Academic literature on the topic 'Zimbabwe. High Court'

In Gramara (Private) Ltd. & Others v. Government of Zimbabwe & Others (‘‘Gramara’’)1 and Von Abo v. Government of South Africa (‘‘Von Abo’’),2 the legitimacy of Zimbabwe’s land reform program has once again come under the judicial microscope. In Gramara, Judge Patel of the Zimbabwean High Court refused to enforce a decision of the Southern African Development Community (‘‘SADC’’) Tribunal that declared the program inconsistent with a range of human rights protections. By contrast, in Von Abo, Judge Prinsloo of the South African High Court virulently condemned the South African government’s failure to afford the applicant farm-owner diplomatic protection in relation to the government of Zimbabwe’s confiscations of land owned by South African nationals. The decisions throw into sharp relief both the potential and the limitations of the application of international law in the domestic context.

Abstract The Constitution of Ghana, unlike those of other African countries such as Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa is silent on the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. Jurisprudence from Ghana demonstrates that although there had been cases in which the High Court and the Court of Appeal briefly dealt with this type of evidence, the Supreme Court, the highest court in Ghana, had not expressed an opinion on this issue until recently. In February 2018, in the case of Cubagee v Asare and Others, the Supreme Court laid down the criteria that Ghanaian courts have to use in determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. In this article, the author argues that much as this is an important decision, the Supreme Court left some issues unresolved and there is still room for improvement.

Abstract The article questions whether the Tribunal of the Southern Africa Development Community (sadc) ought to have entertained human rights cases given that the sadc Treaty does not endow it with such jurisdiction. It then analyses its demise in 2010, which was prompted by several rulings against Zimbabwe, whose policy of expropriating land without compensation was held to violate human rights. The pertinent aspects of these cases are reviewed, and the significance of Zimbabwe’s land reform programme is explained. The article elucidates why sadc leaders were prepared to suspend the Tribunal’s operation. This was a combination of alarm that it could evolve into a quasi-regional human rights court but also solidarity with the then President Mugabe, a hero of Africa’s liberation struggle. Finally, the pronouncements of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and the High Court of Tanzania on the lawfulness of the sadc Tribunal’s suspension are considered.

On 27 November 2013 the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa affirmed the decision of the High Court that South Africa’s Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 2002 (icc Act) empowered South African officials to initiate investigations into crimes against humanity committed in Zimbabwe in the absence of the perpetrators in South Africa. This decision was in response to the true interpretation of section 4(3)(c) of the icc Act providing for universal jurisdiction. This paper examines the judgment of this Court, arguing that though customary international law is silent on the requirement for presence of the perpetrators for initiation of investigation, the Court should have given proper examination of this section by taking into consideration of the previous presence of some of the perpetrators in South Africa after the alleged crimes were committed.

This article provides a critical analysis of the judgments delivered by the Regional High Court of Pretoria in the case Law Society of South Africa et al. v. President of the Republic of South Africa, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation and the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Law Society of South Africa and Others v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Others in order to investigate to what extent they can contribute to discuss the revival of the SADC Tribunal with all its original powers. After providing an overview of the SADC Tribunal's legal structure and the judgment delivered in 2008 in the Mike Campbell v. Zimbabwe case, the present contribution will consider the legal reasoning of the Regional High Court of Pretoria and the Constitutional Court of South Africa respectively. It will also develop some considerations of the role played by civil society groups in other SADC member states.

Rationalist models of judicial decision-making expect courts to defend their institutional integrity in politically sensitive cases. This article presents two African case studies of courts not doing so. They have elicited predictable backlash from executives and placed their institutions in avoidable danger. I argue that judges’ desire for esteem from emerging global judicial networks can explain this otherwise puzzling behaviour. These new networks become particularly salient in human rights cases. This conclusion partially supports Anne-Marie Slaughter’s controversial claims about the significance of ‘the global community of law’ but also identifies risks this poses for courts’ domestic authority. The argument is made with reference to two recent and well-known decisions by the High Court of Botswana and the Southern African Development Community Tribunal. The first case, Sesana (2006), dealt with the vexed question of indigenous rights in Africa. The second case, Campbell (2008), concerned the compensation of expropriated commercial farmers from Zimbabwe.

In June 2015 the High Court granted an interim order prohibiting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir from leaving South Africa. Although Al-Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and South Africa is a signatory to the Rome Statute and has passed the Implementation Act, the government failed to arrest him as required by an order of court. Short-term political considerations appear to have outweighed the need to respect the rule of law. Parallels can be drawn between this incident and the decision by the executive to refuse access to the Khampepe Report when requested to do so by the Mail and Guardian newspaper. The report was prepared at the request of former President Mbeki by two senior South African judges, after a visit to Zimbabwe shortly before the election held in that country in 2002. In an attempt to prevent disclosure, the executive approached various courts on six different occasions and drew out the process for more than six years. The main issue in this case is the use of section 80 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act by the courts, a discretionary power that is applied sparingly. In terms of PAIA, the state is prevented from making reference to the content of a record in order to support a claim of exemption. In such instances, section 80 provides courts with the power to inspect the record – a procedure known as a ‘judicial peek’ – in order to make a determination as to whether the exemption is justified. This case provides a clear example of how the state cynically used this provision as a dilatory tactic in refusing access to the report. The current system that relies solely on the courts to handle access to information matters undermines the main objectives of the Act and is inefficient and costly. It is recommended that PAIA be amended to provide for an information commissioner with powers to mediate and make binding decisions.

Background and objectives: Massive blood transfusion is defined as transfusion approximating or exceeding a patient's total blood volume (5-6 litres in adults) within 24-hours. This procedure is used to manage severely anaemic and bleeding patients. Negative outcomes associatedwith acidosis, hypothermia and coagulopathy may result. The study was carried out to review the management of massive transfusion in Zimbabwe.Materials and methods: A 4-year retrospective clinical laboratory-based study was carried out on patients who had massive blood transfusionat a Zimbabwean hospital, from January 2014 to December 2017. Data was collected from patients’ hospital records after permission from thehospital director.Results: Of the 180 patient records, 145 (80.6%) were from female and 35 (19.4%) from male patients. Massive blood transfusion was done mostly on obstetric patients. Full blood count was the most commonly requested laboratory test, with 155 (86%) requests. Some of the patients had severe anaemia. Routine coagulation tests were significantly abnormal. All patients received packed red cells during the first 24 hours, followed by fresh frozen plasma (57.8%). Platelets, cryoprecipitate and whole blood were infrequently transfused (22%, 3% and 2% respectively). The mortality rate was 25.6% within 24 hours after transfusion. Transfusion of packed red cells alone was significantly associated with mortality (p<0.001) which increased significantly with the use of high numbers of packed red cell units.Conclusion: Massive blood transfusion is associated with a high mortality rate in Zimbabwe. Transfusion of packed red blood cells alone resulted in highest mortality. There was an insufficient use of laboratory tests to monitor massive blood transfusion. This potentially can be addressed by establishing a national massive transfusion protocol for Zimbabwe.
 French Title: Une revue de la transfusion sanguine massive et de ses syndromes associés au Zimbabwe
 Contexte et objectifs: La transfusion sanguine massive est définie comme une transfusion se rapprochant ou dépassant le volume sanguin total d'un patient (5-6 litres chez l'adulte) dans les 24 heures. Cette procédure est utilisée pour gérer les patients gravement anémiques et hémorragiques. Des résultats négatifs associés à l'acidose, l'hypothermie et la coagulopathie peuvent en résulter. L'étude a été réalisée pourexaminer la gestion de la transfusion massive au Zimbabwe.Matériel et méthodes: Une étude rétrospective clinique en laboratoire de 4 ans a été menée sur des patients ayant subi une transfusion sanguine massive dans un hôpital du Zimbabwe, de Janvier 2014 à Décembre 2017. Les données ont été collectées à partir des dossiers des patients de l'hôpital après autorisation du Directeur de l'hôpital.Résultats: Sur les 180 dossiers de patients, 145 (80,6%) provenaient de femmes et 35 (19,4%) de patients de sexe masculin. Une transfusion sanguine massive a été effectuée principalement sur des patientes obstétricales. L'hémogramme complet était le test de laboratoire le plus demandé, avec 155 (86%) demandes. Certains patients souffraient d'anémie sévère. Les tests de coagulation de routine étaient significativement anormaux. Tous les patients ont reçu des concentrés de globules rouges au cours des 24 premières heures, suivis de plasma frais congelé (57,8%). Les plaquettes, le cryoprécipité et le sang total ont été rarement transfusés (22%, 3% et 2% respectivement). Le taux de mortalité était de 25,6% dans les 24 heures suivant la transfusion. La transfusion de concentrés de globules rouges seule était significativement associée à la mortalité (p<0,001) qui augmentait significativement avec l'utilisation d'un nombre élevé d'unités.Conclusion: La transfusion sanguine massive est associée à un taux de mortalité élevé au Zimbabwe. La transfusion de concentrés de globules rouges seule a entraîné la mortalité la plus élevée. Les tests de laboratoire étaient insuffisants pour surveiller les transfusions sanguines massives. Cela peut potentiellement être résolu en établissant un protocole national de transfusion massive pour le Zimbabwe