RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Defending human rights and the rule of law by the SADC Tribunal: Campbell and beyond

Admark Moyo

Teaching and Research Assistant, University of Cape Town, South Africa

SUMMARY

On 28 November 2008, the Southern African Development Community Tribunal handed down judgment directing Zimbabwe to cease its racially discriminatory land reform programme and to compensate farmers whose land had been compulsorily acquired as a result. Apart from confirming and extending the Tribunal's groundbreaking findings in Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v Republic of Zimbabwe, the article argues that the sorry state of the Tribunal's superficial reasoning on jurisdiction could have been enhanced by considering the approach of other international institutions. Drawing inspiration from international law and the jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court, the article argues that racial discrimination cannot solely be established by having regard to the impact of a contested law on a particular racial group. Much depends on the historical context and the fairness of the remedial mechanisms adopted to address prevailing socio-economic disparities between racial groups. The article concludes that the observance of human rights and the rule of law in the region, and the future relevance of the Tribunal, will be determined by the Summit's response to Zimbabwe's disregard of the legal process.

“Full text available only in PDF format” .

* LLB (Hons) (Fort Hare), LLM (Cape Town); admarkm@yahoo.com. I am indebted to the two anonymous reviewers of the African Human Rights Law journal for their scholarly comments on the first draft of the article. My thanks also go to Professor Danwood Chirwa (UCT) for his willingness to go through the earlier versions of the article and for his helpful response; to Benjamin Kujinga, Shingira Masanzu and Olivia Rumble for their moral support.
1 Statement of the Executive Secretary of SADC, Windhoek Namibia, 18 November 2005 http://www.sadc.int/archives/read/news/612 (accessed 22 September 2008).         [ Links ]
2 Case SADC (T) 2/07, 13 December 2007; http://www.saflii.org/sa/cases/SADCT/2007 (accessed 30 September 2009).
3 n 2 above, 7.
4 As above.
5 As above.
6 SADC (T) Case 02/2008, 28 November 2008;http://www.saflii.org/sa/cases/SADC/2008/2.html (accessed 30 September 2009).
7 See arts 32 of the Treaty; art 14 of the Protocol on the Tribunal.
8 Arts 14(1) & (2) of the Protocol read: 'The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over all disputes and all applications ... which relate to: (a) the interpretation and application of the Treaty; (b) the interpretation, application or validity of the Protocols, all subsidiary instruments adopted within the framework of the community, and acts of the institutions of the Community
9 Art 15 states: '(1) The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over disputes between states, and between natural or legal persons and states. (2) No natural or legal person shall bring an action against a state unless he or she has exhausted all available remedies or is unable to proceed under the domestic jurisdiction.'
10 F Viljoen 'Communications under the African Charter: Procedure and admissibility' in M Evans and R Murray (eds) The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: The system in practice 1986-2006 (2008) 76 77.         [ Links ]
11 Art 16(5) of the Treaty and art 24 of the Protocol.
12 Art 15(3) of the Protocol.
13 Art 21 of the Protocol.
14 Art 30 permits other persons or states to apply to be joined as parties if they have legal interests in the dispute.
15 Para 128 applicants' heads of argument.
16 Para 175 applicants' heads of argument.
17 Art 6(2) of the Treaty prohibits discrimination on grounds of 'gender, political views, race, ethnic origin...'
18 16-17 of the judgment.
19 18.
20 Sec 16(3)(a) of the Zimbabwean Constitution.
21 21.
22 See Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd & Another v Minister of National Security Responsible for Land, Land Reform and Resettlement SC 49/07 28-29.
23Campbell (Merits) (n 6 above) 21.
24 35.
25 37.
26 Sec 16B(3) states that a person having any right or an interest in the land - (a) shall not apply to a court to challenge the acquisition of land by the state, and no court shall entertain any such challenge; (b) may ... challenge the amount of compensation payable for any improvements
27 40-41.
28 53.
29 53-4.
30 54.
31 Art 15(2) of the Protocol.
32 See, generally, NJ Udombana 'So far, so fair: The local remedies rule in the jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 1.
33 20.
34 As above.
35 Viljoen (n 10 above) 111.
36 EA Ankumah The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights: Practice and procedures (1996) 67.         [ Links ]
37 Free Legal Assistance Group & Others v Zaire (2000) AHRLR 74 (ACHPR 1995).
38 Anuak justice Council v Ethiopia (2006) AHRLR 97 (ACHPR 2006) para 48.
39 See, generally, CF Amerasinghe Local remedies in international law (2004) 56-59.         [ Links ]
40Campbell (Merits) (n 6 above) 21.
41 Viljoen (n 10 above).
42 n 38 above, para 62.
43Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd & Another v Minister of National Security Responsible for Land, Land Reform and Resettlement (n 22 above). There is some confusion about the date of the decision. In the SADC Tribunal judgment on the merits (n 6 above), 22 February is mentioned as the date on which the Supreme Court delivered its judgment (21 of SADC Tribunal decision).
44 Ankumah (n 36 above) 68.
45 See p 23 of the judgment.
46 See p 24 of the judgment.
47 As above.
48 See p 25 of the judgment.
49 Art 22(1) of the Treaty.
50 Art 21(3) of the Treaty.
51 ECW/CCJ/JUD/O6.
52 Paras 41-42.
53 See GJ Naldi 'Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd et al v The Republic of Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe's land reform programme held in breach of the SADC Treaty' (2009) 53 journal of African Law 305 310-313.         [ Links ]
54 South West Africa Cases, Preliminary Objections ICJ Reports (1962) 318.         [ Links ]
55 Art 27 of the Vienna Convention states that 'a party may not invoke provisions of its own internal law as justification for failure to carry out an international agreement'.
56 MN Shaw International law (2003) 104-105.         [ Links ]
57 See M Dube & R Midgley 'Land reform in Zimbabwe: Context, process, legal and constitutional issues and implications for the SADC region' in A Bösl et al (eds) Monitoring regional integration in Southern Africa (2008) 303 325.         [ Links ]
58 Viljoen (n 10 above) 78.
59 See VOO Nmehielle The African human rights system: Its laws, practice and institutions (2001) 230-231.         [ Links ]
60 Pages 26-27 of the judgment.
61 As above.
62 See 28-29 and 38 of the Zimbabwe Supreme Court judgment.
63 See 44-50 of the judgment.
64 City Council of Pretoria v Walker 1998 2 SA 363 (CC) para 31.
65 Walker (n 64 above) para 43.
66 The Tribunal has to borrow from the jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court in this regard. Sec 9 of the South African Constitution of 1996 prohibits unfair discrimination (not just discrimination) but, even then, unfair discrimination can be justified in terms of sec 36 (the limitation clause).
67 LM Sachikonye 'From "growth with equity" to "fast-track" reform: Zimbabwe's land question' (2003) 30 Review of African Political Economy 227 228-229.         [ Links ]
68 As above.
69 Walker (n 64 above) para 118.
70 United Nations Human Rights Committee 'CCPR General Comment 18: Nondiscrimination' http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/3888b0541f8501c9c12563ed004b8d0e?Opendocument (accessed 10 April 2008) para 8.         [ Links ]
71 n 70 above, para 10. See Langa DP for the majority in Walker (n 64 above) para 33.
72 General Comment 18 (n 70 above).
73 n 70 above, paras 6 & 10.
74 This observation does not mean that the laws in terms of and the manner in which land reform was implemented in Zimbabwe were constitutional. It just means that the concept of racial discrimination goes beyond the Tribunal's skin-deep understanding of the subject.
75 President of the Republic of South Africa v Hugo 1997 4 SA 1 (CC) para 41.
76 1999 1 SA 6 (CC).
77 Paras 60-1.
78 This is not to say that land should be expropriated unlawfully and without compensation.
79 Bato Star Fishing v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2004 4 (SA) 490 (CC) para 74.
80 See J Chaumba et al 'From jambanja to planning: The reassertion of technocracy in land reform in South-Eastern Zimbabwe?' (2003) 41 Journal of Modern African Studies 533-534.         [ Links ]
81 The Daily News 11 June 2001.
82 p 54.
83 General Comment 18 (n 70 above) para 13.
84 Secs 16B(2)(a) & (b) of the Zimbabwean Constitution read together.
85 pp 58-59.
86 p 59.
87 As above.
88 pp 56-7.
89 Para 4.
90 As above.
91 Art 2(c) of the Charter.
92 Art 16(1) of the Charter.
93 (1978) 17 ILM 1; (1997) 53 ILR 389.
94 Paras 87-88.
95 (1988) 27 ILM 1314.
96 Para 145.
97 See Libyan American Oil Company v Libya (1981) 20 ILM 1, paras 58-59; US V Iran (n 95 above) paras 140-42.
98 Former colonial powers maintain that an 'international standard' should govern expropriation while decolonised states insist that expropriation be governed by rules of national law.
99 J Dugard International law: A South African perspective (2005) 301-302.         [ Links ]
100 Art 32(3) of the Protocol.
101 Art 4 of the Treaty.
102 Art 32(2) of the Protocol.
103 Art 32(4) of the Protocol.
104 Art 32(5) of the Protocol.
105 See OC Ruppel & FX Bangamwabo 'The SADC Tribunal: A legal analysis of its mandate and role in regional integration' in Bösl et al (n 57 above) 179 199-201.
106 Art 10(1) of the Treaty.
107 Art 10(9) of the Treaty.
108 Dube & Midgley (n 57 above) 24.
109 The Nuclear Test case, ICJ Reports 996.
110 See 'No land changes: Govt' The Herald 1 December 2008.         [ Links ]
111 'Zimbabwe: Govt violated rule of law - SADC Tribunal' The Standard 29 November 2008.         [ Links ]
112 'Tsvangirai orders arrest of farm invaders' New Zimbabwe.com http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/farm86.19589.html (accessed 27 March 2009);         [ Links ] 'Mutambara leads probe into fresh farm invasions' http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/farm89.19685.html (accessed 16 April 2009).         [ Links ]
113 'Chinamasa pulls Zim out of Tribunal without Cabinet approval' The Zimbabwean http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/2009090324142/weekday-top-stories/chinamasa-pulls-zim-out-of-sadc-tribunal-without-cabinet-approval.html (accessed 24 September 2009).         [ Links ]
114 See JF Stack Jr & ML Volcansek Courts crossing borders: Blurring the lines of sovereignty (2005) 5.         [ Links ]
115 The Zimbabwean (n 113 above).
116 See SADC Communiqué: Kinshasa, DRC.