Doctor Legum - LLD / The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Right (the Court) is the most recent of the three regional Human Rights Bodies. Envisioned by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right, its structures was not planned until the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) promulgated a protocol for its creation in 1998. The Court complements the protective mandate of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘The Commission’) and the Court has the competence to take final and binding decisions on human rights violations. Unlike its European and inter-American versions where their courts are integral parts of the cardinal instrument of the system ab initio, the establishment of the African Court was merely an afterthought. At the initial, protection of rights rested solely with the Commission upon African justice system which emphasises reconciliation as it is non-confrontational method of settlements of. The Commission is a quasi-judicial body modelled after the United Nations Human Right Committee without binding powers and with only limited functions covering examination of State reports, communications alleging violations and interpreting the Charter at the request of a State, the OAU or any organisation recognised by the OAU. The thesis answers the question whether the adoption of the African Court means that the African model of enforcing human rights has failed or whether having the Court constitute a concession to the triumph of the western model of law enforcement. The imperative of the 30th Ordinary Session of the OAU in 1994 where the creation of an African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights was viewed as the best way of protecting human rights across the region would be treated. The relevance of such an examination is highlighted by the fact that the African Charter did not make any provision for the establishment of a Court to enforce the rights guaranteed thereunder. If we are to assume that justice by reconciliation has failed and should be replaced by or complimented with justice by adjudication as the primary means of conflict resolution, what guarantees are there that the latter form of justice will not also fail? This thesis therefore will critically evaluate the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and assessed its potential impact on the African human rights system. It will also probe the power of the Court and see whether a clear and mutually reinforcing division of labour between it and the African Commission can be developed to promote and protect human rights on the continent. This research brings to focus an area that requires attention if the African human rights regime is to be effective. It put to test the criticism against the African Charter and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and also identified the present existing flaws in the African regional system. Furthermore, it ascertained whether or not, given the availability of other options, a regional Court is, in fact, the ideal mechanism for the protection of human rights in Africa.

In its latest attempt to curb the plight of unconstitutional changes of government in Africa, the African Union (AU) is in the process of empowering the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court) to prosecute perpetrators of unconstitutional changes of government in member states. This study considers the prospects and challenges of such prosecution by the proposed African Court. The study first identifies the normative and institutional framework developed by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), and later the AU to address unconstitutional changes of government in the continent. It then analyses the AU’s response to unconstitutional changes of government in member states, taking Guinea, The Comoros, Niger, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya as case studies. In doing so, it identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the AU’s response to the changes in these countries, including the capability of the AU’s normative and institutional framework to address all forms of unconstitutional changes in the region. Most importantly, the study addresses the challenges and prospects of prosecuting unconstitutional changes of government by the proposed African Court and whether the Court would be able to overcome the short-comings identified in the case studies. It finally concludes and recommends based on the findings of the study. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / gm2014 / Centre for Human Rights / unrestricted

Magister Legum - LLM (Criminal Justice and Procedure) / Traditionally, domestic criminal law was focused on individual guilt as can be seen from the principles of punishment, which are closely linked to blameworthiness and the infliction of loss or punishment to the offender. It most often requires the proof of the offender's mental state at the time of the committing the offence. Due to the emergence of the concept of legal persona, there has emerged a framework of imputing criminal liability on entities with legal personality. This concept has gained momentum in the domestic criminal law systems of many countries. The modern-day development of corporate criminal responsibility (CCR) emerged from the common law countries and has undergone a series of developments. Various models of imputing liability on a corporation have been developed with the United Kingdom having recently passed laws for serious offences like corporate manslaughter.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Right (the Court) is the most recent of the three regional Human Rights Bodies. Envisioned by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right, its structures was not planned until the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) promulgated a protocol for its creation in 1998. The Court complements the protective mandate of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘The Commission’) and the Court has the competence to take final and binding decisions on human rights violations. Unlike its European and inter-American versions where their courts are integral parts of the cardinal instrument of the system ab initio, the establishment of the African Court was merely an afterthought. At the initial, protection of rights rested solely with the Commission upon African justice system which emphasises reconciliation as it is non-confrontational method of settlements of. The Commission is a quasi-judicial body modelled after the United Nations Human Right Committee without binding powers and with only limited functions covering examination of State reports, communications alleging violations and interpreting the Charter at the request of a State, the OAU or any organisation recognised by the OAU. The thesis answers the question whether the adoption of the African Court means that the African model of enforcing human rights has failed or whether having the Court constitute a concession to the triumph of the western model of law enforcement. The imperative of the 30th Ordinary Session of the OAU in 1994 where the creation of an African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights was viewed as the best way of protecting human rights across the region would be treated. The relevance of such an examination is highlighted by the fact that the African Charter did not make any provision for the establishment of a Court to enforce the rights guaranteed thereunder. If we are to assume that justice by reconciliation has failed and should be replaced by or complimented with justice by adjudication as the primary means of conflict resolution, what guarantees are there that the latter form of justice will not also fail? This thesis therefore will critically evaluate the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and assessed its potential impact on the African human rights system. It will also probe the power of the Court and see whether a clear and mutually reinforcing division of labour between it and the African Commission can be developed to promote and protect human rights on the continent. This research brings to focus an area that requires attention if the African human rights regime is to be effective. It put to test the criticism against the African Charter and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and also identified the present existing flaws in the African regional system. Furthermore, it ascertained whether or not, given the availability of other options, a regional Court is, in fact, the ideal mechanism for the protection of human rights in Africa.

Thesis (LL. M.)--University of Canterbury, 2008. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 196-224). Also available via the World Wide Web.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are customary international law crimes. The African continent has experienced quite a number of cases involving these crimes, and the continent's ability and willingness to prosecute offenders’ remains in doubt. As a result, in the past decade or so, non-African states have sought to institute proceedings against African leaders accused of perpetrating international customary law crimes. These attempts have taken two distinct formats, the first being the use of Universal Jurisdiction {UJ), and the second being the attempts by the International Criminal Court {ICC) to indict and prosecute African leaders. The African Union {AU) has vehemently opposed both these attempts on the grounds that they are inspired by neo-colonial thinking that is aimed at stifling peace and reconciliation efforts on the continent.Proponents of UJ argue that this principle is fundamental to international justice and the global fight to end impunity for international crimes. UJ allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its territory and for which the normal jurisdictional links of nationality and passive personality do not exist. Although the concept of UJ has been part of international law for quite some time, its relevance today has been questioned by national courts and international judicial bodies. Its recent usage by both Belgian and French courts, as well as by international tribunals, such as the ICC, has attracted sharp criticism from many African states. Given that African states constitute the biggest block of signatory states to the Rome Statute, their voice cannot be ignored. Their principal concern is that the ICC is unfairly targeting African leaders for prosecution. The negative sentiment is also evidenced by some African leaders' deliberate refusal to comply with ICC requests or to cooperate in cases where warrants of arrest have been issued against African leaders, such as in the case of the Sudanese President, Omar Al Bashir, and the present prosecution of the Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy, William Ruto. Given the aversion shown by African states to ICC prosecution of state leaders, and attempts by some non-African states to resort to UJ in order to try African leaders, the question is whether African states themselves have a solution to the problem of impunity on the continent? The answer might lie, partly, in the age old concept of UJ, where individual African states might be able to exercise jurisdiction over the international crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It might also lie in the ability and willingness of African states to strengthen the Continent’s own, regional institutions by setting up an African international criminal tribunal, or strengthening an existing one to deal with these issues. It therefore becomes important to assess what the African standpoint on UJ is, as against what the practical realities are. In other words, what continental or regional institutions exist to combat impunity for international crimes: what do states do in fact?

The establishment of the East African Community (EAC) in 1999 brought with it new expectations for the citizens of the East African region. The main objective of the EAC is to bolster development in various fields such as economic, social, cultural, research, technology and legal affairs. In order to reach such an objective, the EAC member states have pledged to adhere to human rights, as one of the founding principles of the EAC. Member states are also required to respect accepted universal human rights standards when carrying out Community activities. In order to ensure that EAC values, as provided in the EAC Treaty, are preserved, member states voluntarily decided to put in place a judicial organ for the Community − the East African Court of Justice (EACJ). The Court is the main judicial organ of the EAC, with the primary responsibility for interpreting and applying EAC law. Despite the fact that human rights constitute one of the EAC norms, the EACJ has yet to be granted an explicit human rights jurisdiction. It has thus fallen on the Court to engage in judicial activism to indirectly protect human rights within the Community. Thus, this study examines the role of the EACJ in protecting human rights within the EAC, as well as the challenges it is facing at present and its prospects. This study, therefore, demonstrates that the current limitation on the human rights jurisdiction of the EACJ has rendered the Court unable to protect human rights effectively within the EAC. / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2014. / tm2015 / Centre for Human Rights / LLD / Unrestricted

No abstract available. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / gm2014 / Centre for Human Rights / UPonly

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) was created amidst great criticism to the ineffectiveness of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCmHPR) in protecting human rights on the content. After much debate, spanning four decades the Protocol on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Protocol) was adopted by the Organisation of African Unity Assembly and entered into force on the 25th of January 2004. Later the 4th AU summit in January 2006 elected the eleven judges of the Court. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2011. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / nf2012 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

This thesis explores the symbolic form of a significant public building through the architectural design of an international African Criminal Court in Bloemfontein, South Africa. / Master of Architecture