Paper short abstract:

This presentation aims at explaining the resistance of African justice systems to decolonization. It highlights the perpetuation of the myth that the classical civil law model is superior to “other” forms of justice, even if the latter are more respectful of local legal cultures.

Paper long abstract:

This presentation aims to explain the perpetuation of western justice systems inherited from colonization on the African continent even when they are in dissonance with the population's expectations and representations of justice. Colonialism has led to structural transformations of the justice mechanisms in African societies with the imposition of western judicial systems and the institutionalization of "customary" mechanisms. Nonetheless, African States' access to independence has not led to the overhaul of justice systems. The new States have only carried out very meager reforms and no decolonization processes have really taken place.

Today, despite the discourses of international development and political actors promoting hybrid models of justice (western and local), we observe strong resistance to decolonization. This absence of decolonization has led to a discrepancy between the western-inspired justice systems and the legal culture of local actors such as customary leaders. Recent data collected in Burkina Faso highlight that local legal cultures encourage non-confrontational settlement instead of adversarial procedures and confidentiality rather than publicity.

The presentation aims at explaining this resistance to decolonization. Scholars have already shown that international development policies have been fostering western-inspired justice institutions as tools for creating a stable and efficient environment for markets. In addition to that, we highlight the perpetuation by international development and political actors of the myth that the classical civil law model is superior to “other” forms of justice (i.e., local non-confrontational dispute settlement), even if the latter are more respectful of local legal cultures.

Paper short abstract:

This paper examines Rwanda's Gacaca courts and the Western response to the re-introduction of “unconventional” justice practices in post-genocide Rwanda. In the aftermath of the genocide, the government rejected many of the judicial preferences established by the metropoles during colonization

Paper long abstract:

In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, the nation faced a Sisyphean task (Bornkamm 2). After years of colonial hegemony, financial instability, and civil war, how could the country be rebuilt, striking a balance between justice and peace (Chossudovsky 104)? Previous regimes had failed to unite citizens divided by colonialism and the racialized policies it had introduced (Mamdani 210). Following the massacres, the RPF government struggled with the overwhelming caseload associated with the genocide (Haskell). By 1998, the Human Rights Watch claims, 130,000 prisoners were awaiting trial (Haskell). Estimates suggest that it would have taken upwards of a century to try every genocide case pending in Rwanda (Haskell). As a result, the RPF government sought an alternative solution (Bornkamm 1). This alternative was a hybrid between a traditional, Rwandan restorative justice process called Gacaca and “conventional” fair trial standards (Haskell). Many Western organizations objected to this, suggesting instead that the process might be accelerated by utilizing foreign judges and lawyers, a suggestion the new regime rejected (Haskell). In "Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts: Between Retribution and Reparation", Paul Christoph Bornkamm writes that, “…promoting the rule of law in transitional and post-conflict societies usually involves standard measures based on Western ideas that do not take local specifics into consideration” (4). In deciding to pursue a blend of traditional and Western justice, the RPF partially rejected the implementation of Westernized, judicial imperialism. This paper examines the use of Gacaca and the Western response to the re-introduction of so-called “unconventional” legal practices in post-genocide Rwanda.

Paper short abstract:

The aim of this paper is to examine afromodernity, the relevance of dispute resolution mechanism of Ika People of Delta State, Nigeria to make western inspired judicial systems more flexible.

Paper long abstract:

Dispute Resolution will remain relevant and necessary in as much as man exists. It is a culture and a way of life. The method adopted by the people varies based on their value orientation and the desire to preserve social norms. There existed a robust dispute resolution mechanism in Ika Land prior to the advent of colonial rule that heralded the English court system to Nigeria. The Ika People of Nigeria had a system of dispute resolution mechanism reputed to be simple, inexpensive, friendly and yet effective. Resolutions of disputes were handled by family heads, village heads, elders, kindred, age grade, council of elders, chiefs, chief priests, judicial council among others depending on the nature and gravity. However, the advent of colonial administration with the introduction of English court system diminished it use. Thus, the aim of this paper is to examine afromodernity, and the relevance of dispute resolution mechanism of Ika People of Delta State, Nigeria to make western inspired judicial systems more flexible.