Tips for Beginners of Undergraduate Law Degree

Some of you might have already decided to pursue a law degree this year and you are geared up to take that incredible challenge. I admire you, because it is not an easy thing to do to be honest, law requires an open minded person, eagerness and resourceful at times. You will be busy but you will never be disappointed, most of our universities in the United Kingdom work extranuously to support students throughout their course and most libraries open 24 hours so that you get everything you need anytime. Besides, every Faculty of Law has a Law Library easily accessed as well as online blackboards that help students view their modules, learning materials, updates and any relevant anouncements whereever they are.

In your first year of law degree, you will be studying modules such as The English Legal system, you are going to look at things like sources of law, the courts and other principles involving the interpretation of the law. You will also study Constitutional and Administrative law where you are going to look at things like the rule of law, separation of power, supremacy of Parliament and the judicial review including the effects of the European Union membership regarding our domestic laws enacted by the House of Commons. In addition to that you will also study Criminal law, where you are going to explore the elements of crime, (mens rea and actus reas) intention and motive, negligence and recklessness as well as crimes of murder, homicide and theft. You will be required to master statutes in this area of law as most of these crimes are hugely statutory and considerable part of case law. First year students also study Contract law, you will learn a point where a contract becomes binding, offer and acceptance, consideration as well as invitation to treats in a case of Fisher and Bell, wrapping up with frustration of contracts. This is where the contract becomes impossible to shoot off for something that has occured before the contract takes effect without the fault of any other party to the obligation.
You should not worry too much on these modules, you will find them very interesting as they tackle and dwell mostly on things that we witness with our naked eyes, hear or see on television. Some of the crimes may have occured in our neighbourhood and you will be given an opportunity to understand how the courts reached a verdict on them.
Remember that not every module you take to study in your degree counts towards your final grades, some of these modules will just help you to excel and understand those modules that count towards your final degree. For example criminal law will help you to understand Law of Evidence and Criminology in second and third year.

In your second year, you should expect to study most of the modules that will put weight on your final degree such as Land, Tort and EU law. Land Law is part of Property law and Equity & Trust law, modules you might study in your final year. Here you may choose to study other optional modules such as Law of Evidence and Immigration law depending on what you may want to become upon completing your course. To me, Law of Evidence was the most important module and interesting module out of all the modules I did for my degree. The lecturer was Proffessor Michael Hirst, has written so many books in the field and is a qualified barrister whose influence in the country is immerse through some of his articles and contributions to the field and its just an honour to be one of his students. Certainly if you want to become a good lawyer in either criminal or civil law, evidence materials play a big role in solving so many complicated issues alleged in any case. I can therefore recommend that its not a bad idea to have it in your degree course.

Third year is final, most of the modules here including Law of Equity and Trusts are of level 3 and count towards you final degree. You should therefore aim to score above average in order to get good grades and a good 2:1. You may need good prep on this and work extra hard in your final year to get good marks in any assignments before final exams in those subjects that you will be required to take exams. Other modules such as criminology do not require exams but three good assignments and one presentation is a requirement.

Miscarriage of Justice

Following the ruling today on the definition of miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court Panel has said that a claimant for compensation will not need to prove that he was innocent of the crime but he will have to show that, on the basis of the facts as they are now known, he should not have been convicted or that conviction could not possibly be based on those facts.

This obviously changes the position where the Justice Secretary agrees a proposal to solely compensate  people who he decides have been completely exonerated of the crime they were wrongly convicted.

We will have to stay alert and witness the development of the law in this area, how a claimant will be automatically entiltled for a compensation following miscarriages of justice is something that the court will have to issue guidance. I dont think that procedural deficiencies that lead to irregularities in the trial and errors in the investigation of the offences will be enough to support the claim for compenasation.

But the fact is this is a new dawn for miscarriage of justice.

On another note, we would wonder to ask what will become of those who spend years behind bars on remand without having them either convicted or granted bail. Where prosecutors ask for more time of investigation before a judge and drive the court to think that they have put forward a credible case, it impinges on the accused who spend in jail for nothing on what seemed to be a good case for the prosecution. This surely demands the court to redefine the maxim"Justice delayed is justice denied" and ensure that proper guidelines and procedures are duly followed by both the prosecution and the defence.

National Interest, Is it in our name?

Is it always true that every decision that our politicians undertake to make, is made in the name of the country for national interest? If that is always the case, then should we conclude that what a politician thinks is right at the time of decision making is always right for the nation.

It is a tendency of our governments to allude to anything they do in our name to a national interest. Although the decision pursued goes to the very heart of our rights which they are entitled to preserve or that may sometimes lead to a violation of our Constitutional laws regardless. The fact that they think is a right thing to do at the time is considered to be in the interest of the nation no matter how wrong that may be.

I am a proponent of real democracy and our democratic governments are found with one purpose only; serving the national interest. Parties that form up the government should always consider their decisions not as the right decision for the individuals or the party but whether in having done so the interest of the nation is paramount.

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people and not for profit, honour or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable and indefeasible right to institute govt and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.

(John Adams; Thought on govt 1776)

It seems to me that surely any democratic government in the world is instituted fundamentally to defend the country through its defence department against the invasion of an enemy, keeping the nation safe through its good criminal justice system and practice, creation and provision of resources, opportunities for prosperity of the country and the nation.

The definition of democracy is rule by the people. So if people are lied to, kept secrets from, cheated out of fair election, denied real access to or ignored by their representatives, and otherwise kept out of the democratic process, the democracy no longer exists, it is a failed democracy. But one wonders under a murky leadership what would be the best way to describe what exist instead of democracy.

I agree though that sometimes what is in the national interest is vague and hazy, more especially where it goes beyond our borders, one would easily think that attacking a nation suspected of terrorism is in the national interest as it pre-empts the imminent attack on our country. But also having to establish a bilateral diplomatic relation with that country is in the national interest. Although these are two competing interests but having to choose one over the other should always be in the national interest.

That opens up another discussion as to who then decide whether the decision is in the national interest or not.

Constitutionally, I would say it is the representatives’ job to decide what reasonably is in the national interest by exercising due diligence, care and skill in carrying out that function through its various organs of the government including the parliament. What’s reasonable depends on the circumstance and its case by case basis.There is no point having a government that refers everything they do to its people despite the fact that people should not be kept in the dark all the time. Representatives betray constituents if they sacrifice their judgement to their opinion. Although carefully stating that governments that attempt to create one rule party through political control of the legislative branch and illegal politicization of the judiciary branch, collectively known as Unitary Executive Theory, would seem to be making decisions based on their individual interests rather national interest.

This is conspicuous in an autocratic government where a leader expands their executive powers secretly and refuses to submit to oversight. It is arguably that in those circumstances, national interest will be out of question and one would not see the benefit of consultations in such an environment anyway.

Representatives should remember that it is in our interest to have spend hours and hours queuing at the polling stations in order to give them an opportunity of doing things the way we want them to, in our interest not theirs.

Remembering Ngwazi Dr H. Kamuzu Banda - 14th May

In the Republic of Malawi every year on this day the 14th of May, Malawians take to the streets in celebration of Kamuzu 's birthday as the father and founder of the Malawi nation.
To me on a day like this, I have my own reservations not because I dont agree that Kamuzu was the founder of the republic and deserve to be remembered but  because over the years so many questions have been asked as to what extent can this go. Should he be remembered as the destroyer of the stupid (as he called it)  federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland or for being the only leader who ruled Malawi for over 30 years and could not see any eligible candidate to replace him as the next leader of the country.


Well some people in Malawi do not look further than the former and they assert that  he should be remembered for attaining that freedom the country enjoys today from the colonial masters, precisely the Great Britain, despite the fact that his tenure is all tainted and there is nothing good people can remember apart from his oratorical prowess.
This excuse has dragged so many Malawians to hold Kamuzu high to an extent that some Malawians never believed that Kamuzu will one day be defeated and humiliated in a General Election by those democratic pioneers who could not take any more from him and his party, the Malawi Congress (MCP).

Kamuzu should be remembered, I agree, but not as a defender of our human rights but as a dictator who had no respect towards humankind and Malawians should be given an opportunity to reflect and contrast whether freedom from the colonial masters that Kamuzu fought for is the real freedom that every Malawian would have wished for. In my view Kamuzu fought for freedom of self rule and sovereighty, we needed that, but he never rendered any freedom as in the Geneva Rights for Malawians and the country.
Growing up in the 70s and 80s,Malawi was the most dangerous place to live not in terms of security but in terms of  individual liberties where every word you say was censored by the very people you are having a conversation with. People were suspicious at all times and the good way of getting attention was to sing and talk about Kamuzu.
I remember a black american guy who moved to our home town in the 80s, skinhead and always in shorts,his name was Shiuata, whatever that means. He was suspected of being a secret agent for Kamuzu, seen as  causing troubles in town after he made a comment in one of the pubs regarding Kamuzu in a famous statement "who that wanted guy is" pointing at Kamuzu's portrait. Although this was an honest question as he did not know that it was a requirement by law at the time to business places and offices to hang such a portrait but to people around him, this just send a wrong message holding him as such.

I remember we did not have local media houses nor the local television and the only paper in circulation at the time people read was Boma lathu (our government), a free newspaper that carried all praises for Kamuzu and government propagandas.
Kamuzu built hospitals but on the official opening day Kamuzu went away with hundreds of Kwachas forcibly contributed by poor people in the recipient district.
Agriculture was the only subject a pupil would not pass 100 percent as this was saved for Kamuzu, Mchikumbe Number One.(number one Farmer). Besides, he imposed on Malawians his mother tongue dialect which until now is being taught in schools and spoken as a national language. This at inception appeared to be a unification tool for the whole nation but its effect is painfully being felt today, most Malawians speak Chichewa better than they do with their own mother tongue and in the younger generation is even worse.
Politicians and human rights campaigners went missing with no questions asked,therefore, in as much as we remember him, we also remember those who lost their lives in the struggle.
To remember Kamuzu indeed is to remember people like Adolf Hitler and many dictators who once lived this world, my father if he were alive would have conquered with me today because he was also the victim of Kamuzu as he spent part of his life in a maximum security jail, ZALEKA, held as a dissident for standing up against the president.
While we do remember him for showing courage towards the colonial masters but we should also not forget the relief we had on the day Kamuzu was finally deposed and his party members torn to nothing, the defunct Malawi Young Pioneers who terrorised people in the country.

I have no problem with those Malawians who see good in Kamuzu but I cannot be asked, because of him Malawi is where it is politically, people fear the government instead of being part of it as stakeholders. It is very hard to hold politicians accountable because they think they just as untouchable as the way Kamuzu was, every opportunity given to them to govern the nation  is taken for granted.
Let us remember those who died in the real struggle against Kamuzu and the colonial masters instead of remembering someone who led their lives to misery before they died for what they believed in and what they stood for. What do we want be, LAUGHING STOCKS???????????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvA-vIYMlYI&feature=related

PRIVACY LAW RULING AS OF 10 MAY 2011 BY ECHR

Briefly the main important issue to know here is that pre notification issued by the press does not not infringe or violate article 8.
View full ruling below on the link http://tinyurl.com/5s6rbfu

---

MINI DEMOCRACY

Some may wonder why I have chosen to write my blog today under the above title of Mini Democracy. Indeed it is in our English language that everytime the word Mini is used will stand for something distinctively small of its kind or something distinctively smaller than other members of its type or class.
In this article I would like to explore whether those so called democratic countries do offer full and meanigful democracy or they are just a mini democracy of a type.
I would expect that in a democratic and open society, people should have all the freedom guaranteed by their Constitutions whether written or Unwritten. The availability of a constitution in the country manifest conducive environment of a meaningful democracy where people have a right to decide their destiny and feel incorporated in the affairs of the country. Besides, leaders having expected to reasonably uphold the rule of law and being aware that noone is above the law.
Having said this every democratic country ensures that human rights are respected and that people are given wider choices to choose  and say whatever they want.
Beginning with Aristotle the great ,the following words summarises the above:
"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost."
It depends on how one would enterpret and take the above quote as to whether it is enough that people should decide who is to govern them and how or whether the governement should ensure that every citizen has a share in the affairs of the country. This could easily lead us to argue that Aristotle was also pointing out practices and the dangers of Nepotism and keeping ones tribe on the feet as long as you remain in that position of control.
If the above quote really give us the real meaning of democracy then I may not wrong to think that anything falls short of that falls in the category of mini democracy. And Liberty and freedom are very important in any democracy.
Charles Evan Hughes also reported to have said that "While democracy must have its organizations and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty." The usurpation of individual liberty is the essence of mini democracy to my view, people living in fear of reprisal from the government they chose at the end of day will only damage the relationship that people enjoy in a full democracy with their own governement.
In the United Kingdom of recent as an example, the citizens were asked in a referendum to decide the way they want leaders and members of the government be elected. The initial stage of doing so is an element of democracy and having them to decide in a poll is constitutional at best. The majority as a result decided to keep the old system of voting and also premonished the leaders that there will be repercussions if they do not live up to their promises. Leaders who do not live up to their promises are just proponents of mini democracy. Other examples are where the government supports and enacts laws that restrict the media and freedom of speech, providing a situation where people are seem not even to trust one another. Indeed it is arguably, a fact that media is the main source of information in this century and their freedom of speech in an open society is vital.
It is true that information is the currency of democracy and without information or censored information is always dangerous in an open soiciety.People deserve to know the truth that is why they elect people who they can trust and to be trusted is having nothing to hide and ensuring that people are rewarded for their allegiance. Not only that there is nothing important in ones life than having to have freedom of saying whatever and whenever they want.
 Therefore every person should at least look around in any country they may be as to whether they get full package of democracy or just a Mini type of it. I will finish this blog with the words said by Lyndon Baines Johnson as follows;
"It is the common failing of totalitarian regimes that they cannot really understand the nature of our democracy. They mistake dissent for disloyalty. They mistake restlessness for a rejection of policy. They mistake a few committees for a country. They misjudge individual speeches for public policy"
Remember freedom of specch is the birthright of all.

A Small Lesson from the Arab Uprising

“We will leave when he leaves” he says, “Birruh, Biddam nufdeeka ya bilaad”( with our spirit and blood, we sacrifice them for our country) they say; these are signature statements protesters in Egypt are carrying, chanting with every fibre of their conviction and determination to bring about change they have been longing for over thirty years.

It started like a joke and gibberish in the streets of Cairo, everyone contemplating what if they had staged a massive protest against their own government demanding the president, Hossin Mubarak, who has ruled the country for over thirty years to stand down.

When we first heard about it, we harked back the French revolution but I underestimated that possibility for some reasons. One thing that we were for sure was that if this was to happen then it will take them to Tahrir Square in Cairo.

We all know that this was where moderate women in Egypt throw their veils away in expressing their freedom of choice hence the name Tahrir- meaning “freedom”.

Although Mubarak seem to be adamant but the message has reached his voicemail and he is yet to retrieve the message and act upon it if he has not yet done so. Until then, he will try to manoeuvre his capabilities and abilities in order to cling to power. He has been trying to create another dynasty in Egypt where he would ultimately impose himself as a King followed by his descendants. This is evidenced by his willing to hand over his power to his son if any kind of resentment to do so is felt. Those who are in opposition to this move are likely to end up in maximum prisons or killed as they are considered disparaging.

The problem is not only an Egyptian problem but all Arab rulers and in some cases, African leaders, who take their own people for granted. Arabs have a reputation of limitless love and affection towards their leaders as long as they remain shepherds to them. They always talk good about them in the open and praise them a lot. In Saudi Arabia every taxi driver highly praises the ruler for giving them peace and drives the enemy away even if there has never been an enemy. It is one of the Islamic tenets that a Muslim obeys a ruler and Arabs play by the same rule originated from the verse in the Holy Quran.

One might now see that times are different and this was centuries ago when leaders had one thing in mind, emancipating their nations from the economic and social bondage by leading them to a self reliant nation that do not go about asking for economic aid from other super nations. These were leaders who went to war with an enemy in order to protect and preserve the values that are distinct, unique and separate them from the rest.

One thing that’s noticed and conspicuous in all Arab leaders, is that spirit of having to ring fence their mantle with security wings separate and distinct from their armies. In Saudi Arabia King Abdullah has a special elite army called “Harasil Wattany” headed by his own son, a force that deals with internal issues as well as eliminating and silencing the King’s enemies. Mubarak’s presidential guard in Egypt, Gadaffi’s one hundred strong contingent of super trained loyal women body guards and the former Baath Elite for the fallen leader Saddam Hussein in Iraq, a style emulated by all the dictators who wish to cling to power for the rest of their lives. In smaller countries in Africa, we have non state agencies disguised as young democrats, youth wings, youth morales who suppress the very need of the people and carry the force of the party and true nature of the leader in power. Using these wings, the despots are able to blackmail, incapacitate and disenfranchise other political leaders through trumped up cases of treason and corruption, silencing them as long as they clearly pose a threat to their power. This is so because there is always this misconception that leaders are representatives of God the almighty and leadership comes from God alone, you are only chosen by Him and no person can try to take that away unless it’s from God himself. They therefore measure up themselves to Angels and agents of God on earth.

Mubarak’s call to stand down was mocked by his response to fire the entire cabinet and lay all the blames directed to him on them for failing the country. He also sought to appoint the vice president of the country, a move seen as desperate measure, too little to late. This is a sense of purity that it is impossible for him to make a mistake when at the end of the day he is guided by God himself; therefore this mistake might be the people he appointed to work with him hence firing them.

Surprisingly, their behaviour is just so human and these forces they create to protect them is just the manifestation of that. Leaders today have a reputation of looting their own states and help to enrich those super nations by entrusting them with their wealth.

 They tend to betray their cohorts and friends who worked side by side with them during the struggle or campaigning even taking a step further of disengaging a vice president duly elected by the same people who put them to power. Retirement is always the term they hate to hear with impunity.

Now that Tunisia has managed to get rid of Ben Ali and Egypt is on it, other countries are rumoured to follow suit, Yemeni and Jordan are next but where is this wind heading to? King Abdullah of Jordan recently sacked and replaced his Prime Minster while the President of Yemen stated in Parliament that he will not seek re-election in 2013 and promised his people that he will not allow his son to takeover, hence no resetting of time and the clock. These are very interesting times indeed for the Arab world, and as our adage goes “moto umapita komwe thengo latsala”, so your guess is as good as ours. As for the Arab leaders, there is a possibility that all of them will end up seeking asylum in Saudi Arabia, not because they are Muslims, rather, because their behaviour is somehow acceptable in that land.

LESSON

What lesson do we really learn from these events as they unfold? People may seem to be sleeping or slumber but they should not be deemed to be ignorant and cowards to stand up for their rights. Allegiance comes with a price and if Rulers eliminate these and tend not to give allegiances they get its true meaning then events like those in Egypt become inevitable. It is important to bear in mind that the army cannot turn their guns against their own people because they are just part of the same citizens of the country. It is their families that make up this group of protesters therefore they cannot harm them. Their job is to protect the country from an intruding enemy not an enemy of the leader within. The Special Forces power is measured with the power that the leader has, if his power is diffused at a certain point, his orders carry no more than an empty weight. He cannot mobilise them against people who are not on a compromise position. It just doesn’t work.

In the words of American President that leaders should ensure that power is by all means attained by consent from the people they rule. Unfortunately, there has been a shift from this trend of attaining power by consent in the last century, most countries cry foul of having the General Elections rigged and the electorate having to experience both death and bodily harm if they did not give their consent to the seating president. This is institutional kind of attaining power without the consent of the people. Even where this has given the opposition a constitutional power to challenge the results of the elections, the courts have not shown an interest to either declare the election null and void or demanding the seating president to reconsider the outcome.

Ironically, Democracy nowadays is Communism in disguise, you cannot tell the difference between Zimbabwe and North Korea although the former is a democratic country where the president rules by consent after serving a term. People from these countries have but same kind of forced allegiance towards their leaders and their human rights are almost usurped from them. The only media that’s allowed to air the views of the people is that of the government and that’s descriptively the essence of communism. At times the ruling party is in control and determines the need of the Country rather a government which comprises the legislature, executive and the judiciary. Although the separation of power has for a long time now not made any sense at all as it leaves a lot to be desired, the president and the cabinet is an executive arm, the legislature with majority of representatives from the ruling party and the judiciary appointed by the president himself. It therefore leaves so much room for the seating president to have control over every business in government.

Dictators Take Note

The fallen President of Tunisia, Ben Ali, who fled to Saudi Arabia indeed might still be living in the lap of luxury, but make no mistakes Tunisia's former President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and his family are prisoners. They are friendless, homeless and humiliated.

They are prisoners because they have no country to attach themselves too, they have no freedom to walk in the streets with their heads up and they cannot even run their day to day business, most importantly they have lost everything. They will spend their lives looking above their shoulders and on the run from very same people they mistreated. They are worse off than a prisoner charged, stood trial and currently serving his jail sentence. The latter gets to seeing people left behind and those loved ones.

Indeed it does not matter whether they are now housed in a palace or castle but they are like a bird in a gilded cage and the truth is Ben Ali and his equally odious and corrupt family have nowhere else to hide.

Most dictators fantasise their relationship with countries in the West and how close they can get to the West in desperate times but they forget that that no matter how close you think you are to the West, in times of trouble they will drop you faster than a burning coal. The United States has proven this so many times that they are fickle friends; they have their own problems to focus on rather helping people who take advantage of the people who put them to power.

Ben Ali had that predicament, scrambled to board a plane to escape what some may consider a well deserved lynching; the truth is he had no idea where he was going.

Mubarak is just joggling his chances too, the West led by the United States of America has already expressed their disapproval and therefore not ready to take him.


Ben Ali tried to contact and half a dozen other countries but the truth is no one wanted the 74-year-old.

A desperate man finally found a bolthole in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia arriving around midnight after close ally President Nicholas Sarkozy rejected a request for his plane to land on French soil.

It just tells us that dictators towards the end of this century will have their own country ruled by another oppressor.

The White House will not entertain any dictators who cling to power, it does not want to be seen as aiding and abetting their heinous crime they commit on their own people.

We remind dictators that just as the late Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi discovered when he went in to exile after his repressive regime in Iran was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The former Shah spent his exile in Egypt, totally isolated and shunned by the very same leaders in the West who had once supported him.

The Saudi government seem to be still very soft just as they accepted and give freedom among other dictators Idi Amin Dada of Uganda when he fled the country.