The issue of human rights violations in criminal investigation emerges as one of the
much debated subjects amongst academics since the inception of the idea of the
fundamental human rights all over the world. Human rights remain a center pillar
and a pivot around which criminal justice system revolves.
In Lesotho, for example, the question of human rights has been critical in the light
of the fact that, since independence on the 4th of October 1966, there was never a
real and tangible instrument which guaranteed human rights. The 1966 Constitution
which contained entrenched Bill of Rights was suspended in 1970.
From 1970 until 1993, Lesotho was governed undemocratically. There were no
periodic elections as prescribed by the 1966 Constitution. The 1970 interim authority
introduced orders which administered the country. Around that time, besides interim
orders, the country was governed through military dictates, 90 days detention
without trial and state of emergency laws and regulations.
Citizens were arrested, searched and charged arbitrarily by the governments of the
day. The study, firstly, commences with a thorough investigation of the violation of
the fundamental human rights. It gives a historical background of Lesotho political
landscape, legal system, Lesotho mounted police service evolution, and practical
human rights violations.
The study, secondly, draws a comparative scenario between Lesotho, the Republic
of South Africa, the United States of America and the United Kingdom as far as
human rights violations are concerned. The question of police use of force, whether deadly or moderate, while conducting
arrest, search or seizure, has been thoroughly investigated and discussed. Human
rights material, documents and instruments internationally or locally have been
identified, analyzed and discussed.
Based on the findings of the research, lessons and recommendations for Lesotho
have been drawn. The study argues that generally speaking, there are no adequate
control mechanisms put in place to regulate police powers in Lesotho compared to
other jurisdictions. It further argues that, some jurisdictions, such as the United
Kingdom, the Republic of South Africa and the United States of America have some
advanced police intervention programmes aimed at improving and constantly
checking police work.
The Republic of South Africa in particular, has moved away from the apartheid past
tendencies and legacy which saw the police use repressive means in dealing with the
public unrest. For example, the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty encouraged
them to abuse their power as illustrated in the decision of Sachs v Minister of
Justice1 where the Judge had this to say: âArguments are sometimes advanced
which do seem to me to ignore the plain principle that Parliament may make any
encroachment it chooses upon life, liberty and property of any individual subject to
its sway, and that it is the function of the courts of law to enforce (Parliamentâs
will).â However, this scenario changed with the introduction of the interim
Constitution of 1993 which ushered in a democratic majority rule in 1994. The
introduction of the 1993 interim Constitution brought with it a Constitutional State
founded on the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law as opposed to a
long practiced Parliamentary rule.2
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:ufs/oai:etd.uovs.ac.za:etd-10042011-113042 |
| Date | 04 October 2011 |
| Creators | Lenka, Thamae Caswell Liphapang |
| Contributors | Prof CP van der Merwe Fick |
| Publisher | University of the Free State |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | en-uk |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.uovs.ac.za//theses/available/etd-10042011-113042/restricted/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to University Free State or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.0123 seconds