Collections
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
DEVELOPING INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE:
A CASE FOR AN EAST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
A PAPER PRESENTED
BY
HON JUSTICE BENJAMIN J ODOKI
CHIEF JUSTICE OF UGANDA
AT THE
ANNUAL KENYA JUDGES’ COLLOQUIUM 2011
HELD ON 14TH-19TH AUGUST 2011
MOMBASA KENYA
DEVELOPING INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE:
A CASE FOR AN EAST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
A Paper Presented by
Hon Justice Benjamin J Odoki
Chief Justice of Uganda
At the Annual Kenya Judges’ Colloquium 2011
Held on the 14th – 19th August 2011
Mombasa Kenya
Introduction
The revival of the East African Community (EAC) in 1999 heralded a new era of cooperation between the countries in the region. This new Community which apart from the original Republics of Kenya, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania now also includes the Republics of Rwanda and Burundi is meant to enable it to grow into a ‘prosperous, competitive, secure, stable and politically united East Africa.’(1) The EAC therefore states its mission as to ‘widen and deepen Economic, Political, Social and Cultural integration in order to improve the quality of life of the people of East Africa through increased competitiveness, value added production, trade and investments.’(2) The Partner States have undertaken to establish a Customs Union, a Common Market, a Monetary Union and ultimately a Political Federation. In order to achieve this, the Community will have to learn from history and avoid the pitfalls that lead to the demise of the original EAC. One of the failures of the EAC was the ‘inadequate respect for Rule of Law by the member states.’ The current EAC has tried to remedy this by creating, as one of its organs, the East African Court of Justice. While this has certainly placed a necessary emphasis on the importance of the adherence of law in the community, there have been calls for the reinstitution of a Court of Appeal to aid the development of law and jurisprudence in East Africa.(3)
In order for the objectives of the EAC to be realised, its institutions have to be strengthened and made more relevant to a constantly evolving society. The EAC needs a court capable of exercising a wider jurisdiction than the current one, as this was the intended development at the signing of the treaty.(4) An appellate court would send a strong statement not only to citizens of the EAC but to the international community that the Partner States will adhere to the principles they have signed up to of ‘good governance, including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality, as well as the recognition, promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.’(5) This scenario has already been proposed in the Protocol to Operationalise Extended Jurisdiction of East African Court of Justice. It advocates for a supra-national body that will have original jurisdiction, human rights jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction, and other jurisdiction including Alternative Dispute Resolution.(6)
The thrust of this paper therefore is the question, ‘What value would an East African Court of Appeal add in the development of international jurisprudence?’ This is especially important in light of the current progress being made towards integration.
This paper will try to envision what form the new court of Appeal could take, after an analysis of the previous Court of Appeal, the current EACJ as well as various other regional courts whose varied structures and functions could provide inspiration for the EACJ.
The Court Of Appeal for East Africa
The Court of Appeal for East Africa was formerly set up by the 1902 Order-in-Council with jurisdiction within the three East African territories. Later on other territories like Aden and Seychelles were brought under the court. The court was one of the common services shared by the three East African countries before and after independence during the days of the East African High Commission 1948, the East African Community 1967. During this time there was no intermediary Courts of Appeal in the three countries and the court served this role.(7)
The former Court of Appeal for East Africa was set up by Article 80 of the Treaty for East African Cooperation as follows:
“There shall be a Court of Appeal for East Africa which shall be constituted in such a manner as may be provided by the Act of the Community and the Court of Appeal for East Africa established by the East African Common Services Organisation Agreements 1961 to 1966 shall continue in being under the name of the Court of Appeal for East Africa and shall be deemed to have been established by this Treaty, notwithstanding the abrogation of those Agreements by this Treaty.”
The jurisdiction of the Court was provided for under Article 81,
“The Court of Appeal for East Africa shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such appeals from the courts of each Partner States as may be provided for by any law in force in that Partner States and shall have such powers in connection with appeals as may be so provided.”
The power to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal was therefore left to the discretion of the Partner States. This allowed the states to reach a compromise on how strong or weak the court should be, depending on how much sovereignty they were prepared to surrender.
In Uganda the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal was set out in Article 89 of the 1967 Constitution as follows:
An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any such final decision of the High Court of Uganda other than any decision on any question as to the interpretation of this Constitution as Parliament may prescribe.
No appeal shall lie from the Court of Appeal except as provided by this article, from the High Court of Uganda.
Article 89 of the Constitution was made subject to Article 51(3) which disallowed appeals from the High Court in election petitions. Thus both the interpretation of the Constitution and Election petitions were excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal being a creature of statute had only such powers as were conferred by statute or other written law. The Judicature Act 1967 provided that the Court of Appeal shall be a superior court of record in and for Uganda and shall have such appellate and other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it under any written law.
The right of appeal to the Court of Appeal was provided in criminal cases in the Criminal Procedure Code Act and subsequently in the Trial on Indictments Decree 1971. In civil cases, the appeal was provided for by the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules. Basically an appeal lay to the Court of Appeal from a decree of the High Court unless otherwise provided in the Civil Procedure Act. As regards second appeals from the High Court, an appeal lay to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds,
“the decision is contrary to law or some usage having the force of law;
The decision has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law;
A substantial error or defect in procedure provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force has occurred which may possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the case on the merits.
The Court of Appeal was credited with harmonising the various laws in East Africa and also developing law and common jurisprudence in the region. It also promoted the observance of the rule of law, the protection of human rights, democracy and good governance, the advancement of economic development and the promotion of unity, cooperation, peace and security.
The Court was disbanded in 1987 following the dissolution of the East African Community. Since then, each of the former Partner States has established their own Courts of Appeal which took over the jurisdiction of the Court. In addition, at least four of the five member states have also established Supreme Courts as the highest and final courts of appeal. This poses real challenges to the establishment of an East African Court of Appeal.
The East African Court of Justice
The East African Court of Justice which was established by the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community is the judicial organ of the community. It is different from the defunct East African Court of Appeal both in composition and jurisdiction. Article 23 describes its role as ‘a judicial body which shall ensure the adherence to law in the interpretation and application of and compliance with [the] treaty.’(8)
The jurisdiction of the court is covered by Article 27(9) which states that:
The Court shall initially have jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of this Treaty:
Provided that the Court’s jurisdiction to interpret under this paragraph shall not include the application of any such interpretation to jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty on organs of Partner States.
The Court shall have such other original, appellate, human rights and other jurisdiction as will be determined by the Council at a suitable subsequent date. To this end, the Partner States shall conclude a protocol to operationalise the extended jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of the court was initially limited for several reasons:
The partner States’ differences in jurisprudential development following the collapse of the earlier integration process; the reversal of which necessitated considerable harmonisation of their municipal laws in a regional context;
The three Partner States’ different court hierarchies
The relatively low level of integration in the initial days of the Community; a time when policy harmonization and rationalisation was yet to reach a stage where judicial interaction with a common framework would be realistic.(10)
Since then the regional integration process has been moving at an accelerated rate, and there has been ‘encouraging progress with the East African Customs Union, the signing in November 2009 and ratification in 2010 of the Common Market Protocol by all the Partner States.’(11) Negotiations for the East African Monetary Union also began this year and there has been a fast tracking process towards a true East African Federation.
Consequently, there have also been moves to extend the jurisdiction of the EACJ, highlighted in the Draft Protocol to Operationalise the Extended Jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice (Zero draft). The proposals would make the Court a ‘supra-national body of last resort’. The draft provides for:
Original jurisdiction in all matter of the Community e.g. interpretation and application of the Treaty, questions of international law, acts of the Community;
Human Rights Jurisdiction – taking into account the national positions and the universal legal framework;
Appellate Jurisdiction – taking into account the national court hierarchies and structures and the need for a regional judicial body to adjudicate on matters of trade liberalisation and development following the operationalisation of the Customs Unions and the proposed free movement of persons, labour and services (within the context of the Common Market);
Other Jurisdiction including Alternative Dispute Resolution which should increasingly be leveraged in the development of the integration process.
It also provides for administrative and procedural matters
The envisioned outcome is a functionally and institutionally stronger court which will serve the development of a common jurisprudence.
One of the main areas of interest is whether it would have jurisdiction over human rights issues. The Partner States have all expressed their belief and support of fundamental human rights by signing up to various international human rights instruments. Article 6 (d) of the Treaty, emphasises this vision, listing as some of the fundamental principles that will guide the institution, “good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality, as well as the recognition, promotion and protect ion of human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights;”
The EAC itself when stating the jurisdiction of the Court notes that, ‘The jurisdiction of the Court may be extended to human rights at a suitable date to be determined by the Council’
In his analysis of the Draft Protocol, Hon. William Kaahwa, Counsel to the Community (CTC) notes that ‘the protocol seems to combine extended jurisdiction on human rights and appellate matters [and that] perhaps, given the intricacies of these two matters, developments within the European Union could be guiding.’(12) He notes that the European Union has the European Court of Justice, to deal with disputes arising from the implementation of the Treaty of the European Union, on one hand, and the European Court of Human Rights, to handle human rights issues.
Other Regional Courts
Europe
The Court of Justice of the European Union is the institution of the European Union which encompasses the whole judiciary. Based in Luxembourg, it has three sub-courts; the European Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal.(13) Its mission ‘has been to ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties. As part of that mission, the Court of Justice of the European Union reviews the legality of the acts of the institutions of the European Union; ensures that the Member States comply with obligations under the Treaties, and interprets European Union law at the request of the national courts and tribunals. The Court thus constitutes the judicial authority of the European Union and, in cooperation with the courts and tribunals of the Member States; it ensures the uniform application and interpretation of European Union law.(14)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the other hand was established by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe (which has 47 members) and sits in Strasbourg. The Court rules on individual or state applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the Convention.(15)
The relationship between the two courts is complex as they have some overlapping areas of jurisdiction although there have been moves to try and resolve this. Article 6(2), the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, in force since 1 December 2009 allows the EU to accede to the ECHR. Protocol 14 of the ECHR, which entered into force on 1 June 2010 allows the EU to accede to the ECHR. This involves the EU signing up to the Charter as it has legal personality. That therefore means the EU as a whole (meaning its institutions and bodies as well) would be subject to the authority of the ECtHR on human rights related issues and as a result EU measure could be challenged in the ECtHR.
The existing relationship between the ECJ and the ECtHR - a relationship which could be described as one of mutual recognition and co-operation – could potentially become a more hierarchal relationship. It is not clear whether judgments of the ECJ will be open to challenge in Strasbourg. However, it is likely that as a result of article 6(2) TEU there should be a right of appeal from the ECJ to the ECtHR when an act of the EU is challenged for violation of a right enshrined in the ECHR.(1)
ECOWAS COMMUNITY COURT OF JUSTICE
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Community Court of Justice ‘acts as an international West African court’. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).(17)
‘In January 2005 the Community adopted the Additional Protocol to permit persons to bring suits against Member States. Beyond this monumental change, the Council took the opportunity to revise the jurisdiction of the Court to include review of violations of human rights in all Member States. This language made clear that the sources of law to be applied by the Court under its original Protocol would include not only general principles of international law, but also those in relation to human rights. Additional Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 also adds jurisdiction over any disputes arising under agreements, other than the Treaty, between Member States that so provide.
The Additional Protocol also gave national courts of Member States the right to seize the ECOWAS Court for a ruling on the interpretation of Community law.’(18)
There have been indications within the Community that an appellate court could be established. Justice Ministers of the ECOWAS member states in 2009 agreed on the establishment of an appellate mechanism within the organisation’s justice systems which would allow litigants who are dissatisfied with the decisions of the existing court to appeal for a review. It would first of all require a revision of the ECOWAS Revised Treaty of 1993 that set up the Community Court of Justice as it stipulates that the decisions of the court are final and not subject to appeal. (19)
Caribbean Court Of Justice
The Caribbean Court of Justice is the Caribbean regional judicial tribunal which was established on 14 February 2001. It is unique among the regional courts because it has both an original and appellate jurisdiction. ‘In its Original Jurisdiction, the Caribbean Court of Justice interprets and applies the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which established the Caribbean Community and is an international court with compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the interpretation of the treaty. In its Appellate Jurisdiction, the Caribbean Court of Justice hears appeals in civil, criminal and constitutional matters from states which have replaced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by the CCJ. In its Appellate Jurisdiction, the CCJ is the highest municipal court in the region. So far, only Barbados, Belize and Guyana have replaced the Privy Council and acceded to the Appellate Jurisdiction of the CCJ. Barbados and Guyana acceded to the Appellate Jurisdiction in 2005. Belize did so on 1 June 2010.’(20)
The court therefore serves countries with both civil law and common law traditions. This has led to some ‘cross-fertilisation’ in the solutions arrives at by the Court.(21)
Only member states would have locus standi in the court. However, by Article XXIV of the Agreement, nationals of a contracting party can seek special leave to pursue a claim in the Court where they can establish:
That the Revised Treaty intended that a right conferred on a Contracting Party should ensure to the benefit of the individual directly and the individual or entity has suffered prejudice in respect of the enjoyment of that benefit.
That the relevant Contracting Party has omitted or declined to espouse the claim or has consented to a private party action.
That it is in the interests of justice for the private party to pursue or espouse the claim.
Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal
The SADC Tribunal was established in 1992 by Article 9 by the Declaration and Treaty Establishing the Southern African Development Community as the judicial organ of the organisation. The Community’s members approved the Protocol required to set up the Tribunal in 2000 although the first judges were not sworn in till 2005. The Tribunal became ready to receive cases in April 2007 and received its first complaint in October 2007. (22)
The Tribunal has jurisdiction over controversies involving the interpretation or application of the Treaty, the interpretation, application or validity of Protocols and other Community documents and actions of the Community institutions. In addition the Court’s jurisdiction covers disputes under any other agreements of the Member States that specify use of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also has a broad purview with respect to the law that it may apply in interpreting the Treaty and other Community instruments. The Tribunal can not only apply the Community law as reflected in the Treaty, Protocols and other instruments adopted by Community institutions, but it is exhorted to develop its own Community jurisprudence, applying also general international law principles and principles from individual states’ laws.
Natural and legal persons can bring cases to the Tribunal including bringing a case against another person under Community law directly to the Tribunal if the other party so agrees. The Tribunal also has similar referral procedures as the European Court of Justice whereby, a national court or tribunal in proceedings of any kind may request a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal on interpretation, application and validity of provisions. This provision is seen as key to the harmonised interpretation and application of Community law.
Recently an independent review of the roles and functions of the Tribunal found that SADC law should be supreme over domestic laws, and all decisions made by the court should be binding and enforceable within member states. It also declared that the Tribunal has the legal authority to deal with human rights petitions.(23)
A New East African Court of Appeal
Opinion is divided over not only what value an East African Court of Appeal would add to the East African Community, but also what features and functions it would have. Even before the court is set up, Partner States through their national institutions would have to take some steps which are already reiterated in the Treaty:
To establish a common syllabus or the training of lawyers and a common standard to be attained in examinations in order to qualify and to be licensed to practice as an advocate in their superior courts;
To facilitate the practice of the legal profession in their territories by advocates from other Partner States and to determine a common code of professional ethics to be applied and maintained in respect of such legal practice;
To harmonise all their national laws appertaining to the Community; and
To revive the publication of the East African Law Reports or publish similar law reports and such legal journals as will promote exchange of legal and judicial knowledge and enhance the approximation and harmonisation of legal learning and judgements of courts within the Community.”(24)
One of the main advantages of a new Court of Appeal would be the development of a common jurisprudence among the Partner states. Harmonised laws and legal practices would aid the integration process and lay the groundwork for a political federation. One of the main challenges that has to be addressed is the harmonisation of laws with origins from different legal systems. While Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania share a common source in English common law, Rwanda and Burundi’s legal systems are based on civil law. Rwanda has already taken significant steps in converting to the common law system especially in investigation, prosecution and court procedures.(25) The EAC hopes Burundi will also do the same as the judicial system designed to be used in the bloc is common law.(26)
In common law jurisdictions the appeals system plays a key role in the administration of justice. In general the system serves to ensure that the dispensation of justice is carried out evenly and fairly to all parties in accordance with the established principles of law and practice. The basic goals are the correction of errors of law or fact committed by the lower courts, the clarification of law and the development of the law. Appeals courts are therefore concerned with the consideration of difficult points of law, the extension or restriction of doctrines, the choice between competing doctrines and resolution of doubts in the interpretation of statutory enactments.(27)
The EACJ already has an appellate division although it is only internal (only from rulings emanating in the first instance division). Article 27 (2) of the Treaty states that “the court shall have such other original, appellate, human rights and other jurisdiction as will be determined by the Council at a later date.” This led to The Draft Protocol to Operationalise the Extended Jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice (Zero draft) which offered solutions to how this could be achieved. Unfortunately partner states have delayed to finalise the process and as such the EACJ still has only its original jurisdiction. The EACJ recently had to rule on this very issue. In Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the EAC, the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Hon. Sam K. Njuba and the Electoral Commission of Uganda(28), the applicant brought a case alleging that:
‘the acts of the 1st Respondent to delay to convene the Council of Ministers as stipulated under Article 27 of the Treaty to create the East African Court as an appellate court is an infringement of Article 7(2), 8(1)(c) and 6 of the Treaty for the Establishment of The East African Community.
That the inaction of the 1st Respondent is in itself an infringement of the fundamental principles of good governance, including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, social justice and the maintenance of universally acceptable standards of human rights which are enshrined in those Article of the Treaty of the Community in particular regard to peaceful settlement of disputes.
The court agreed that the current ‘state of affairs frustrated the Applicant’s legitimate expectation of expedition in the matter and constitutes an infringement of the Treaty.(29) The court therefore declared that ‘we have no hesitation in finding that the delay to extend the jurisdiction of the EACJ contravenes the principles of good governance as stipulated in Article 6 of the Treaty.’ The Court declared that ‘quick action should be taken by the East African Community in order to conclude the protocol to operationalise the extended jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice under Article 27 of the Treaty.
In regards to what form the EACJ would take if granted an extended jurisdiction, under Article 21 of the Zero draft, it states that ‘The Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from decisions of the Commercial Courts of Partner States.’ Article 22 also states that ‘For purposes of hearing and determining an appeal, the Court shall have all powers, authority and jurisdiction vested under any written law in the court from the exercise of the original jurisdiction of which the appeal originally emanated.’ These articles allow for all appeals from national courts and not only those in relation to the Treaty. If granted the jurisdiction, the court would then be able to rule on issues of human rights. It would then essentially replicate the model used by the Caribbean Court of Justice. Another option would be to develop a model similar to that used by the European Union. The EACJ would maintain its current jurisdiction, which could also be extended to include civil, criminal and constitution appeals and a separate court would be set up to deal with human rights related issues. Article 6(d) of the Treaty already urges Partner States to ‘recognise, promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights’.
Whichever direction is taken, it will take a real commitment from Partner States to turn the court into a truly effective one. In order for this to happen, states have to be willing to cede some sovereignty and be prepared to adhere to the judgements of the Court. Otherwise the EAC risks following in the unfortunate footsteps of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) where when the Tribunal in 2008 ruled that the land grab in Zimbabwe was illegal, the organisation repeatedly refused to take action against the state which had ignored the Tribunal decision. Instead the leaders declared a ‘moratorium’ on all Tribunal decisions, effectively suspending it till 2010 when a new Tribunal will constituted.(30)Former SADC Tribunal President, Ariranga Pillay challenged the leaders of SADC to set up an appeals wing of the tribunal to see whether a different outcome will be reached.(31) This move by SADC has prompted outrage all over the world over their commitment to the rule of law, human rights and judicial independence.
Conclusion
The decision by the EACJ in Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the EAC, the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Hon. Sam K. Njuba and the Electoral Commission of Uganda has reiterated the need for a decision by the Partner States on the way forward for the community. There have been numerous consultations over the six years since the Zero draft was first tabled and yet no final decision has been made. The current state of limbo does nothing to support the reiteration of Partner States’ commitment to democracy, rule of law and good governance. Without a strong commitment from the Partner States to strengthen their institutions, this reincarnation of the EAC risks crumbling just as the previous one did.
There is no doubt this is a huge undertaking but it will ease the process towards eventual Political Federation. States need to decide how much of their sovereignty they are willing to surrender and then decide on the jurisdiction that the court will have. The issues related to structure and operations will then be dealt with. The EAC can take inspiration from other regional organisations while balancing them against the needs of its own states.
The Court of Appeal can play an important role in clarifying the goals of the community and aiding the development of the law. While the EACJ’s role is adequate for the current state of the community, a different system is necessary in order to fulfil the expectations of the integration process. Prof. Ssempebwa was apt in arguing that ‘an important base for legal and judicial cooperation is the harmonisation of law through a Common Court of Appeal. Without a common jurisprudence this cooperation would remain a mere declaration.’(32)
Endnotes
1. EAC Vision, http://www.eac.int/about-eac.html
2. Ibid
3. Odoki, B.J, ‘The East African Court of Appeal: Its Revival and Relevance’, A Paper Presented at the Judges Conference on the Draft Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community 21-22 Aug 1998, pg 8
4. Art. 27 (2), Amended Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community
5. Ibid
6. Draft Protocol to Operationalise the Extended Jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice, Part B (Art 2-8), Part C (Art 9-19), Part D (Art 20-25), Part E(Art 26-27)
7. Ibid
8. Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community
9. Ibid
10. Kaahwa, W, T.K, ‘Litigation in the East African Court of Justice: Protocol to Operationalise Extended Jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice: Opportunities and Challenges, Paper Presented at the East African Law Society Continuing Legal Education Seminar, July 19 2006.
11. http://www.eac.int/about-eac.html
12. Kaahwa note 7
13. Court of Justice of the European Union, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Justice_of_the_European_Union
14. CURIA, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_6999/ , accessed 22 July 2011
5. The European Court of Human Rights, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/DF074FE4-96C2-4384-BFF6-404AAF5BC585/0/Brochure_en_bref_EN.pdf , accessed 22 July 2011
16. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=66
17. http://www.courtecowas.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=10&lang=en
18. African International Courts and Tribunals, ECOWAS CCJ, http://www.aict-ctia.org/courts_subreg/ecowas/ecowas_home.html
19. ECOWAS Court to Establish Appellate Mechanism, 10 October 2009 China View News, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/10/content_12206584.htm
20. Caribbean Court of Justice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Court_of_Justice
21. Rt. Hon. Mr. Justice Michael de la Bastide T.C. ‘The Caribbean Court of Justice as a Regional Court’, October 2007, http://www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/speeches/president/ccj_as_a_regional_court.pdf
22. African International Courts and Tribunals, Tribunal of the SADC, http://www.aict-ctia.org/courts_subreg/sadc/sadc_home.html
23. Independent Review of SADC Tribunal Finds SADC Law Binding, http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/indepreview190511.htm
24. Odoki note 3
25. ‘EAC wants Rwanda, Burundi to Adopt Common Law System’, The New Times, http://www.newtimes.co.rw/print.php?issue=13934&print&article=16230
26. Ibid
27. Odoki note 3, pp 13
28. Reference 1 of 2010
29. Ibid
30. Nhlapo, B & Gumbo, T. Former SADC Tribunal President Challenges SADC Over Zimbabwe Land Seizures Ruling, 13 July 2011, VOA News, http://www.voanews.com/zimbabwe/news/Former-SADC-Tribunal-President-Challenges-SADC-Over-Zimbabwe-Land-Seizures-Ruling-125512733.html
31. Ibid
32. Odoki note 3, pp 10
17