Legal Education & Public Interest Lawyering in East Africa: The Role

of University –based Law Clinics

Feb.5-6, 2014 Kampala, Uganda

Development of CLE: 1960’s- 1970’s (US)

Idea borrowed from medical field—good pedagogical tool

Conducive environment/social factors—rights movement

Clinics mostly related to social justice objectives & challenging status quo

Institutional support from American Bar Association—student practice rules; accreditation (pushing for CLE at law schools)

Institutional/Uni support to make CLE part of the law school curriculum

Trend spreads to the Americas & Africa –models & focus shaped by context social factors & needs in the regions

Walk-in legal aid clinics :widely across Africa, Americas; support to indigent; good exposure for students to live cases & clients; engage students in client representation; ethical dilemmas; honing of legal research & writing skills; responsibility for another human being; attention to the client.

Clinic course (with simulations): no live cases, purely pedagogical tool & not service oriented. Main goal-teaching legal skills through simulation.

Volunteer/Student-led clinics: not part of the curriculum, student-led initiatives that focus on engaging communities- legal assistance, referrals, legal empowerment.

Thematic specific clinics: tax, intellectual property, women, children, domestic violence, immigration, PwD, Human Rights, small business. (US-well funded CLE)

Street law/community law model: students visiting schools/communities to teach about the law, constitutional rights. Legal empowerment focused!

Strategic litigation clinics (public interest): focus on achieving fundamental legal, institutional reforms and tackling structural issues perpetuating human rights or constitutional rights violations at national or regional levels.

Accredited course- part of law school curriculum (elective) Clinic seminar –teaching skills on legal representation, client-

centredness, legal research & writing, trial advocacy, simulations, class discussion of cases & ethical issues;

Live cases/projects assigned to student teams-full responsibility to handle cases & projects with minimal staff oversight; -cases address wide range of international human rights issues;

Supervision by clinic staff—close supervision to mentor students on client representation and making court submissions;

Student exposure: --Exposure to live international human rights issues,

jurisprudence, socio-economic and political context in other countries;

--Exposure to using the law as a tool for social change & legal or institutional reform

--Generating student interest & commitment to human rights law practice

--Enables ‘student agency’ in playing an active part in fundamental reforms

Fora: Regional and International Courts/Mechanisms targeted (ie: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; UN

mechanisms);

Strong emphasis on pedagogy- CLE as a tool to impart legal skills Legal aid clinics- service oriented; expose students to needs/rights

of indigent Specialized clinics- specific thematic focus clinics Human rights clinic model- first developed in the US & spread to

the Americas

Enabling factors: Social context—1960’s rights movement; interest in social justice

& human rights Support by ABA—CLE becomes part of law school curricula;

accreditation raises CLE profile Student practice rules enables students to litigate cases w/ staff

supervision Additional institutional support- CLEA; clinical conferences &

networks, funders w/ CLE interest Accreditation has made it easier to secure funds from core

university budget Interest in practical approach to teaching law in US (no mandatory

internship reqm’t)

Legal services model predominate in Africa—influenced by social context!! Majority of universities in Africa with law departments/schools have a law

clinic. With exception of SA & Nigeria, boasting clinics in most of the law schools

across the 2 countries; most other countries may have established clinics only in the leading or main universities; CLE still not widespread across the region. Some have yet to establish a university-based law clinic as such.

Factors affecting development of predominant CLE in Africa: SOCIAL CONTEXT

--access to justice focus/meeting overwhelming demand for services by indigent communities

--filling the gap left by State -focus on professional training – “learning by doing” -weak funding sources—limited university budgets; -not focused on changing status quo or generating fundamental legal reforms Exception: SA –strong institutional support-State sponsors/supports

university-based law clinics- recognize role in promoting access to justice and complementing State duty to provide legal services

Recent trend- specialized clinics--example: HIV clinics & PwD clinics (external support)

No human rights or strategic litigation clinic model in the region—trend has not developed as yet.

Why not?? Limited political space to challenge gov’t action; limitations on student practice in court; formalistic law curriculum w/ focus on theory or commercial law?

Student exposure: expose students to public interest law, human rights and social justice issues

Skills building: Hands-on experience with live cases & projects (critical legal analysis skills; human rights fact-finding and documentation; legal research & writing; advocacy skills; strategic lawyering skills; public speaking & presentation skills)

Agents of change: placing students at center of social change actions; students become players in fundamental legal & intuitional reforms

Professional training: placements w/ human rights NGOs (w/ supervision) hones professional skills

Commitment to public interest/human rights law- training a new generation of public interest lawyer; lawyers socially conscious and aware of civic duties to their community.

Bridging the gap between theory & practice: applying human rights law to real-life contexts & cases; students learn to appreciate and respond to complex socio-legal issues in context!

Learning in context: students exposed to topical issues and learn to address them through interactions with local human rights experts, advocates & activists; not purely theoretical learning.

Securing funding (weak university support/financing); must compete for funds from external donors

Limited political space to allow for HR clinics challenging status quo

Formalistic law curricula w/ little appreciation of the human rights clinic model

Limitations on student practice in courts National judicial system/judiciary

rigidity/formalism