Beyond the Traditional Courts Bill: regulating customary courts in line with living customary law and the Constitution

This article discusses flaws in the Traditional Courts Bill in light of research that shows customary courts to operate in accordance with a model that is very different from that adopted by the Bill. Customary courts are not professional institutions but community-based discussion forums, thus participation in them is inclusive of the broad community membership, and their accountability is partly dependent on people's ability to choose to use them, or other forums, when their own courts are unjust. The article therefore develops a framework for regulating customary courts that gives recognition to their essential elements as understood through prior study of diverse courts. The framework advanced is also one that gives greater expression to rights (to democracy, gender equality and freedom of association, or choice) articulated in the Constitution

Beyond the Traditional Courts Bill: Regulating customary courts in line with living customary law and the Constitution

This article discusses flaws in the Traditional Courts Bill in light of research that shows customary courts to operate in accordance with a model that is very different from that adopted by the Bill. Customary courts are not professional institutions but community-based discussion forums, thus participation in them is inclusive of the broad community membership, and their accountability is partly dependent on people's ability to choose to use them, or other forums, when their own courts are unjust. The article therefore develops a framework for regulating customary courts that gives recognition to their essential elements as understood through prior study of diverse courts. The framework advanced is also one that gives greater expression to rights (to democracy, gender equality and freedom of association, or choice) articulated in the Constitution

The Traditional Courts Bill: Controversy around process, substance and implications

This article introduces the Traditional Courts Bill (B15-2008). The Bill has caused controversy, and drawn criticism from rural communities and civil society. Key to the concerns raised was the flawed consultative process that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development followed in bringing the Bill before parliament. In addition, substantive concerns raised about the Bill relate to the implications its provisions will likely have for rural citizens. The article discusses a number of major concerns that have been raised against the Bill and concludes with a brief assessment of the Bill in light of the Constitutional Court's decision in Tongoane and Others v National Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs and Others

Courting Custom: Regulating Access to Justice in Rural South Africa and Malawi

The continued relevance of customary law for the regulation of the daily lives of Africa's citizens poses serious governance challenges to sovereign states, such as how best to regulate customary dispute settlement. While confronted with largely similar problems, the South African government proposed to enhance and regulate the position of its traditional courts, whereas Malawi has opted for the creation of hybrid local courts that combine characteristics of regular state courts and customary fora to be the main avenue of customary law cases. This paper analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches and displays how the two countries’ historical and political contexts enable and constrain their regulatory choices in the field of customary dispute settlement, as well as influence the risk and benefits of the various options. In this respect, the political power of the traditional leaders is a significant determinant.Effective Protection of Fundamental Rights in a pluralist worl

Courting Custom: Regulating Access to Justice in Rural South Africa and Malawi

The continued relevance of customary law for the regulation of the daily lives of Africa's citizens poses serious governance challenges to sovereign states, such as how best to regulate customary dispute settlement. While confronted with largely similar problems, the South African government proposed to enhance and regulate the position of its traditional courts, whereas Malawi has opted for the creation of hybrid local courts that combine characteristics of regular state courts and customary fora to be the main avenue of customary law cases. This paper analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches and displays how the two countries’ historical and political contexts enable and constrain their regulatory choices in the field of customary dispute settlement, as well as influence the risk and benefits of the various options. In this respect, the political power of the traditional leaders is a significant determinant.Effective Protection of Fundamental Rights in a pluralist worl