{"title":"Mpho le Mphonyana:非洲可采性的两次迭代","authors":"T. Mosaka","doi":"10.1017/s0021855323000207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The statutory formulation of the rules of evidential admissibility in African jurisdictions can be characterized into two, positive and negative, broad categories. This article uses the Sowetan trope of a pair of conjoined twins, popularly known as Mpho le Mphonyana in South Africa, to analyse these two formulations with a view of exposing eight doctrinal, institutional and theoretical fallacies associated with these (English) common law colonial inheritances in Africa. The continued, and popular, focus on the Euro-American world by African Evidence scholars, notwithstanding the prevalence of these kinds of fallacies, raises serious questions not only about the scholarly and institutional future of African jurisdictions, but also about what precisely Africans think of themselves in a world that renders them largely invisible for scholarly purposes.","PeriodicalId":44630,"journal":{"name":"Journal of African Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mpho le Mphonyana: Two Iterations of Admissibility in Africa\",\"authors\":\"T. Mosaka\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0021855323000207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The statutory formulation of the rules of evidential admissibility in African jurisdictions can be characterized into two, positive and negative, broad categories. This article uses the Sowetan trope of a pair of conjoined twins, popularly known as Mpho le Mphonyana in South Africa, to analyse these two formulations with a view of exposing eight doctrinal, institutional and theoretical fallacies associated with these (English) common law colonial inheritances in Africa. The continued, and popular, focus on the Euro-American world by African Evidence scholars, notwithstanding the prevalence of these kinds of fallacies, raises serious questions not only about the scholarly and institutional future of African jurisdictions, but also about what precisely Africans think of themselves in a world that renders them largely invisible for scholarly purposes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of African Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of African Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021855323000207\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of African Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021855323000207","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
非洲司法管辖区证据可采性规则的法定制定可分为积极和消极两大类。本文使用了一对连体双胞胎的索韦坦比喻,在南非通常被称为Mpho le Mphonyana,来分析这两种说法,以揭露与这些(英国)在非洲的普通法殖民继承相关的八个教义、制度和理论谬误。尽管这些谬论盛行,但非洲证据学者对欧美世界的持续关注和普遍关注,不仅引发了对非洲司法管辖区学术和制度未来的严重质疑,也引发了对非洲人在一个使他们在学术上基本上看不见的世界里对自己的看法的严重质疑。
Mpho le Mphonyana: Two Iterations of Admissibility in Africa
The statutory formulation of the rules of evidential admissibility in African jurisdictions can be characterized into two, positive and negative, broad categories. This article uses the Sowetan trope of a pair of conjoined twins, popularly known as Mpho le Mphonyana in South Africa, to analyse these two formulations with a view of exposing eight doctrinal, institutional and theoretical fallacies associated with these (English) common law colonial inheritances in Africa. The continued, and popular, focus on the Euro-American world by African Evidence scholars, notwithstanding the prevalence of these kinds of fallacies, raises serious questions not only about the scholarly and institutional future of African jurisdictions, but also about what precisely Africans think of themselves in a world that renders them largely invisible for scholarly purposes.