In the past two years, higher education institutions (HEI) have been inundated with students' demands for a decolonised education. Their voice led to the resuscitation of debates on a transformed curriculum. Amongst others, the language question is an issue at the centre of these debates. What students were questioning was the hegemony of English, the slow pace in which universities implement multilingual policies, and lack of clarity on the positioning of African languages as languages of learning and teaching. In this paper, we argue that if higher education aims to address marginalised and new knowledge through a decolonised curriculum, fundamental questions are worth being asked. In particular the questions we are asking and responding to are: "How does student voice become a force for social change?" "How can student voice enable HEIs to deal with the issue of language?" We suggest and support the view that the issue of language should be recognised as a social justice issue, that student voice can enlighten curriculum designers and society on the dangers of reproducing inequalities through the hegemony of English, and that graduate attributes, as an essential notion, should recognise multilingualism as a core skill that students should acquire.

No abstract

This is an interdisciplinary publication located in the discipline of forensic linguistics/ language and law. This handbook includes varying comparative African and global case studies on the use of language(s) in courtroom discourse and higher education institutions: Kenya; Morocco; Nigeria; Australia; Belgium Canada and India. These African and global case studies form the backdrop for the critique of the monolingual English language of record policy for South African courts, the core of this handbook, discussed in relation to case law and the beleaguered legal interpretation profession. This handbook argues that linguistic transformation and decolonisation of South Africa’s legal and higher education systems needs to be undertaken where legal practitioners are linguistically equipped to litigate in a bilingual/ multilingual courtroom that enables access to justice for the majority of African language speaking litigants, enforcing their constitutional language rights.

The trial (within a trial) of Eugene Terre'Blanche (hereon referred to as the ET Trial) in a high court, which took place in Ventersdorp in January and February 2010 sparked intense interest in South Africa and abroad, and raised critical questions about issues of (i) language rights, (ii) communicative competence of law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, and (iii) the asymmetries in the police interaction with the accused persons. Apart from communicating the rights of the accused persons in a language that s/he understands, the police officers are entrusted with additional responsibilities which include, among others, being a channel or conduit that encodes and decodes information within milliseconds in an attempt to reconstruct an accused person's narrative into formal evidence for purposes of court proceedings. This reality is further substantiated by Komter (2002/2003:202) who suggests that, "[...] police officers should record the fact that they informed the suspect about his right to silence and [...] that they record the suspect's statement as much as possible in his own words". Against this backdrop, it is also worth stating that the South African multilingual setting is confronted by serious complexities, especially in cases where the accused is a speaker of an African language who can only rely on interpreting/translation services in order to follow the legal discourse, whereas languages of record are still solely in English and Afrikaans. Based on an examination and analysis of the judgement of the ET trial within a trial, this study finds that, despite the dawn of democracy, the South African Criminal Justice System is still confronted by linguistic and cultural challenges. Central to these challenges is the potential for miscarriages of justice. Furthermore, the main principles of Critical Sociolinguistic Analysis (CSA) employed in this study have uncovered the fact that power imbalances in the criminal justice system do not necessarily originate through legislation but through situated processes and practices (Eades 2010). As Fairclough appropriately argues, there is a need not just to examine the power in the discourse but also the power behind the discourse (1989).