FORMER CJ DIRECTIVE ON KING VIOLATED AFRICA CHARTER

MBABANE – The African Commission on Human and People’s  Rights (ACHPR) has found that government violated four articles of the African Charter during the period when Practice Directive No.4/2011 was in place.

The Practice Directive had been issued by the late Chief Justice (CJ) Michael Ramodibedi, where in essence he said summonses or applications for civil actions against His Majesty the King and Ingwenyama, either directly or indirectly, shall not be accepted in the High Court or any other court in the country.  This is according to the ACHPR report Communication 406/11, which was adopted by the commission during the 27th Extra- Ordinary Session which was held on February 19 to March 4, 2020 in Banjul, The Gambia. The practice directive was eventually withdrawn six years later on July 3, 2017. Ramodibedi had further directed that the registrar of the High Court and all those entrusted with receipt of court process refuse to accept any summonses or applications in this regard. The CJ, who was eventually relieved of his duties by the King, had cited Section 11 of the Constitution, which states that the King shall be immune from a suit or legal process in any case in respect of all things done or omitted to be done by him.

complaint

As a result, the Law Society of Swaziland (LSS) submitted a complaint against the Kingdom of Eswatini through what was titled Communication 406/11. The articles which the commission found that the violations were in force were Articles 1, 3, 7 (1a) and 26 of the African Charter. In the summary of the communication, the LSS, which was a complainant in the matter, stated that their clients were directly affected by the Practice Directive and the Constitutional Provision. The Practice Directive was issued on June 16, 2011 by Ramodibedi, which banned all courts in the country from receiving or entertaining any summons brought against His Majesty the King or the Office of the King as respondent.

The complainant states that the chief justice cited as his authority Section 11 of the Constitution, which makes the King or Ingwenyama immune to all civil and other process. It further alleged that the Practice Directive had the effect of restricting the rights of any citizen in the kingdom who may have entered into purely commercial relations with the Office of the King. The complainant noted that the Office of the King employed over 1 000 members of staff and further that it had entered into contracts with citizens, both legal and natural, such as buying land and developments from citizens, with attendant legal consequences.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: