Revival of SADC Tribunal must be in good faith: Not a cosmetic shield for the ruling class

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The high-level meeting of the Southern African Development Community Committee of Ministers of Justice and Attorneys-General in Victoria Falls, running from 1 to 5 June 2026, presents a critical turning point for the region.

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

On the agenda is a matter that strikes at the very heart of regional accountability and the rule of law: the long-awaited revival and re-operationalisation of the SADC Tribunal.

As justice ministers and attorneys-general deliberate on landmark legal instruments, they must confront the historical injustice of the court’s suspension and choose the only legal, direct path to resurrecting it.

The history of the SADC Tribunal is a sobering reminder of how easily regional accountability can be sacrificed on the altar of political expedience.

Established as an essential judicial organ, the tribunal was explicitly designed to ensure compliance with human rights, access to justice, and good governance across the 16 member states.

Crucially, it functioned as an extraordinary court of last resort, granting individual citizens and private entities direct access to sue their own governments for human rights violations once domestic remedies were exhausted.

It was a vital safety net for ordinary people challenging state power.

However, this progressive mechanism for regional justice faced a brutal backlash when it dared to rule against state-sanctioned violations.

Following the landmark 2008 ruling in Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v Republic of Zimbabwe, which found the host nation’s race-based land seizures to be discriminatory and in breach of the SADC Treaty, the executive leadership retaliated.

Instead of enforcing the court’s binding orders, regional heads of state acquiesced to pressure from Harare.

In 2011, the SADC Summit effectively suspended the tribunal, executing a de facto paralysis by refusing to reappoint or replace judges whose terms had expired.

This orchestration deliberately stripped the court of its quorum and left citizens without regional recourse.

The legal gymnastics that followed—including a cynical 2014 protocol attempting to restrict the tribunal’s jurisdiction strictly to inter-state disputes—have been thoroughly exposed and condemned.

Landmark judgments by the South African High Court and Constitutional Court laid bare this scheme, explicitly characterizing the suspension as an unlawful conspiracy designed to eviscerate state accountability.

As the courts correctly observed, the SADC Tribunal remains extant and its founding legal instruments remain operative and binding under international law.

The suspension was merely a factual obstruction, not a permanent legal dissolution.

Now, with the Committee of Ministers of Justice and Attorneys-General exploring the re-operationalisation of the court, the critical question is how this revival will be achieved.

There is a dangerous inclination to subject the resurrection of the tribunal to a protracted protocol amendment and ratification process.

History warns us that this is a recipe for perpetual paralysis.

Regional protocol ratifications are notoriously slow, bogged down by a well-documented “ratification stupor” that serves as a convenient bureaucratic graveyard for human rights enforcement.

To condition the tribunal’s revival on a new round of state ratifications would be an exercise in bad faith, ensuring that justice remains denied indefinitely.

The correct, bona fide approach is remarkably simple and already enjoys historical precedent.

Back in April 2011, during a meeting in Swakopmund, Namibia, the Committee of Ministers itself resolved that the tribunal was properly constituted and recommended the immediate reappointment and replacement of its judges.

This remains the only valid mechanism required to lift the de facto suspension.

Filling the judicial vacancies immediately restores the court’s quorum and honors the binding treaty obligations that all member states are required to fulfill in good faith.

A glaring double standard highlights the absurdity of pursuing a convoluted protocol route.

At this very same Victoria Falls summit, the committee is tasked with appointing judges to the SADC Administrative Tribunal, a separate body handling internal employment disputes between the SADC Secretariat and its staff.

For the administrative tribunal, no protocol amendment is deemed necessary; the vacancies are simply filled.

Treating the primary SADC Tribunal differently by shackling its revival to a lengthy amendment process is untenable and inconsistent.

If SADC can seamlessly maintain its internal labor court, it must show the same commitment to the court meant to protect millions of citizens.

Regional development, international trade, and foreign investment depend heavily on a predictable and transparent legal environment underpinned by the rule of law.

A fully functional SADC Tribunal, complete with individual access, is essential to shed the region of a development-inhibiting negative image and foster a genuine African renaissance.

Civil society organizations, including the Southern African Agri Initiative, are entirely justified in demanding that the committee reassert its 2011 stance and facilitate the immediate appointment of judges.

The ministers meeting in Victoria Falls must resist the temptation of dilatory tactics and choose the path of courage, consistency, and constitutional integrity.

It is time to return to the foundational principles of the SADC Treaty and resurrect the region’s ultimate shield for human rights and justice.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08