The High Court of Botswana held that the impugned Sections – 164(a), 164(c), and 165 of the Penal Code – had been found to proscribe and prohibit gay men from “exercising, enjoying and engaging in sexual intercourse with a man per anum”, which for homosexual men is the “only mode of sexual intercourse” [para 26]. It observed that after the United Kingdom Parliament reformed the law of England and Wales via the Sexual Offences Act 1967, Angola, South Africa and Mozambique also decriminalised the offence of sodomy [para 57].

Such actions resulted from the “inherent recognition of such law as being discriminatory, invasive of personal dignity, privacy, autonomy and liberty”. Furthermore, the Court’s observation that “the absence of compelling public interest to intrude and regulate private sexual expression and intimacy between consenting adults” [at 58] suggested that it is not the role of the court to say that the public mood should determine court decisions.

The court observed that when “interpreting legislation or Acts of Parliament, the foundational premise is that all laws serve the public good or public interest” [at 74]. This is important because in countries like Kenya, laws criminalizing same-sex relations are supported by 99% of the Kenyan public; however, the Botswana judgement affirms that what is important is an approach that is independent of public opinion.

The Court also noted that the right to privacy is entrenched in Section 3(c) and Section 9 of the Botswana constitution. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (also see, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 – Article 17), at Article 12) postulates that:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference of attacks.”

Consequently, according to the Court, the impugned Penal Code provisions “impair the applicant’s rights to express his sexuality in private, with his preferred partner” [at 127]. This means that homosexual men in Botswana have “a right to a sphere of private intimacy and autonomy, which is consensual. There is no complaint/victim in that regard” [at 127].

On the issues of liberty, equality and dignity, the court found that any “criminalization of love or finding fulfilment in love dilutes compassion and tolerance.” [at 141]. This is important because, effectively, the Court held that the invocation of culture cannot be an excuse to violate constitutional rights. Tolerance, care, compassion, diversity and plurality are important in realising universal human rights. The right to liberty “protects inherently private choices, free from undue influence, irrational and unjustified interference by others” [at 141]. Therefore, the Court held that the impugned sections placed unconstitutional burdens on gay couples in Botswana.

In relation to Section 167, the court held that “the question of private morality and decency between consenting adults should not be the concern of the law” [at 217]. Under “the doctrine of severability, the role of the court is to review and interpret the provisions in order to determine their validity”; put simply, the law has no business “to regulate private consensual sexual encounters between adults” and this also “applies to issues of private decency and/or indecency between consenting adults” [at 223].

Hopefully, this judgement will lay the foundation across Africa for judicial recognition of the fact that human rights are important and protect individuals from cultural constraints, public opinion and unjust laws.

El jurado ha concluido su deliberación y los votos de personas alrededor del mundo como ustedes han sido contados. Ha llegado el momento de anunciar las decisiones ganadoras de los Premios Género y Justicia al Descubierto 2015, una iniciativa de la organización internacional de derechos humanos Women’s Link Worldwide para hacer visibles las decisiones judiciales que promueven la igualdad de género, o que por el contrario, son discriminatorias y sexistas.

Este año los Premios concluyeron con alrededor de 10,000 votos y aproximadamente 100,000 visitas a las distintas nominaciones (67 en total) de 28 países alrededor del mundo. El jurado, compuesto por reconocidas personalidades comprometidas con los derechos humanos, Manjula Pradeep, Claudia Paz y Paz y Junot Díaz, decidieron cuáles son las decisiones más indignantes que son un ejemplo de los abusos del sistema de justicia y las más sobresalientes que van más allá de los estereotipos de género y protegen la igualdad. De la misma manera, personas como tú participaron votando por los Premios Mallete y Garrote del Público.

Y las decisiones ganadoras son…

Ganadoras del Premio Garrote

(Decisiones judiciales negativas para la igualdad de género)

El Garrote de Oro se lo lleva la decisión de la Corte Superior del Condado de St. Joseph, en Estados Unidos, que condenó a 20 de años de prisión, por feticidio y negligencia, a una mujer que sufrió un aborto en el caso de “Purvi Patel”. La ley sobre el feticidio buscaba proteger a las mujeres embarazadas en contra de la violencia, sin embargo, cada vez se utiliza más para perseguir a mujeres embarazadas por su pertenencia étnica y por no formar parte del grupo dominante.

El Garrote de Plata es para el tribunal especial de vía rápida de Dwarka en la India que sostuvo que una mujer no puede ser abusada sexualmente por su esposo, ya que las relaciones sexuales forzadas dentro del matrimonio no se consideran violación, incluso cuando se cometen en contra de la voluntad de la mujer. Este tribunal de vía rápida fue establecido como consecuencia de los casos de violencia sexual después de que hubiera una gran movilización social en la India en respuesta a la violación tumultuaria y asesinato de una mujer joven en diciembre de 2012. En el caso que ha recibido el Premio, la mujer manifestó que fue drogada, obligada a casarse en contra de su voluntad y luego violada por el hombre que legalmente era su esposo.

El Garrote de Bronce ha sido otorgado a la decisión del Tribunal de Sentencias de Honduras que condenó a 18 meses de prisión a la defensora de los derechos de las mujeres Gladys Lanza, por “difamación y calumnia”, en un contexto de criminalización a las defensoras de derechos humanos. Gladys Lanza, destacada defensora de los derechos de las mujeres en Honduras y coordinadora del Movimiento por la Paz Visitación Padilla – Las Chonas, recibió el caso de una mujer que fue despedida tras meses de ser acosada sexualmente. Las Chonas decidieron llevar el caso, obteniendo una resolución favorable en primera instancia. Sin embargo, la Corte de Apelaciones revirtió esta decisión, la cual fue utilizada por el acusado para denunciarla.

Ganadoras Premio Mallete

(Decisiones judiciales positivas para la igualdad de género)

El Mallete de Oro es para la decisión de Corte Suprema de Justicia de Colombia que por primera vez reconoce el feminicidio como delito, esto es, el homicidio de una mujer por razón de género, y hace énfasis en que este delito no es “un crimen pasional”.

El Mallete de Plata lo ha ganado a la decisión del Tribunal Superior de Botsuana por permitir la constitución de una organización de derechos para personas LGBT, indicando que negarlo viola los derechos constitucionales a la igualdad de protección, así como a la libertad de expresión, de reunión y de asociación. Este caso se refiere a la organización LEGABIBO (Lesbianas, Gays y Bisexuales de Botsuana) en un país en donde las relaciones conscensuadas entre personas del mismo sexo están criminalizadas y en la cual el tribunal establece que la organización promoueve buenos valores como la no discrimianción, la salud y la educaicón.

El Mallete de Bronce es para la decisión de la Corte Superior de Irlanda que determina que a una mujer con 18 semanas de embarazo y con muerte cerebral podía retirársele el sistema de soporte vital, de acuerdo con los deseos de su familia, ya que continuar con el tratamiento le niega el derecho a una muerte digna y somete a su familia a una angustia inimaginable. Esta decisión tiene un importante significado en un contexto en el cual los cuerpos de las mujeres están bajo el control de los Estados.

Premios del Público

El Garrote del Público se lo lleva el Juzgado Penal del Circuito, en Colombia, por aceptar un preacuerdo y reconocer la circunstancia de “marginalidad e ignorancia extremas” a un padre que abusa sexualmente de sus hijas menores de edad. El preacuerdo vulnera los derechos fundamentales de las víctimas y reduce la pena a sesenta y cuatro meses de prisión. Este caso ganó con 452 votos emitidos por el público a través de la página web de los Premios y obtuvo 3347 visitas.

El Mallete del Público, con un promedio de 12.000 vistas y un total de 1.836 votos, es para El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos que paraliza la expulsión de una mujer camerunesa víctima de matrimonio forzado de España, cuya expulsión pondría en riesgo su vida e integridad. Este caso ha sido llevado por la Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado de Madrid (CEAR).

Gracias por que como cada año, con tu participación, nominación y votación haces posible que, a través de los Premios, jueces y juezas de todo el mundo rindan cuenta de las decisiones que toman. ¡Nos vemos para la edición de los Premios 2016!

The hours of tough jury deliberation have concluded and your votes have been counted. It’s time to announce the winning decisions of the 2015 Gender Justice Uncovered Awards, an initiative by the international human rights organization Women’s Link Worldwide to highlight the most progressive and regressive gender-related judicial decisions of the year.

This year the Awards concluded with over 10,000 votes and approximately 100,000 case views for the 67 nominated decisions across 28 different countries around the world. The jury, comprised of human rights experts Manjula Pradeep, Claudia Paz y Paz, and Junot Díaz, considered many cases of devastating abuses of the justice system as well as inspiring examples of judges transcending gender stereotypes and discrimination. You also took action, voting for the People’s Choice Gavel and Bludgeon Awards.

Without further ado, I present to you the winners of the 2015 Gender Justice Uncovered Awards.

Bludgeon Award Winners (Judicial decisions that negatively affect gender equality)

The Jury Awarded this year’s Golden Bludgeon, for the decision which most egregiously violated the rights of women and girls, to the Superior Court of St. Joseph County in the United States for its decision in the “Purvi Patel” case. The Indiana Court sentenced Purvi Patel to 20 years in prison for feticide and child neglect after she experienced a miscarriage, or what prosecutors claim was actually an illegal abortion. The feticide law was enacted to protect women against violence but has increasingly been used to prosecute pregnant women, particularly women of color.

The Silver Bludgeon was awarded to the Special Fast-Track Court of Dwarka in India, which refused to recognize rape as a crime when committed by a woman’s husband. The fast-track court was established as a way to expedite the shameful backlog of sexual violence cases after protests erupted in response to the gang rape and murder of a woman in 2012. The woman in the present case asserted she was drugged, forced into marriage and then raped by her legally recognized husband.

The Bronze Bludgeon is awarded to the Sentencing Court of Honduras, which condemned prominent Women’s Human Rights Defender, Gladys Lanza, to prison for “defamation and libel.” As coordinator for the Honduran Women’s Committee for Peace “Moviemento de Mujeres por la Paz Visitación Padilla“, Ms. Lanza advocated for a woman sexually harassed at work which angered the woman’s employer. He retaliated with a defamation suit against Ms. Lanza and the resulting court decision legitimizing his claim sets a dangerous precedent for human rights defenders.

Gavel Award Winners (Judicial decisions that positively affect gender equality)

This year’s Golden Gavel is awarded to the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia for its unprecedented recognition of feminicide (the murder of a woman on the basis of her gender) as a crime and emphasis that such a crime cannot be considered a “crime of passion.”

The Silver Gavel goes to the High Court of Botswana for guaranteeing LGBT rights organizations the opportunity to officially register with the State, reversing the previous rejection of LEGABIBO (Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana). Though consensual adult same-sex activity is criminalized in the country, the Court affirmed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are entitled to all rights under the Constitution. The Court also stated the organization promotes good values such as self-reliance, non-discrimination, health, and education.

In a time where laws are increasingly used to ensure women’s bodies remain under state control, the Bronze Gavel has been awarded to the High Court of Ireland which ruled that a woman, 18-weeks pregnant and brain-dead, could be taken off life support in accordance with her family’s wishes. The Court stated that to continue treatment would deprive the woman the right to a dignified death and subject her family to unimaginable distress.

The People’s Choice Awards

The People’s Choice Bludgeon, with 452 votes and 3,347 views, goes to the Circuit Criminal Court in Colombia, for accepting a preliminary agreement, which recognized the defense of “poverty and extreme ignorance” of a father accused of sexual abusing his young daughters. The preliminary agreement reduced the man’s penalty, undermining the fundamental rights of the victims.

The People’s Choice Gavel Award, with 1,836 votes and over 12,000 views, is awarded to the European Court of Human Rights which prevented the deportation from Spain of a Cameroonian woman, a victim of forced marriage. Her asylum claim, brought by the Spanish Commission for Refugee Aid in Madrid (CEAR) and initially denied by the Ministry of Interior, was upheld by the European Court on the grounds that her removal from Spain would have endangered her life and safety.

We thank you again for your nominations and votes in the Awards as it is your participation and vigilance that hold judges accountable for their decisions each year. We look forward to seeing you next year for the 2016 edition of the Gender Justice Uncovered Awards!

Lo que comenzó como una denuncia de un grupo de mujeres en contra de la discriminación laboral se convirtió en un movimiento global para terminar con la discriminación y violencia en contra de las mujeres y las niñas en el mundo. Así, cada 8 de marzo celebramos el Día Internacional de las Mujeres y pedimos a los/as líderes políticos que se comprometan y muestren su voluntad para lograr la igualdad de género, pero pocas veces le pedimos lo mismo a los jueces y las juezas. Qué mejor ocasión que el Día Internacional de las Mujeres para pedirle a los jueces y juezas que se hagan responsables por las decisiones que toman, porque ellas, para bien o para mal, afectan la vida de las mujeres. Los Premios Género y Justicia al Descubierto son un canal para que las personas realicen este ejercicio de control social.

Hace unas semanas, escribí sobre algunas de las nominaciones a la categoría Garrote de los Premios, las decisiones judiciales en donde jueces y juezas de todo el mundo utilizan estereotipos y prejuicios de género en sus decisiones, fallando así en proteger y garantizar los derechos humanos de las mujeres y las niñas. Hoy voy a escribir sobre las nominaciones a la categoría Mallete, presentando potentes ejemplos de cómo el poder judicial puede ser un medio para promover los derechos humanos y la igualdad de género.

Una de las decisiones nominadas a los Premios muestra que muchas victorias vienen de la mano de pérdidas irreparables. En España, los tribunales fallaron en proteger a Ángela González, una mujer víctima de violencia de género, y a su hija Andrea de siete años, entre otras al permitir que la niña tuviera visitas no supervisadas de su padre maltratador. En una de ellas, el maltratador asesinó a Andrea y luego se suicidó. Después de 12 años sin encontrar justicia en España, el Comité para la eliminación de la discriminación contra la mujer determinó que España vulneró los derechos de Ángela y su hija fallecida Andrea. En su Dictamen, el Comité hace énfasis en el uso de estereotipos de género por parte de las autoridades españolas que impidieron que este caso se tomara con la seriedad que requería. Entre sus recomendaciones, el Comité establece que el Estado debe realizar una formación obligatoria a jueces, juezas y al personal administrativo que interviene en estos casos. Actualmente le corresponde a España implementar las recomendaciones del Comité, para lo cual será necesaria la voluntad política del gobierno para hacer prioritaria la eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación contra la mujer, incluida la violencia, y demostrar que realmente tiene un compromiso en la lucha contra la violencia de género.

Después de 15 años, el Consejo de Estado de Colombia determinó que el Ejército como institución es responsable en el caso de la violación a una mujer cometida en 1999 por dos soldados activos. En otras instancias se había negado la responsabilidad del Ejército bajo el argumento de que la conducta de los dos militares no tenía relación con el servicio. En cambio, el Consejo de Estado hizo visible el uso sistemático de violencia en contra de las mujeres como una estrategia dentro del conflicto armado y el uso de estereotipos de género, entre otras cuestiones relevantes, para determinar la responsabilidad del Ejército como institución. Así, el Consejo ordenó reparar a la sobreviviente y capacitar a los militares en violencia de género.

En Argentina, una mujer ha emprendido una lucha para poder conducir colectivos. A pesar de estar calificada para ello, se le ha negado el acceso a este trabajo por ser mujer. Este caso ha seguido un largo proceso, ya que primero un tribunal le dio la razón (esta decisión fue nominada a los Premios en 2010), pero después las empresas de transportes que no querían contratar mujeres apelaron la decisión. Finalmente, la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación determinó que sí había discriminación.

En Botsuana, en donde el código penal criminaliza las relaciones consensuadas entre parejas del mismo sexo, el Tribunal Superior decidió que la organización LGBT, LEGABIBO, podía constituirse, pues la legislación penal criminaliza la conducta, no la atracción entre las personas. Incluso, la Corte determina que los objetivos de la organización son inofensivos y manifiesta que por el contrario, promueven buenos valores como la autonomía, la no discriminación, la salud y la educación.

Casos como los expuestos muestran que los jueces y las juezas toman decisiones positivas para la igualdad de género. Hoy, les invitamos a celebrar el Día Internacional de las Mujeres nominando y comentando los casos que merecen destacarse o aquellos que generan indignación. Así mismo, invitamos a difundir los Premios Género y Justicia al Descubierto, para que entre todos y todas vayamos penetrando el inexplorado escenario que ofrecen las Cortes para exigir decisiones justas y no discriminatorias para las niñas y las mujeres.

Blakeley Decktor es abogada en Women’s Link Worldwide, organización internacional de derechos humanos que usa las posibilidades que ofrece el derecho para promover un cambio social que avance los derechos de las mujeres y las niñas, especialmente aquellas que enfrentan múltiples inequidades. Antes de unirse a Women’s Link, trabajó como asesora legal en la Comisión Internacional de Derechos Humanos de Gays y Lesbianas (IGLHRC, por sus siglas en inglés) en la ciudad de Nueva York.  Es licenciada en Estudios de Género y Mujeres y Estudios Internacionales por la Universidad de Nueva Jersey. Recibió en mayo de 2012 su título de Juris Doctor por la Facultad de Derecho de Universidad de Nueva York (CUNY), Estados Unidos, donde también trabajó en la Clínica Internacional de Derechos Humanos de la Mujer.

What started as a call from women to end workplace discrimination has grown into a global movement to address inequality, violence and discrimination against women and girls. Every 8^th of March on International Women’s Day we ask political leaders to address these issues, but rarely do we make the same appeal to judges. What better time than International Women’s Day to embolden citizens to exercise their power over the judicial process? The Gender Justice Uncovered Awards provide a vehicle for the public to be vigilant with the justice system by holding judges accountable for their decisions.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about Bludgeon nominees, judicial decisions where judges relied on stereotypes and prejudice failing to uphold the human rights of women and girls.  This post highlights Gavel nominees: influential examples of the judicial process as a space for promoting human rights. Gavel awards praise the work of those committed judges who lay out a clear framework for advancement of human rights, creating a path for others to follow.

Some victories come at the expense of irreparable loss. In Spain courts failed to protect a seven-year-old girl when they allowed her father unsupervised visitation, despite his history of gender violence against women. Her mother Ángela implored the court to order supervised visits, filing over thirty complaints until tragically, on April 24, 2003, the girl’s father murdered her during a visit, unsupervised. Following a 12-year court battle, the CEDAW Committee condemned Spain in 2014 for relying on negative stereotypes to diminish the seriousness of domestic violence. The Committee called for training to eliminate such stereotypes and demanded the State always consider gender-based violence in child custody and visitation proceedings. Currently, Spain is charged with implementing the Committee´s recommendations, a phase where the political will to prioritize the elimination is essential to the process and which presents an opportunity for the State to demonstrate it’s commitment to combat this type of violence. 

After fifteen years, a Colombian court held the military accountable after two active-duty soldiers raped a woman in 1999. When the woman first came forward, the Court denied the military’s responsibility holding that the soldiers’ conduct was not related to their military service. Only after a new court visibilized the systemic use of violence against women as a tactic of war, the representations of masculinity and femininity that armed groups instill in its members, and the ways women are targeted during conflict, could the court properly hold the Army responsible.  It required the military mandate training and implement guidelines to prevent, investigate and punish violence against women.

The struggle for workplace equality continues in Argentina as an applicant was refused employment as a bus driver specifically because she was a woman. A decision in the case by an appeal court was first nominated for a Gavel Award in 2010 because it called for an end to gender-based discrimination.  The case later reached the Supreme Court, which has affirmed women, indeed, have a right to choose their profession free from discrimination.

In Botswana, where the penal code criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct, the High Court ruled that the State must afford LGBT rights organization LEGABIBO state-registration. The High Court guaranteed that Constitutional protections apply to all individuals and affirmed that the criminal statute involving sexual conduct criminalizes behavior, not attraction. The Court praised the objectives of the organization for promoting good values such as self-reliance, non-discrimination, health, and education. Fortifying the importance of allowing debate and advocacy, the judge stated that in a democratic society asking for a law to be changed, such as the one criminalizing same sex activity, is not a crime or incompatible with peace, welfare and good order.  The Court’s affirmation that the organization does not offend morality sets out a critical discourse in the face of sweeping criminalization of speech, assembly and other rights of perceived same-sex attraction around the world.

Judges continue to issue both positive and negative decisions related to gender equality. Today, we invite you to celebrate the visionaries working to create a better future free from violence and discrimination in order to demonstrate that courts have the power to defend the rights of women and girls. We celebrate on this day seeing there is more to do and knowing we have the power to act. The nomination period for the Gender Justice Uncovered Awards goes until April 30^th, 2015 and voting is open from May 11^th to May 31^st. We invite you to join the cause with your nominations, comments and action on social media.

While there is much more to be done in order to fully realise the human rights of women around the world (for example, see here, here and here), today we celebrate four cases that can inspire us all to continue to see law as a positive instrument for realising women’s human rights.

Women’s Inheritance Rights

Late last year we saw an encouraging decision from the Court of Appeal of Botswana drawing upon a ‘living’ interpretation of customary law to underscore the importance of gender equality and to protect women’s socio-economic rights.  In Ramantele v Mmusi the Court upheld Edith Mmusi’s and her sisters’ right to inherit their parents’ home, despite a claim from her male nephew that under Ngwasketse customary law the family home always passes to male heirs.  As Tara Winberg wrote in an earlier post, ‘the Mmusi ruling has recognised and elevated the social reality of women’s inheritance over customary law stereotypes of exclusively male heirs.’

Sex-Workers’ Rights

The Canadian Supreme Court in the case of Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford struck down as unconstitutional provisions that criminalised a certain activities associated with prostitution.  The Court reasoned that such provisions violated the constitutional right to security of sex workers, who are predominately women.  The criminal provisions prevented women from implementing safety measures such as hiring bodyguards, working indoors or properly screening potential clients and perform health checks.  All of these prohibitions materially increased the risk of harm to sex workers.  As Meghan Campbell argues, the reasoning of both the Supreme Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal in Bedford is welcomed because ‘rather than debate on the morality of prostitution or the importance of quiet and orderly neighbourhoods and streets, the [Court] squarely addresses how the law increases the risk of serious bodily harm to those who work in prostitution.  Not only did it focus on the prostitute, but it allowed her interests to triumph’

Positive obligations to protect women and girls from domestic violence

The European Court of Human Rights has continued to develop a substantive equality approach to human rights.  In Eremia and Others v Moldova police and the social services had put pressure on Ms Eremia to drop the case against her abusive husband, and had made sexist and stereotypical remarks to her when she complained of ill-treatment.  The ECtHR held that there had been a violation of Art 14, in conjunction with Art 3.  The case is important for a number of reasons, not least that the Court recognizes the gender discriminatory aspects of domestic violence.  It confirms the positive obligations upon governments to protect from domestic violence, and applies a test of ‘effectiveness’ in this regard.  As Dimitrina Petrova highlights, ‘the Court stated that the authorities’ actions were not a simple failure or delay in dealing with the violence against Ms Eremia, but amounted to repeatedly condoning such violence and reflected a discriminatory attitude towards her as a woman. It was clear from the facts of the case that the authorities did not fully appreciate the seriousness and extent of the problem of domestic violence in Moldova and its discriminatory effect on women.’  Accordingly, although the state had put in place a legislative framework allowing measures against persons accused of family violence, and had taken steps to protect the applicants, these had not been effective. This case clearly signals a move by the ECtHR towards a substantive conception of equality that is prepared to recognise and address institutionalised prejudices. 

Education Rights in South Africa

In his official message for International Women’s Day, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon highlighted primary education for girls as one of the key areas to address on the journey towards gender equality.  Recent litigation in South Africa, whereby the delay on behalf of the government in providing chairs and desks for learners in socio-economically deprived classrooms in the Eastern Cape was declared as a breach of their constitutionally enshrined right to education, is a welcome development.  Education has the power to transform lives, particularly the lives of women and girls. We look forward to seeing more developments in this area over the next 12 months.

]]> https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/inspiring-change-through-law-for-international-womens-day/feed/ 0 4783 https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/mmusi-ruling-a-watershed-moment-for-gender-and-customary-law-in-botswana-and-beyond/ https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/mmusi-ruling-a-watershed-moment-for-gender-and-customary-law-in-botswana-and-beyond/#comments Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:28:54 +0000 http://humanrights.dev3.oneltd.eu/?p=2902 On September 3^rd, the Court of Appeal in Botswana decided that Edith Mmusi’s parents’ home belonged to her and her sisters. In doing so, Botswana’s highest court struck a blow to rigid versions of customary law and breathed new meaning into the Botswana Constitution’s provisions to prevent unfair discrimination.

Edith Mmusi’s story

Edith Mmusi, 80, was born in the village of Kanye in southern Botswana. When Mmusi’s father died, she and her sisters contributed to the upkeep of the homestead and looked after their mother until her death in 1988. Mmusi moved from her parents’ home when she married but returned in 1991 after her husband’s death. Owing to a dispute with her in-laws, Mmusi was unable to inherit anything from her late husband’s estate.

Mmusi has lived in her parents’ home until the present day. However, recently her nephew Molefi Ramantele claimed the family home belonged to him. The basis of his claim was that under Ngwaketse customary law, the family home always passes to the youngest son.

Since elders and family members could not agree, the issue passed through several courts before reaching the Court of Appeal, Botswana’s highest court.

Implications of the case

There are three striking features of the Mmusi ruling, which have wide-reaching implications for customary law and gender equality in Botswana.

First, the Court strengthened the legal protection from unfair discrimination in Botswana. The Court clarified the relationship between the rights and freedoms enshrined in section 3 of the Constitution and the limits placed on these rights and freedoms. This was important because section 15 specifically excludes matters of inheritance and marriage from its prohibition on discrimination. Ramantele’s team said that discrimination against women in inheritance under customary law was permitted.

The Court disagreed with this interpretation. Building on a landmark 1992 case Attorney General of Botswana vs. Unity Dow, it found that the umbrella guarantee of equality before the law is contained in section 3.  That guarantee can only be limited where the limitation prevents prejudice to the rights of others, or promotes the public interest. Discrimination against women in inheritance matters fails on both grounds.

A second striking feature of the Court’s ruling relates to its interpretation of Botswana’s Customary Law Act. According to the Court, where the content of customary law is in doubt, it should be determined in line with underlying values of “humanity” that should guide all law in Botswana.

The Court concluded that the underlying value of Ngwaketse inheritance laws was that those responsible for looking after the family, or who had invested in the property or who were in need of the home as a result of their circumstances should be prioritized. Edith Mmusi fitted all these categories and the court decided it would be counter to the sense of “humanity” underlying customary law – and all Botswana law – for her to be deprived of her inheritance rights.

A third important element of Mmusi’s victory relates to the Court’s articulation of living customary law. Until this case, Botswana’s jurisprudence spoke little of the notion of “living law”. The Court referred to evidence in the historical and anthropological literature, the testimonies of the litigants, and the actions of the lower customary courts, to show that customary law is “living” – that is, constantly in flux and subject to changing social dynamics. The judgment noted this means “there is no rational and justifiable basis for sticking to the narrow norms of days gone by when such norms go against current value systems” (paragraph 80).

The Mmusi ruling has recognised and elevated the social reality of women’s inheritance over customary law stereotypes of exclusively male heirs. The historical literature shows that women have almost always inherited their mothers’ personal property and agricultural fields. In addition, encouraged by Kgosi Linchwe II’s pronouncements, women inherited cattle on a more widespread basis in the latter 20^th century. Evidence from the 1980s onwards shows that it has become increasingly common for unmarried daughters to inherit the family plot and that women have become the guardians of family plots even when men were around.

The Mmusi case has far reaching implications for women’s ability to inherit but there remain some challenges. Although the decision of the Court of Appeal applies to all women in Botswana regardless of their marital status, in practice married women might find it difficult to inherit as often women are barred from inheritance not just because of their sex but because they are married.

The ruling also provides the courts with the discretion to read their own interpretations of social practice into customary law. This could be exploited in contexts where the court is conservative or runs too far out of step with public sentiment.

For now, though, Edith Mmusi and her sisters can live out their last years in a house that they have won the right to inherit, on the basis of Constitution as well as customary law in Botswana.

The full text of the judgment is available here. Tara Weinberg is a researcher with the Rural Women’s Action Research Programme at the Centre for Law and Society, University of Cape Town.

The latest decision of the Botswana High Court on inheritance rights in Edith Mmusi v Ramantele is a pivotal step for women in Botswana and Africa as a whole. 

A number of African countries still have discriminatory customary law practices that effectively leave women with nothing on the death of a male family member. In this case, the Ngwaketse customary law of inheritance was challenged on the grounds that it violated the right to equal protection of the law under section 3(a) of the Constitution of Botswana. This law conferred the right to inherit the family home on the last born male, thus excluding women, irrespective of their position in the birth order.

Judge Dingake rose to the occasion by affirming the Constitution of Botswana as the supreme law of the country and authoritatively declaring that the right to equality will not be subsumed by cultural practice. It is to be hoped that other African legal systems will follow this example to ensure that women are not forced into inheritance-based discrimination that is so entrenched in some African societies.

The judgment considered the nature of the relationship between section 3(a) of the Constitution (which confers upon all persons the equal protection of law) and section 15 (an anti-discrimination provision which contains a savings clause for customary law).

The court held that the customary law is biased against women, with the result that women have limited inheritance rights as compared to men, and that daughters living in their parents’ homes are liable to eviction by the heir when the parents die.  Judge Dingake argued that ‘this gross and unjustifiable discrimination cannot be justified on the basis of culture.’ Section 3 requires that all laws must treat all people equally save as may legitimately be excepted by the Constitution. Thus, to the extent that the customary law denies the right of women to inherit intestate solely on the basis of their sex, it violates their constitutional right to equality under section 3, notwithstanding the savings clause under section 15.

The court also held that the Government of Botswana’s ratification of a number of international legal instruments implied that it was committed to modifying social and cultural patterns of conduct that adversely affected women through appropriate legislative, institutional and other measures. In particular, these ought to aim at achieving the elimination of harmful cultural and traditional practices based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes, or on stereotyped roles for women and men. Therefore, the court also declared that there was an urgent need for Parliament to abolish all laws inconsistent with section 3(a). 

Vanja Karth is Programme Manager of the Democratic Governance and Rights Unit, University of Cape Town. Researchers at Oxford Pro Bono Publico provided research assistance to Judge Dingake on comparative law.