Kenya’s constitution says that the currency of that country ‘shall not’ bear the ‘portrait’ of any individual. So, when new bank notes were issued earlier this year, depicting the Kenyatta International Convention Centre with Kenya’s first president, Jomo Kenyatta, clearly distinguishable, seated alongside the building, the question arose whether the new notes were constitutional. Two of the presiding judges felt they had to solve the legal conundrum by deciding whether the bank notes bore a ‘portrait’ of Kenyatta – or if it was just a picture of a statue.
Secularism in Ghana “obviously” encourages state relations with religion, religious identity – supreme court
A major challenge to Ghana’s planned national cathedral, brought on the basis of a challenge to alleged infringements of the country’s “secular” constitution, has just been dismissed by the supreme court. Ghana’s highest court found that secularism in Ghana “obviously” allowed and encouraged recognition and accommodation of religion and religious identity by the state. But this does not necessarily mean criticism is over – plenty of critics say it will be wasteful and an unjustified expense.
Flaring political passions in the region continue to make news headlines, but the courts have been hearing about other kinds of passion as well. While Zimbabwe is alight with raging political conflict, and while citizens die at the hands of the police and security forces, the judiciary has been dealing with the burning issues of sex, adultery and maintaining the country’s “moral standards”. In a recent decision, the high court in Harare has held that a damages claim for adultery may go ahead despite the regional trend to do away with the delict on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
Zambia’s highest court has given the country’s president, Edgar Lungu, the go-ahead to serve a third term in office if he wishes. This judicial permission for the president to take a step regarded as contentious by many in Zambia, came by of a judgment that had at its core the definition of a presidential “term”. The court found that a president may serve only two terms. However, the constitution provided that a third term of less than three years, served as a stand-in president when the previous president could no longer function, did not count in computing two terms. According to the court, a president would thus normally serve a maximum of 10 years but a full term of office could vary between eight and 13 years, depending on the circumstances. Though this was the main work of the court in this matter, the judges also issued a stiff warning to people not to “attack” members of the court “related to matters before the court”, adding that if they did so, they could face serious consequences.