Some reflections on the harmonisation of business law in Francophone Africa and constitutionalismPosted: 3 February, 2021 Filed under: Balingene Kahombo, Trésor Makunya | Tags: African Union, Benin, Burkina Faso, business law, colonialism, constitutionalism, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), economic interests, economy, finance, France, Francophone Africa, Free enterprise, French, Gabon, legal harmonisation, liberal approach, neo-colonialism, OAU, OHADA, private initiative, RECs, regional integration 1 Comment
|Author: Balingene Kahombo
Professor of Public Law and African International Relations, Faculty of Law, University of Goma (Democratic Republic of Congo)
|Author: Trésor M. Makunya
Doctoral Candidate & Academic Associate, Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria (South Africa)
The Organisation for the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa (OHADA) is a supranational organisation established by the Treaty of Port-Louis of 17 October 1993 to standardise business legislation and regulation in Africa. It was believed that the creation of OHADA will attract foreign investors because its norms increase legal and judicial security and certainty. The imperfection, disparity and inaccessibility of existing business-related legal rules and judicial institutions were identified as major problems to address. The OHADA sought to combat the ‘backwardness’ of African business law by adopting legislation regulating different aspects of business, such as company law, simplified recovery procedures and enforcement measures, and labour law. These laws are known as uniform acts.
The SADC Tribunal: Concerted efforts for waves of change we want to seePosted: 19 June, 2015 Filed under: Patricia Mwanyisa | Tags: 2014 Protocol, access to justice, AEC, African Charter, Campbell Case, civil society, COMESA, ECCAS, ECOWAS, IGAD, justice, lawyers, legal mechanisms, ratification, RECs, SADC, SADC Heads of States, SADC Tribunal, Southern African Development Community, Zimbabwe 5 Comments
Author: Patricia Mwanyisa
Human Rights, Justice and Rule of Law Programme Officer, Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA)
Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe is known for its spectacular and majestic water falls. In August last year it was not just water that was falling at Victoria Falls but the SADC Tribunal as we know it fell spectacularly as leaders from the Southern African Development Community approved a new protocol to reconstitute the SADC Tribunal. The new tribunal has a limited mandate. By adopting a new protocol, the leaders effectively buried the SADC Tribunal which used to operate under the 2000 protocol. They decided to ignore recommendations from their own legal advisors and attorney generals and created a new Tribunal whose mandate is limited only to the adjudication of inter-state disputes. Simply put, under the 2014 Protocol, citizens are deprived of their right to refer a dispute between themselves and their government to the SADC Tribunal. Without a tribunal, justice and redress will remain elusive for people of the region.
It is important to remember that central to the demise of the tribunal is the case of Mike Campbell and Others v Zimbabwe (Campbell Case) in which the Tribunal found in favor of Zimbabwean white farmers whose land had been compulsorily acquired and without compensation by the Zimbabwean government. In retaliation Zimbabwe strategically attacked the jurisdiction and operation of the tribunal, mobilized support for its suspension and ultimately, its eventual disbandment. By succumbing to the demands of Zimbabwe, SADC Heads of state have ultimately eliminated the access of individuals and groups to the Tribunal at the behest of one State [Zimbabwe] and consequently depriving the entire region of the benefits of such an important institution. Discussions and decisions on the utility of the Tribunal should rather surpass the opinion of one State’s argument based on just one case and personal short term gains. Even so, Zimbabweans themselves and particularly politicians and elected MPs who represent the people of that country must objectively review the wisdom in taking such a stance – more so at a time when Zimbabwe chairs the SADC bloc. They must never forget that they too are ordinary individuals who also depend on fair, transparent and accessible judicial mechanisms which they may need at some point in their lives regardless of their political affiliations. That is, at any given time the tide turns, politicians whether in opposition or in power are susceptible to becoming victims of State sanctioned attacks on the dignity of individuals, including political violence.