{"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.
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.