A full bench of three high court judges has re-affirmed that the mandatory death penalty in Tanzania is constitutionally valid. No new factors had been given to the court to indicate that anything had changed since the last time the issue was considered by the judiciary, said the judges, so they could not vary the previous decisions or rehear the issue ‘on the same facts’. But, they said, the issue could be taken to the highest court via review if the petitioners felt strongly about the matter.
Lesotho’s current political bosses – and the country’s economy – have been dealt a new blow. The high court of Lesotho, sitting as a constitutional court, has ruled that plans for dealing with repayment of generous government-guaranteed loans made to two categories of officials, are discriminatory and unconstitutional. Everyone who was given such a loan will now have to be treated in the same way, with the government paying all remaining loans back to the bank, in full. The court also made a strong but unexpected call for constitutional changes that would ‘more meaningfully’ separate the legislature from the executive. The three judges further complained about the escalating number of cases that came before the courts challenging the validity of regulations. It was so bad that the judiciary was justified in feeling sceptical about whether parliament did its work properly in overseeing such regulations, the court said.
Three daughters have gone to court to fight for their right to inherit from their father. This, after their brothers had divided the estate among themselves, deliberately withholding from Kenya’s high court the fact that the sisters even existed.
As one of four daughters myself, I always enjoy a story where sisters stand up together against injustice aimed at any (or all) of them. This is just such a matter, involving the estate of Daniel Kamau who died in 2001. He left six sons and six daughters – but no will.
In this most unusual set of circumstances, a Namibian acting judge, while still in his permanent post as principal magistrate, needed to bring an insurance claim. His insurance company sent formal instructions to counsel. Now, as acting judge, he has an applicant before him represented by the same counsel. Are these good grounds for the applicant’s recusal application?
At first the official summary, provided at the top of all Namibian judgments, had me confused. It referred throughout to ‘I’ and ‘my’, something I had not seen before. Why was the judge featuring himself in the summary? Given my confusion, it was reassuring to find that even the judge concerned said there had been a ‘rather uncommon approach’ in this case.
The High Court of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) has upheld and defended the secrecy surrounding that country’s central bank. The court had been asked by the governor of the central bank for an interdict preventing a local newspaper from reporting on a leaked confidential document relating to Farmer Bank, Eswatini’s newest financial institution. When the Times asked the governor a number of questions relating to the central bank’s investigations on whether to grant the banking licence, he demanded an undertaking that ‘the report’ would not be published. And when the undertaking was not given, the bank went to court. The judge accepted that strict confidentiality had to be preserved ‘at all costs’ and that any leak could upset the country’s financial stability and impact on central banks ‘worldwide’.