818735, E-mail: tashconsult_reagan@yahoo.fr
Mr. Gerd D. Bossen, Director, Konrad Adenauer Foundation Rule of Law Program for Sub-Saharan Africa, P.O. Box 66471, Nairobi 00800, KENYA,
Tel. +254 20 2725957, 2718035, 2718971, Fax +254 20 2724902, E-mail: Gerd.Bossen@kas.de
Mr. Wolfgang Ahner-Toennis, Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Country Representative, P.O. Box 66471, Nairobi 00800, KENYA, Tel. +254 20 2725957, 2718035, 2718971, Fax +254 20 2724902, E-mail: ahnerkas@wananchi.com
Mr. Peter Wendoh, Program Officer, Konrad Adenauer Foundation Rule of Law Program for Sub-Saharan Africa, P.O. Box 66471, Nairobi 00800, KENYA, Tel. +254 20 2725957, 2718035, 2718971, Fax +254 20 2724902,
E-mail: pwendoh@yahoo.com
Ms. Judith Mndolwa, Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Dar es Salaam Office, P.O. Box 6992, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Tel. +255 22 2153174, 2151990, E-mail: juharo2004@yahoo.com
