Judicial systems in Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Zambia

As the decolonisation struggle intensified in the British colonies in Africa a feeble attempt was made to establish separate judicial organs

The contemporary judicial systems and cultures in Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Zambia were established during British colonial rule. During this time, the principle of separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers was not observed, as colonial administrative officers frequently exercised both legislative and judicial powers. They made bye-laws and presided over adjudication of cases. As the decolonisation struggle intensified in the British colonies in Africa and political independence became imminent, a feeble attempt was made to establish separate judicial, legislative and executive organs. However, the executive arm of government remained dominant.

Under colonial rule the judiciary and legislature were largely seen as instruments of administration rather than equal and complementary organs of society with distinct functions. In post-colonial African nations this heritage has unfortunately persisted. In spite of elaborate constitutional and institutional architecture involving the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, the executive organ persists as the dominant organ of governance, in most cases determining the quantum of resources available to the judiciary and legislature and thereby eroding their powers, independence, performance and integrity.

African countries are signatories to several international and continental legal instruments on the roles and powers of the judiciary in criminal justice administration. Among these instruments are the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights; the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of the United Nations. These instruments guarantee a range of rights for citizens suspected or accused of committing a crime or crimes. Fundamentally, they prescribed that accused persons should be presumed innocent until found guilty by competent and impartial tribunals or courts. They also prohibit retroactive legislation; arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and extra-judicial killing; self-incrimination; and double jeopardy. The legal instruments also guarantee prompt arraignment of accused persons before a competent judge; equality before the law; fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law; adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence; access to counsel; trial without undue delay; and access to appellate review of judgment of conviction.

These rights have been incorporated into the contemporary constitutions of most African nations. Although all criminal justice agencies and officials are required to observe and respect these provisions, the judiciary is ultimately responsible for ensuring their observance by penalising any organisation or person that breaches them, thereby preventing impunity. However, the judiciary cannot justly, effectively and efficiently interpret the law unless it is independent of control and influence from executive, legislative and other forces and properly equipped with human and material resources.

About the author:

Etannibi E O Alemika obtained his BSc Sociology (Ibadan) and PhD Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a professor of criminology and sociology of law and Director at the Centre for Research and Development, University of Jos, Nigeria.