Editorial:
Volume 17 No 1 2017
This
issue of the Journal contains
contributions dealing with a wide variety of thematic concerns.
The
first area of focus is ‘African tradition’ and its
sometimes contentious relationship with human rights. Nhlapo
and
Mwambene each interrogates an aspect of traditional African
societies, namely, the phenomenon of homicide and the institution
of
marriage. They postulate possibilities for ensuring accountability in
situations where tradition and human rights may be in
conflict.
Drawing from foundational values of ‘African tradition’
and historical context, in their respective contributions
Ntlama and
Small explore the contemporary understanding of two concepts (‘peace’
and ‘self-determination’)
in the light of their
historical evolution.
The
next two contributions touch on some of the pressing human rights
problems of the present times. Despite the fact that slavery
is
outlawed, and that the right to be free from slavery has acquired the
status of customary international (human rights) law,
‘contemporary
forms of slavery’ still persist. Using a human rights lens,
Gyurácz uncovers the largely unexplored
phenomena of domestic
servitude and ritual slavery in West Africa. For her part, Mswela
draws attention to the plight of persons
with albinism, and the
particular and often extreme risk of violence to which they are
exposed in parts of Africa.
Turning
to areas in which some achievement or positive progress has been
observed, three contributions chart experiences at the
domestic
level. Okpaluba highlights possibilities of state liability that
flows from the illegal deprivations of liberty with reference
to
cases in Lesotho. Kondo draws inspiration from the inclusion of
socio-economic rights in the 2013 Constitution of Zimbabwe,
and
Oduwole and Akintayo review, from a human rights perspective, the
successes and failures of Nigeria’s response to the
Ebola
virus.
Africa
has in the last decade or so become increasingly associated with the
movement of people across borders, often into Europe,
giving rise to
issues of asylum seeking and refugee status. In line with this trend,
Addaney shifts the focus to a less common
issue pertaining to the
movement of migrants, namely, the situation of urban refugees. In a
contribution dealing with forced human
movement, particularly within
states, Adeola explores the accountability of corporations for
displacement that takes place in the
name of ‘development’.
While
much media and scholarly attention has been devoted to the fractured
relationship between ‘African countries’
and the
International Criminal Court (ICC), there is a need to narrow down
the issue to an area of core concern: prosecutions mandated
by
Security Council resolutions. In her contribution, Asaala focuses on
this issue, and explores the effect of Security Council
resolutions
on negative African perceptions of the ICC.
In
addition to the regular overview of human rights developments in the
African Union by Nyarko and Jegede, the ‘Recent Developments’
section contains a critical discussion of the second Advisory Opinion
of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (submitted
by
Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP)), delivered
on 26 May 2017. In his analysis, Jones raises concerns
about the
significant implications of the Court’s finding for the
competence of non-governmental organisations to approach
the Court
with requests for advisory opinions. In our view, the Advisory
Opinion represents an unfortunate continuation of the
Court’s
literalist and textual interpretive approach, which was also manifest
in its first Advisory Opinion. In that Opinion,
the Court settled for
a narrow textual interpretation, even as it paid some lip service to
the benefits of a more purposive approach.
This interpretive approach
resulted in restrictions to accessing the Court. While the effect of
the first Opinion was that the
African Committee of Experts on the
Rights and Welfare of the Child could not submit cases to the Court,
the practical effect of
the second Opinion is that African
non-governmental organisations are not able to approach the Court for
its advice. On a continent
where the promises of the Court’s
jurisdiction lie far beyond the reach of ordinary Africans, it is our
view that a more
purposive approach - one aimed at enlarging rather
than narrowing down access - would have been more appropriate.
This
issue of the Journal also
brings together the voices of well-established scholars, such as
those of Professors Thandabantu Nhlapo and Chuks Okpaluba,
with the
voices of early-career and emerging scholars. In fact,
the Journal regards
it as part of its role and responsibility to assist in the capacity
development and intellectual growth of younger
scholars.
The
editors wish to thank the independent reviewers mentioned below, who
so generously assisted in ensuring the consistent quality
of
the Journal:
Allehone Abebe; Patricia Achan; Romola Adeola; Horace Adjolohoun;
Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua; Patricia Bako; Japhet Biegon; Danwood
Chirwa;
Bonolo Dinokopila; Angelo Dube; Ebenezer Durojaye; Patrick Eba;
Charles Fombad; David Ikpo; Philip Iya; Paul Johnson; Robert
Johnson;
Juliet Kekimuli; Kristi Kenyon; Elmarie Knoetze; Anton Kok; Tshepo
Mosaka; Khulekani Moyo; Melanie Murcott; Nkatha Murungi;
Lea
Mwambene; Michael Nyarko; Nlerum Okogbule; Lame Olebile; Marius
Pieterse; Itumeleng Shale; Ann Skelton; Julia Sloth-Nielsen;
Ann
Strode; Dire Tladi; and Johan van der Vyver.
|