Cost of taking Malawi/Tanzania dispute to UNcourt

Malawian taxpayers should brace to dig deeper into their pockets to finance costs associated with referring State disputes to the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) should dialogue fail in the Lake Malawi border dispute between Malawi and Tanzania.

 In an interview this week, principal secretary for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Patrick Kabambe said referring the dispute to ICJ in the Hague would not be cheap for both Malawi and Tanzania as the countries may be required to hire special lawyers and pay some fees for the court’s sittings. “ICJ is not cheap. Every time the court is sitting, there are some fees which the State parties pay.

You also need to hire special lawyers,” said Kabambe. Malawi and Tanzania are currently engaged in talks to diplomatically resolve the dispute through negotiation or other forms of resolution, including mediation or involvement of the African Union (AU) Panel of the Wise. But Kabambe insisted Malawi’s final position on the matter is to refer the dispute to the world court because the dispute is legal in nature as the two countries are disagreeing on interpretation of a treaty.

 “We recognise that referring the dispute to ICJ is not cheap,” said Kabambe, adding that ICJ would be the “quickest” route to resolve the boundary dispute on the lake. Asked how much government expects to spend when the dispute goes to the UN court, he
said: “That’s what we are working on right now, but we have not come to the point of calculating actual figures.” Last week, some inside sources in the Tanzanian delegation to the second round of talks with Malawi in Mzuzu and Lilongwe also confided in Weekend Nation that
referring the dispute to ICJ would not be cheap for both countries. “It is a very expensive route for both countries because there are huge costs which both countries have to meet to participate in that court,” said a senior Tanzanian government official. Justice
Link executive director Justin Dzonzi, however, said countries do not pay fees for the court to sit, but would bear the costs of engaging their own judges to participate in the case. “Rules themselves say nothing about payment of any fees to the court. However, a
country may opt to hire its own judge. It is the cost of those ad hoc judges that are paid by countries that hire them.

“In this case, costs would be in form of flights to Hague, accommodation and other expenses. The permanent judges of the UN court are paid by the court itself,” said Dzonzi. He also said while there are lawyers who have specialised as agents to take up matters before the UN court, it is not compulsory for countries to hire them when referring their disputes to the court. “You also have people who are called advocates. These are lawyers who have appeared before the ICJ [previously]. These again are not compulsory. Malawi can take its own lawyers even from here,” said Dzonzi. He, however, said the benefits derived from the lake far outweigh any costs that Malawi would incur to resolve the border dispute on the lake through the world court. “The value of the lake is so huge that spending a few million of kwachas on the issue should be looked at as investment, especially when you also consider that there might be oil in the lake. 

“Even without oil, the value of the lake is still huge when you consider the fish and everything else,” said Dzonzi. While Malawi says the 1890 Heligoland Treaty between Britain and Germany gave it the whole lake, Tanzania argues it owns half of it because common international law
stipulates that water bodies separating countries must be shared equally. 

‘Parliament
to summon Ombudsman again’
PHILLIP PEMBA
Staff Reporter
Chairperson of the Public Appointments Committee of
Parliament Nick Masebo on Thursday said Parliament would resummon Ombudsman
Tujilane Chizumila to appear before the committee to respond to claims of abuse
of office, nepotism and corruption against her.
In
July, Chizumila failed to appear before the committee when it summoned her
according to parliamentary standing orders.
Asked
whether the committee would resummon Chizumila on the matter, Masebo in an
interview said: “Very much so. That would be done when the committee meets
again.
“The
challenge is that when the committee is sitting for one week and you miss one
activity in that week, it becomes difficult to fix that activity within that
week.”
Masebo
said Parliament directly oversees the functioning of the Office of the
Ombudsman; hence, his committee is crucial in addressing any issues that would
affect the performance of the public office.
“That
matter cannot just be dropped. Much as the committee has mandate to make a
decision without hearing the other party when the party does not turn up after
been summoned, we have not concluded that matter,” he said.
In
June this year, three Ombudsman members of staff wrote the committee, Speaker
Henry Chimunthu Banda and Minister of Justice and Attorney General Ralph
Kasambara, alleging that Chizumila was nepotistic when employing staff and
abusing her office.
Chizumila
later interdicted the three, Yohane Sambakunsi, Stanley Gome and Phillip Banda,
saying they demonstrated alleged misconduct ranging from violation of the
office’s code of ethics and breach of procedures in the Ombudsman Act.
Asked
what progress her office has made to resolve the internal grievances, Chizumila
on Thursday refused to comment and referred Weekend Nation to the executive
secretary in the Office of the Ombudsman Ellos Lodzeni.
“I
cannot talk because I will not be following procedures. Those people did not
follow procedures. There is an internal grievance handling body which is
working on that issue,” said Chizumila.
She
also refused to comment on whether she would appear before the parliamentary
committee when she is summoned again, insisting that Weekend
Nationtalk to Lodzeni.
Lodzeni
also refused to comment and referred Weekend Nation to their spokesperson
Patrick Maulidi who said they do not expect the committee to summon Chizumila
again over the matter because Parliament wrote them that the matter
should be resolved
within the Office of the Ombudsman