The stock theft act and customary courts in Botswana: justice sacrificed on the altar of expediency?

B. Dambe, C. Fombad
{"title":"The stock theft act and customary courts in Botswana: justice sacrificed on the altar of expediency?","authors":"B. Dambe, C. Fombad","doi":"10.1080/07329113.2020.1734381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The incidence of stock theft has been high in Botswana, as it is elsewhere in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). In 1996, the problem compelled the country’s parliament to intervene and enact the Stock Theft Act. After 22 years of its being in operation, however, there is little evidence to suggest that the Act’s harsh penalties have led to a reduction in cattle theft. A more serious problem with the law is that its penalties are imposed by customary courts with scarcely any safeguards in place to ensure that justice is done. Arguably, justice is sacrificed at the altar of expediency in response to widespread popular revulsion against cattle thieves. This paper engages with the problem of cattle theft, examining what motivated the adoption of such a harsh law and what the implications are of granting customary courts the jurisdiction to deal with these matters. While there is an urgent need to repeal the Act, in the meantime it should be applied strictly, with all presiding officers of customary courts being required, at the beginning of every stock-theft proceeding, to inform the accused that he or she has a right to opt for a trial before a Magistrates’ court. This is one of the few safeguards provided for by the Act, but because it is ignored so often, many people end up in prison when they might have been acquitted had they been tried by the better-equipped Magistrates’ courts.","PeriodicalId":44432,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2020.1734381","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract The incidence of stock theft has been high in Botswana, as it is elsewhere in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). In 1996, the problem compelled the country’s parliament to intervene and enact the Stock Theft Act. After 22 years of its being in operation, however, there is little evidence to suggest that the Act’s harsh penalties have led to a reduction in cattle theft. A more serious problem with the law is that its penalties are imposed by customary courts with scarcely any safeguards in place to ensure that justice is done. Arguably, justice is sacrificed at the altar of expediency in response to widespread popular revulsion against cattle thieves. This paper engages with the problem of cattle theft, examining what motivated the adoption of such a harsh law and what the implications are of granting customary courts the jurisdiction to deal with these matters. While there is an urgent need to repeal the Act, in the meantime it should be applied strictly, with all presiding officers of customary courts being required, at the beginning of every stock-theft proceeding, to inform the accused that he or she has a right to opt for a trial before a Magistrates’ court. This is one of the few safeguards provided for by the Act, but because it is ignored so often, many people end up in prison when they might have been acquitted had they been tried by the better-equipped Magistrates’ courts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
博茨瓦纳的股票盗窃法案和惯例法庭:在权宜之计祭坛上牺牲的正义?
与南部非洲发展共同体(SADC)的其他国家一样,博茨瓦纳的牲畜盗窃发生率一直很高。1996年,这个问题迫使该国议会进行干预,并颁布了《股票盗窃法》。然而,在实施了22年之后,几乎没有证据表明该法案的严厉惩罚导致了偷牛行为的减少。该法律的一个更严重的问题是,它的惩罚是由习惯法庭施加的,几乎没有任何保障措施来确保正义得到伸张。可以说,正义在权宜之计的祭坛上被牺牲了,以回应公众对偷牛贼的普遍反感。本文探讨了盗牛问题,考察了采用如此严厉的法律的动机,以及授予习惯法院处理这些问题的管辖权的含义。虽然迫切需要废除该法,但同时应严格执行该法,要求习惯法庭的所有主审官员在每次盗窃股票诉讼开始时通知被告,他或她有权选择在地方法院进行审判。这是该法案提供的为数不多的保障措施之一,但由于它经常被忽视,许多人最终入狱,而如果他们在装备更好的地方法院受审,他们可能会被无罪释放。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: As the pioneering journal in this field The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law (JLP) has a long history of publishing leading scholarship in the area of legal anthropology and legal pluralism and is the only international journal dedicated to the analysis of legal pluralism. It is a refereed scholarly journal with a genuinely global reach, publishing both empirical and theoretical contributions from a variety of disciplines, including (but not restricted to) Anthropology, Legal Studies, Development Studies and interdisciplinary studies. The JLP is devoted to scholarly writing and works that further current debates in the field of legal pluralism and to disseminating new and emerging findings from fieldwork. The Journal welcomes papers that make original contributions to understanding any aspect of legal pluralism and unofficial law, anywhere in the world, both in historic and contemporary contexts. We invite high-quality, original submissions that engage with this purpose.
期刊最新文献
Construing the transformed property paradigm of South Africa’s water law: new opportunities presented by legal pluralism? Wait, what are we fighting about? – Kelsen, Ehrlich and the reconciliation of normative jurisprudence and sociology of law Interview article: water movements’ defense of the right to water. From the European arena to the Dutch exception Scientific versus folk legal pluralism An exploration of legal pluralism, power and custom in South Africa. A conversation with Aninka Claassens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1