Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T03:10:17.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a Global Consensus on Life Imprisonment Without Parole: Transnational Legal Advocates and the Zimbabwe Constitutional Court's Decision in Makoni v Commissioner of Prisons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2018

Andrew J Novak
Andrew J Novak*
Affiliation:
George Mason University
*
anovak2@gmu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In June 2016, the Zimbabwe Constitutional Court held that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional, finding that it constituted cruel and degrading punishment and a violation of the right to equal protection under the country's new constitution. The court widely cited international and foreign law to assess global trends on life imprisonment, especially the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The decision illustrates the benefits for human rights advocates of citing international and foreign law in their pleadings, and is an example of “sharing” constitutional jurisprudence across borders and the diffusion of constitutional norms.

Keywords

Human rights litigationinternational lawlife imprisonmentpardonparoleZimbabwe
Type
Recent Developments
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 315 - 327
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS, University of London 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Term assistant professor, Criminology Law and Society, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.

References

1 Makoni v Commissioner of Prisons constitutional appeal no CCZ 48/15, judgment no CCZ 8/16 (13 July 2016) (Zimbabwe Constitutional Court) (Makoni).

2 Zimbabwe Constitution, arts 51, 53 and 56(1).

3 Prisons Act, sec 115.

4 Makoni, above at note 1 at 18 and 21–22.

5 Kafkaris v Cyprus (2009) 49 EHRR 35; Vinter v United Kingdom judgment of 9 July 2013, appeal nos 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10.

6 Carozza, P “‘My friend is a stranger’: The death penalty and the global ius commune of human rights” (2003) 81 Texas Law Review 1031Google Scholar; Burnham, MA “The death penalty in east Africa: Law and transnational advocacy” in Mutua, M (ed) Human Rights NGOs in East Africa: Political and Normative Tensions (2009, University of Pennsylvania Press) 268 at 274Google Scholar.

7 “Zimbabwe approves new constitution” (19 March 2013) BBC News, available at: <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-21845444> (last accessed 19 February 2018); S Mhofu “Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court outlaws child marriages” (20 January 2016) VOA News, available at: <http://www.voanews.com/content/zimbabwe-constitutional-court-oulaws-child-marriages/3154549.html> (last accessed 19 February 2018).

8 Mudzuru v Minister of Justice constitutional appeal no 79/14, judgment no CCZ 12/2015 (20 January 2016).

9 Media Institute of Southern Africa v Minister of Justice constitutional appeal no 7/15 (3 February 2016). See also Madanhire v Attorney General constitutional appeal no 78/12, judgment no CCZ 2/14 (12 June 2014).

10 Chawira v Minister of Justice constitutional appeal no 47/15, judgment no CCZ 3/2017 (20 March 2017).

11 Jackson, V “Constitutional dialogue and human dignity: States and transnational constitutional discourse” (2004) 65 Montana Law Review 15Google Scholar.

12 Slaughter, AM “Judicial globalization” 40 Virginia Journal of International Law (2000) 1103 at 1104Google Scholar.

13 Id at 1109–10.

14 Slaughter, AM “A typology of transjudicial communication” (1994) 29 University of Richmond Law Review 99 at 99–100Google Scholar.

15 Waters, M “Mediating norms and identity: The role of transnational judicial dialogue in creating and enforcing international law” (2005) 93 Georgetown Law Journal 487 at 490Google Scholar.

16 Id at 527.

17 Helfer, LR and Miller, AM “Sexual orientation and human rights: Toward a United States and transnational jurisprudence” (1996) 9 Harvard Human Rights Journal 61 at 91–92 and 100–01Google Scholar.

18 Carozza “‘My friend is a stranger’”, above at note 6 at 1034.

19 Id at 1036–43.

20 Malkani, B “The obligation to refrain from assisting the use of the death penalty” (2013) 62/3 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 523 at 532–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Soering v United Kingdom (1989) EHRR 439; Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace v Attorney General (1993) LRC 277 (Zimbabwe Supreme Court) (Catholic Commission); Triveniben v State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCJ 383 (India); United States v Burns [2001] 1 SCR 283 (Canada); Pratt and Morgan v Attorney General (1993) UKPC 1 (appeal taken from Jamaica); Attorney General v Kigula [2009] 2 EALR 1 (Uganda Supreme Court) (Kigula); Lackey v Texas 514 US 1045 (1995), Stevens J dissenting to the denial of the certificate; Knight v Florida 528 US 990 at 993 (1999) (Knight), Breyer J dissenting to the denial of the certificate.

22 For the contrary argument, see C McCrudden “A common law of human rights? Transnational judicial conversations on constitutional rights” (2000) 20/4 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 499 at 527. McCrudden argues that citation of foreign and international legal authorities is not simply results-driven, in favour of a rights-expanding agenda; rather, judges have a variety of motivations for citing this jurisprudence. Nonetheless, decisions favouring the emerging international norm have a much longer shelf-life and broader global reach than those that do not.

23 Jackson, V “Transnational discourse, relational authority, and the US court: Gender equality” (2003) 37 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 271 at 324Google Scholar.

24 Id at 343.

25 Roberts, A “Comparative international law? The role of national courts in creating and enforcing international law” (2011) 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 57 at 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 See below at note 37.

27 See Zimbabwe Constitution (1980), art 26. In 1987, a full bench of the Supreme Court held that whipping adults constituted cruel and degrading punishment, although this challenge was later reversed by constitutional amendment. Challenges also succeeded against solitary confinement, reduced diet, retroactive punishments and punishments based on mute confessions. de Bourbon, A “Human rights litigation in Zimbabwe: Past present and future” (2003) 3/2 African Human Rights Law Journal 195 at 209–10Google Scholar; Hatchard, J “The fall and rise of the cane in Zimbabwe” (1991) 35 Journal of African Law 198 at 198–200 and 202CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Above at note 21.

29 For example, Catholic Commission is mentioned in: Pratt and Morgan v Attorney General for Jamaica [1994] 2 AC 1 (PC); Kigula, above at note 21; and Knight, above at note 21.

30 Killander, M and Adjolohoun, H “International law and domestic human rights litigation in Africa: An introduction” in Killander, M (ed) International Law and Domestic Human Rights Litigation in Africa (2010, Pretoria University Law Press) 3 at 12–16Google Scholar.

31 van Zyl Smit, D “Outlawing irreducible life sentences: Europe on the brink?” (2010) 23/1 Federal Sentencing Reporter 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Graham v Florida 560 US 48 (2010).

32 Bernaz, N “Life imprisonment and the prohibition of inhuman punishments in international human rights law: Moving the agenda forward” 35 (2013) Human Rights Quarterly 470CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Id at 482–83; Convention on the Rights of the Child, art 37.

34 1996 (1) SACR 390 (NmS).

35 Life Imprisonment Case (1977) 45 BVerfGE 187.

36 State v Bull 2002 (1) SA 535 (SCA).

37 [2008] UKPC 37 (9 July 2008).

38 Id, paras 17–19.

39 Above at note 5.

40 Léger v France ECtHR judgment of 4 November 2006, appeal no 19324/02.

41 Above at note 5.

42 Applicant's heads of argument at 33; Hutchinson v United Kingdom ECtHR chamber judgment 3 February 2015, appeal no 57592/08.

43 Hutchinson v United Kingdom ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment of 17 January 2017, appeal no 57592/08.

44 Id at 13–14.

45 Makoni, above at note 1 at 9–10.

46 Id at 11–12.

47 Zimbabwe Constitution, art 46(1)(c)–(d).

48 Id, arts 326(2) and 327(6).

49 Makoni, above at note 1 at 13.

50 Id at 14.

51 Applicant's heads of argument at 12.

52 Id at 32.

53 Respondents’ heads of argument.

54 Makoni, above at note 1 at 21–22; Prisons Act, sec 115.

55 Applicant's supplementary heads of argument at 12–17.

56 Makoni, above at note 1 at 21–22.

57 Schabas, WA The Death Penalty as Cruel Treatment and Torture: Capital Punishment Challenged in the World's Courts (1996, Northeastern University Press) 127Google Scholar.

58 Makoni, above at note 1 at 25–26.

59 Stokes, R “A fate worse than death? The problems with life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty” in Yorke, J (ed) Against the Death Penalty: International Initiatives and Implications (2008, Ashgate) 281 at 289Google Scholar.

60 Respondents’ heads of argument at 7.

61 Makoni, above at note 1 at 16.

62 Id at 20.

63 Id at 27.

64 1993 (2) ZLR 422.

65 Id at 427.

66 2003 (2) ZLR 421 (S).

67 [1976] AC 234 (PC).

68 [1996] 1 AC 527 (PC).

69 Woods, above at note 66 at 435.

70 [2000] UKPC 35 at 47.

71 Applicant's supplementary heads of argument at 7–8.

72 Novak, A Comparative Executive Clemency: The Constitutional Pardon Power and the Prerogative of Mercy in Global Perspective (2015, Routledge) at 176–81Google Scholar.

73 Applicant's supplementary heads of argument at 8.