Today the assertion that polygamy is a human rights issue admits of no demur. Polygamy and other cultural practices are as legitimately subject to criticism within the context and setting of human rights as is any other structural aspect of society. There is a movement that is rapidly gaining momentum to contest the legality and legitimacy of polygamy in a human rights context. In several parts of Africa, polygamy is not only a marriage of choice but a value system that inspires and shapes family relations. As a value system, it has been in constant tension with and is resilient to imported marital ideology of monogamy. However with the discourse of rights, in particular women's rights, inexorably coming to the fore, the practice of polygamy stands seriously challenged and its future is in grave doubt.

It has become a standard feature of litigation for amici to appear before courts, acting as the vindicator of rights for the politically powerless and marginalized. Their appearance has thus contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights before municipal courts and international tribunals. They have done this through the submission of briefs that seek to broaden perspectives of cases and by advancing innovative legal and factual viewpoints, thus assisting the courts in reaching appropriate conclusions. In Botswana, amicus curiae participation is still at a nascent stage. This is largely due to inflexible rules of standing and the general lack of knowledge of the potential usefulness of the institution by the judiciary. This article argues that, to enhance amicus participation in litigation, thereby enhancing the epistemological quality of its public law jurisprudence, Botswana must pay close attention to the practices and experiences of South Africa where amicus participation has resulted in the phenomenal growth of constitutional jurisprudence.

For too long, homosexuals have been considered as failed heterosexuals without the rights to self-realisation that other groups in society have. Persons who exhibit emotional and erotic attraction to members of their own sex have been persecuted both by private individuals in society and by the state. They are punished for not what they have done but simply for their perceived deviance. Their freedom of sexual expression is repressed for its perceived symbolism rather than because of its proven harm. Africa has seen the enactment of a great deal of homophobic violence and drama. This article argues that the persecution of homosexual people violates their fundamental rights and denies them the opportunity to enjoy their full personhood. The article also makes the point that efforts by homosexual people in Africa to secure their recognition and respect of their rights are undercut by the denunciation of gay and lesbian rights by some African leaders. The article further laments the inaction of the African Commission in the struggle for recognition by gay men and lesbians. It argues that the African Commission has a crucial role to play in promoting and protecting gay and lesbian rights, and in particular in seeking to change social convictions and attitudes of African people by embracing homosexuality and appealing to African countries that still legally prohibit the practice to decriminalise it. The article also contends that the African Commission must be the centre of research around this issue to benefit policy makers and other role players to make informed decisions on this highly contentious and emotive issue.

The SADC Tribunal was originally suspended by the SADC Heads of State and Government in August 2010. On 18 August 2012 at their Summit in Maputo, Mozambique, the SADC leaders took a decision to continue with the suspension of the SADC tribunal while simultaneously re-negotiating a new Protocol on the SADC Tribunal. Crucially for this article, the Summit also took a decision to limit the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal to the determination of inter-state disputes and the interpretation of the SADC Treaty and its protocols and divested it of the jurisdiction to entertain claims lodged by private persons. This decision effectively means that the Tribunal will no longer enjoy the power to entertain human rights claims, since they are invariably brought to court by natural persons. This article argues that the Summit’s decision to close to the SADC Tribunal to individuals is arbitrary, politically motivated and will undermine the regional human rights protection system and consequently undermine SADC’s ultimate objectives, namely regional integration and economic growth.

No abstract