DOCSLIB.ORG

By Sharon Hofisi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
By Sharon Hofisi THE DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE AS A NEMESIS TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION IN ZIMBABWE: THESIS, ANTITHESIS AND SYNTHESIS BY SHARON HOFISI DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF A MASTERS DEGREE IN LAW (LLM) THE FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE AUGUST 2017 Contents Table of Cases ................................................................................................................................ iv Special Dedication ......................................................................................................................... vi Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... ix Abstract …………………. ............................................................................................................ xi CHAPTER 1: Unpacking the issues on Constitutional Avoidance and Public Interest or Strategic Impact Litigation .................................................................................. 1 Introduction …………….. .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background to the Study ......................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Applied legal research relevance ........................................................................................... 22 1.2.1 Drive run ………… ............................................................................................................. 22 1.1.2 Novelty aspects .................................................................................................................... 23 1.3 Literature review on Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine ...................................................... 29 1.3.1 Literature review on strategic and public interest litigation ............................................... 33 1.4 Organization of the Dissertation ............................................................................................ 34 1.5 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 39 1.6Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................... 40 1.7 Strengths of Qualitative Research .......................................................................................... 43 1.7.1 Limitations of Qualitative Research .................................................................................... 44 1.8 Delimitations .......................................................................................................................... 50 1.9 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 50 Conclusion ………………… ....................................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER 2 :An Examination of the Problems of Doctrinaire Application of the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine in Impact Litigation Cases ..................... 53 Introduction ………… .................................................................................................................. 53 2.1 A Brief historical and philosophical consideration of the Constitution ................................. 54 2.2 The Three Pillars of the State and the Avoidance Doctrine................................................... 55 2.3 The Constitutional Court and the Avoidance Doctrine......................................................... 57 2.4 The role of the Superior Courts: Why merits of the case? .................................................... 58 i 2.5 Invoking various doctrines as part of the variants of Avoidance doctrine ........................... 59 2.6 Constitutional matter ............................................................................................................. 62 2. 7 Navigating the Contours between avoidance doctrine and Public Interest Litigation ......... 65 2. 8 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................ 70 2.8.1 Judicial Impact Theory ....................................................................................................... 72 2.8.2 The Normative Theory ....................................................................................................... 75 2.9 The suggested conceptual model of interpretation ................................................................ 80 Conclusion …………. .................................................................................................................. 83 CHAPTER 3 : The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance, Public Interest Litigation and Strategic Impact litigation in other Countries: Comparative Approach ...... 84 Introduction …….. ........................................................................................................................ 84 3.1. Scanning the Avoidance-impact litigation dichotomy ........................................................... 86 3.2 The Use of the Avoidance Doctrine in the USA and other countries. .................................. 86 3.3 The pillars of the doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance: synthetic approach ........................ 93 3.4 Lessons from the developments in the USA ......................................................................... 98 Conclusion ………… ................................................................................................................... 99 CHAPTER 4 : Litigation Surgery on the Challenges of the Avoidance Doctrine in Impact Cases in Zimbabwe: A Scoping Analysis ........................................................ 100 4.1 An Analysis of the Decision that Bear on the Avoidance Doctrine and its Variants……….. ............................................................................................................................. 100 4.1.1 The Implications on the Variants of Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine ………………………...101 4.2 Chawira & Others v Minister of Justice & Others , CCZ3/17……………………………………. 103 4.3 Makoni v Commissioner of Prisons & Another CCZ48/2015 …………………………………...... 108 4.4 Arguments on Judicial Diference as a Variant Form of the Avoidance Doctrine ………………..111 4.5 The contribution of the lower and High Court to the jurisprudence on constitutional voidance ............................................................................................................................... 120 4.5.1 Analysis on the contribution of the lower and High Court to the jurisprudence on Constitutional avoidance .................................................................................................... 122 4.6 Analysis on the Role of Interest Groups in Advancing the Constitutional Jurisprudence through Impact Litigation …………………………………………………………………………………...119 ii 4.7 Discussion and implications of the involvement of interest groups .................................. 1273 4.8 Findings on the link between constitutional interpretation and the doctrine of constitutional subsidiarity in impact cases …………………………………………….............................124 4.9 Link between policy and the avoidance doctrine ................................................................ 138 4.10 Implication of the findings .................................................................................................. 138 4.11 The use of bad avoidance precedents in derailing constitutionalism .................................. 139 CHAPTER 5 :Reinstatement of Arguments, Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................................................. 145 Introduction …………….. .......................................................................................................... 145 5.1 The research in a nutshell ..................................................................................................... 146 5.2 Major highlights .................................................................................................................... 148 5.3 Reaffirmation of the Objectives ............................................................................................ 149 5.4 Reaffirmation of methodology and framework of analysis ................................................. 149 5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 150 5.6 Recommendations and possibility of achieving them ......................................................... 154 5.6.2 Recommendations on the need for strategic research partnerships ................................... 155 5.6.3 Recommendation on the need to follow best practices from the Legal Profession ........... 155 5.6.4 Recommendations on the litigants and lawyers in impact litigation cases ........................ 156 5.7 Recommendation for government to support impact litigation ........................................... 156 iii Table of Cases 1. A Juvenile v The State (1990) (4) 151 (ZSC) . 2. Ainsbury v Millington [198] 1 ALL ER 929 (HL) 3. Anaritn Karimi Njeru
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe
    ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS NGO FORUM ENFORCING THE RULE OF LAW IN ZIMBABWE A report by the Research Unit of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Special Report 3 September 2001 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Special Report Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (also known as the “Human Rights Forum”) has been in existence since January 1998. Nine non-governmental organisations working in the field of human rights came together to provide legal and psycho-social assistance to the victims of the Food Riots of January 1998. The Human Rights Forum has now expanded its objectives to assist victims of organised violence, using the following definition: “organised violence” means the interhuman infliction of significant avoidable pain and suffering by an organised group according to a declared or implied strategy and/or system of ideas and attitudes. It comprises any violent action which is unacceptable by general human standards, and relates to the victims’ mental and physical wellbeing. The Human Rights Forum operates a Legal Unit and a Research and Documentation Unit. Core member organisations of the Human Forum are: Amani Trust Amnesty International (Zimbabwe) Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace Legal Resources Foundation Transparency International (Zimbabwe) The University of Zimbabwe Legal Aid and Advice Scheme Zimbabwe Association for Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of the Offender Zimbabwe Human Rights Association Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights Zimbabwe Women Lawyers Association Associate members are: GALZ and ZIMCET The Human Rights Forum can be contacted through any member organisation or the following personnel: The Administrator, c/o P O Box 5465, Harare – email: [email protected] The Legal Unit, c/o P O Box 5465, Harare – email: [email protected] The Research Unit c/o P O Box 5465, Harare – email: [email protected] Telephone: 792222 737509, 731660 Fax: 772860 Website: www.hrforumzim.com All earlier reports of the Human Rights Forum can be found on the website.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Report (.Pdf)
    !"#"$ %&!"'() *'+&*( on the Implement!t"on of Ch!pter II (Prevent"on) & Ch!pter V (Asset Recover#) of the ,-"('. -/("&-% !&-#'-("&- /0/"-%( !&**,+("&- $% &$'()(*+ b# the Ant"-Corrupt"on Trust of Southern Afr"c! Acknowledgements This report sums up tireless effort of members of the Research and Advocacy Unit of the Anti- Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-SA). The main contributors included Dr. Prosper Maguchu, Obert Chinhamo, Alouis Munyaradzi Chaumba, Munyaradzi Bidi, Advocate Gabriel Shumba, and Allan Chaumba. In addition, several other organisations made invaluable contributions. These include: Transparency International- Zimbabwe, the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice Trust, the Kwekwe Business Association for the Small to Medium Enterprises Trust, the Kwekwe Vendors Association, the Legal Resources Foundation, and the Zimbabwe Network for Social Justice, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Association, and the Zimbabwe Election and Advocacy Trust, among others. Furthermore, members of Community Anti-Corruption Monitoring Voluntary Action Groups were consulted. These included groups from Kwekwe, Gokwe, Gweru, Mutare, Masvingo, Beitbridge, Chinhoyi and Victoria Falls. With the aim of contributing to the national UNCAC review in Zimbabwe in its second cycle, this parallel report was written by ACT-SA, using the guidance materials and report template designed by the UNCAC Coalition and Transparency International. The production of this report was supported by the UNCAC Coalition, made possible with funding provided by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (Danida). The findings in this report are those of ACT-SA and they do not necessarily reflect the views of the UNCAC Coalition and the donors who have made this report possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Pastor Mugadza, Mawarire Pay with Jail for Speaking Truth to Power
    egalThe Monitor LFor feedback please email ZLHR on: [email protected] or visit: www.zlhr.org.zw Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights @ZLHRLawyers 06 February 2017 Edition 372 Distributed without any inserts Pastors’ painSee Pages 2 & 3 ...Pastor Mugadza, Mawarire pay with jail for speaking truth to power Pastor Evan Mawarire Pastor Philip Mugadza The egal onitor Follow us on Twitter L MFor feedback please email ZLHR on: [email protected] or visit: www.zlhr.org.zw @ZLHRLawyers Fostering a culture of human rights The truth shall set you for jail ...Pastors endure arrests, detention for speaking out HARARE-It is often said the truth shall set you Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) challenging the life either locally or internationally” to revolt and free, but not in this country and Pastors Philip lawfulness of the clergyman’s arrest and detention. overthrow a constitutionally elected government. Pastor Mawarire with inciting public violence Mugadza and Evan Mawarire will testify to this. Mtisi had argued that Mugadza’s constitutional at a time when Zimbabweans staged crippling right to be brought to court from police cells within The police charged that Pastor Mawarire, who is anti-government protests before prosecutors In Zimbabwe, speaking truth to the powers-be 48 hours had been violated as he was only hauled altered the charges to attempting to overthrow a seems a sure path to jail – or at least a few nights in to court after 51 hours. of ZLHR, circulated several videos on social media platforms inciting Zimbabweans “to stage constitutional government. Magistrate Muchuchutu also dismissed Mtisi’s violent demonstrations to subvert the constitutional However, Harare Magistrate Vakai Chikwekwe set It is increasingly becoming risky for people who application for refusal of placement of Pastor government of Zimbabwe and resultantly from are in the business of speaking the truth to stay true Mugadza on remand.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report 3
    ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS NGO FORUM ENFORCING THE RULE OF LAW IN ZIMBABWE A report by the Research Unit of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Special Report 3 September 2001 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Special Report Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (also known as the “Human Rights Forum”) has been in existence since January 1998. Nine non-governmental organisations working in the field of human rights came together to provide legal and psycho-social assistance to the victims of the Food Riots of January 1998. The Human Rights Forum has now expanded its objectives to assist victims of organised violence, using the following definition: “organised violence” means the interhuman infliction of significant avoidable pain and suffering by an organised group according to a declared or implied strategy and/or system of ideas and attitudes. It comprises any violent action which is unacceptable by general human standards, and relates to the victims’ mental and physical wellbeing. The Human Rights Forum operates a Legal Unit and a Research and Documentation Unit. Core member organisations of the Human Forum are: Amani Trust Amnesty International (Zimbabwe) Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace Legal Resources Foundation Transparency International (Zimbabwe) The University of Zimbabwe Legal Aid and Advice Scheme Zimbabwe Association for Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of the Offender Zimbabwe Human Rights Association Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights Zimbabwe Women Lawyers Association Associate members are: GALZ and ZIMCET The Human Rights Forum can be contacted through any member organisation or the following personnel: The Administrator, c/o P O Box 5465, Harare – email: [email protected] The Legal Unit, c/o P O Box 5465, Harare – email: [email protected] The Research Unit c/o P O Box 5465, Harare – email: [email protected] Telephone: 792222 737509, 731660 Fax: 772860 Website: www.hrforumzim.com All earlier reports of the Human Rights Forum can be found on the website.
    [Show full text]
  • Hierarchy of Courts in Zimbabwe Pdf
    Hierarchy of courts in zimbabwe pdf Continue Supreme Court of zimbabweStils 18 April 1980 (40 years ago) (1980-04-18) 31.0523Coordinates: 17'49'32S 31'03'08E / 17.8256's 31.0523'E / -17.8256; 31.0523Compoposition methodPresidential nomination with confirmation of the Commission on the Judicial Service, sanctioned by the Constitution of zimbabweVebzitviv.zimlii.orgHiot Justice of zimbabweCurentlyLuke MalabaSince7 April 2017 zimbabwe This article is part of a series on the policy and government of zimbabwe Constitutional History Of the Constitutional History Of the Government on Human Rights President Emmerson Mnangagwa Vice President Constantino Chiwenga Kembo Mohadi Cabinet Legislative Parliament Chairman of the National Assembly Speaker General Elections to the Supreme Court 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 2013 2018 Referendums 2000 2000 2013 Electoral Commission Political Party Administrative Divisions of the Wards County Department of Foreign Affairs Minister of Foreign Affairs: Sibusiso Moyo Diplomatic Mission / in zimbabwe Passport Visa Requirements Visas vte Supreme Court of zimbabwe is the highest court of order and the final appeal court in zimbabwe. The judicial system is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who, like other judges, is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission. It has initial jurisdiction over alleged violations of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and appeal jurisdiction on other matters. The Supreme Court is separate from the High Court. The Chief Justice, Luke Malaba, is the most senior judge. He succeeded the late Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausik after his resignation in 2017. The Chief Justice and the puisne justices, ranked in order of seniority are: Justice Sworn in Appointer Ref.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Media Report 2009
    MISA-Zimbabwe ___________________________________________________________________ State of the Media Report 2009 In the Report: Introduction Media Environment Print Media Broadcasting/Telecommunications Way Forward in 2009 Conclusion Media Violations Statistics: 2009 v Introduction The signing of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) between Zimbabwe’s major political players on 15 September 2008 culminating in the formation of the inclusive government undoubtedly raised hopes and opportunities for socio-economic and political reforms in Zimbabwe. It is also within the context of the GPA that the inclusive government pledged to free the media environment to allow citizens to enjoy the right to freedom of expression, association and assembly in terms of Article 19 of the Agreement in question which deals with freedom of expression and communication. 1 Under Article 19.1 of the Agreement, the parties agreed among other issues that: The government shall ensure the immediate processing by the appropriate authorities of all applications for re-registration and registration in terms of both the Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) as well as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. More than a year after the government acceded to the above, no single new media player or those which were banned in terms of the draconian Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) have been registered or re-registered respectively, except for the British Broadcasting Cooperation (BBC) and CNN which were admitted back into the country on the grounds that they were never banned from covering Zimbabwe. v Political Context and Key Events of 2009 Progress in the envisaged socio-economic and political reforms was, however, stalled as the three major political parties haggled and maintained intransigent positions over so-called outstanding issues.
    [Show full text]