CC BY
16
THE USE OF THE OFFICIAL INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN JUDCIAL SYSTEM REIMAGINED, POIGNANT AND TACIT ISSUES EXPLORED
Tebogo Johannes Kekana1, Malesela Edward Montle2
department of Languages, School of Languages and Communication Studies, University of Limpopo, Turfloop, Sovenga, Limpopo Republic of South Africa
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0003-8909
2Department of Languages, School of Languages and Communication Studies, University of Limpopo, Turfloop, Sovenga, Limpopo Republic of South Africa ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5514-8403
* Corresponding author: Malesela Edward Montle, e-mail: edward.montle@ul.ac.za
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
The objects of this research are: first, to highlight the unfair language practice that is still persisting in the South African Judicial System despite the provisions contained in the democratic constitution of equitable use of all official languages. Second, to explore the variables that contribute to this appalling state of affairs where English is predominately used in the South African Judicial System. Third, to suggest possible measures that could be applied to lessen or circumvent the situation.
The researcher investigated the following problem: the inadequate use of the official indigenous languages in the South African Judicial System, the reasons behind this practice and its consequences.
The main results of the research are: first, English is still the predominately used language in the South African courts of law and minimal use of official indigenous languages in the judicial system is still continuing unabated. Second, language policy regarding the South African Judicial System need to be reviewed with the aim of putting emphasis on the use of official indigenous languages for various activities in the judicial system, secondly, benefits derived from adequate use of official indigenous languages in the judicial system need to be explored more so that maximal participation of people who speak these languages can be achieved. Third, the study has shown that the reason for this inadequate use of the official indigenous languages is as a result of various intertwined variables such as globalisation, economic factors, negative attitudes towards African languages and a lack of existing inclusive language policies regarding the SA judicial system. Fourth, the use English language for various purposes in the judicial system is a linguistic injustice, it portrays the South African judicial system as still not transformed but still colonised. The area of practical use of the research results are: all citizens who seek justice through South African judicial System, Law practitioners in South Africa, human rights organisations, university students and staff members of the criminal justice department. Innovative technological product: inclusive language policy development measures Scope of the innovative technological product: the practice of multilingualism in the area of law.m languages is recommended for Gwanda South, Matabeleland South, Zimbabwe
© The Author(s) 2022. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons CC BY license
1. Introduction
Language rights in the judiciary receive relatively little attention [1]. Linguistic human rights are aimed at the promotion of linguistic justice and the removal or prevention of linguistic inequalities or injustices that may occur because of language [2]. [3] bestows official status upon eleven languages, namely Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, SiSwati, Tshivenda and Xitsonga [4]. However, today the language medium in the High Courts is limited in practice to English and Afrikaans [5] With reference to South Africa, this article shows that although linguistic rights are enshrined in the SA constitution (particularly in the Bill of Rights), their treatment as far as usage is concerned in the judicial system leaves much to be desired. [6] puts it nicely when she says that 'the inclusion of indigenous languages is a failed constitutional project that does not seem will have any potential to be transmitted through the re-
s
'E
S ç?
Article history: Received date 10.05.2022 Accepted date 16.06.2022 Published date 30.06.2022
^ £
o <u
Section:
Legal aspects in the system of social relations
DOI
10.21303/2313-8416.2022.002556
KEYWORDS
judicial system afrocentricity courts of law South Africa dissertations science education
3 <u U> c
cord-keeping process of the judiciary'. In addition, Hlophe JP of the Western Cape Division of the High Court contends that "language in the courts also needs to be seen within a broader context relating to transformational issues concerning the judiciary and the legal system [6].
South African judicial system, despite trying hard to provide access to justice to all SA citizens through the language/s that they all understand , continue to face numerous critical 'indigenous language-use' transformation challenges. These challenges include addressing institutional cultures that have remained relatively unchanged. These transformational changes are meant to address issues of equity and redress in the democratic judicial system. Despite these developments, the recent outcry by people who speak these African indigenous languages renewed the call for more meaningful engagements between policy makers and the SA judicial system with regard to 'official African indigenous language use' in our courts of laws. [4] puts nicely when he says 'In fact, language use in..., politics, the economy, religion or life in general has been and is still one of the most vexing issues in South Africa.'.
1. 1. The Objects of research
Objects of the research are, to explore, identify and analyze the variables that perpetuate the inadequate use of the official indigenous languages in the South African Judicial System. To suggest or recommend ways to improve language in the South African Judicial System
Definitional terminologies:
1. Language use - the use of a specific language in a specific context for a specific function.
2. Constitution - the whole point of a constitution is to organize politics and society in particular ways, for example, modern constitutions typically organize a state apparatus, provide for representative democracy, define certain rights and civil liberties for citizens, provide a legal system both civil and criminal, organize national defense and sometimes provide for some degree of distributive justice [7].
3. Indigenous Languages - an Indigenous language is any language that is "native" to a particular area [8].
4. Multilingualism in South African Courts, multilingualism - South Africa is presented as an example of a country where "radical multilingualism" prevails [5].
1. 2. Problem Description
Currently, in the South African Judicial, English is the predominant language that is being used for various purposes though many SA citizens are not adequately proficient (i.e both in writing and speaking) in the language and that is the problem. Firstly, people who speak and are confident about their English language competency enjoy expressing themselves in the courts of laws without the fear of being misunderstood. Citizens who want to express themselves in courts of laws do so through translation protocols and that is limiting. Secondly, the only language of record in the SA judicial System is English and this is the problem because no documents that are written in the indigenous languages will be produced for various purposes (e.g. for study purposes). It is against this backdrop that the present article attempted to examine whether equitable use of indigenous official languages in the South African courts of law is attainable or not.
Therefore, this article would like to establish the causes of such a situation (i.e. factors why official African indigenous languages are not used 'fully' as languages of the courts) and propose the steps that should be undertaken to fully realise the use of official African languages in the SA judicial system particularly in the courts of law.
1. 3. Suggested solutions to the problem
Based on the above-accentuated assertions, the following recommendations are made as solutions to the problem:
- we suggest that SA department of justice should develop models of multilingual and multicultural functioning based on the overall goals of the SA constitution and our judicial system and on the specific objectives pursued through the use of these official African indigenous languages. Give preference to the most appropriate models, namely additive models, which entail the use of official indigenous languages at all levels of our courts;
- English is highly rewarded in the South African labour market and the government through vigorous and aggressive policies should place strong economic incentives towards assimilation of these official indigenous languages including in the judicial system;
- language policies that dictate for use of these indigenous official languages be used at all levels of our courts and for all purposes;
- bars should employ assessment activities employing indigenous languages
Perspectives on the use of Indigenous Languages in the Judicial System, a South African
problem.
The debate on the use of indigenous languages in the judicial system/s particular in Africa is beginning to find traction [9, 10]. Pre 1994 period, English and Afrikaans were used as languages of the courts. The apartheid age contributed significantly to the development of Afrikaans as a language and strengthening it as a language of legal discourse in addition to English. In all this, African languages were put on the periphery as languages of legal discourse. In the same vein, the apartheid regime used African languages to promote the homeland system where each homeland was identified by the dominant African language spoken therein, it is therefore not surprising that African languages were wrongly despised by virtue of their association with homelands [4]. Currently mother tongue speakers of English and Afrikaans are placed at an advantage in the SA legal system given that the language of record policy in which to conduct proceedings is English and Afrikaans. Speakers of the nine official African languages have then been placed at a disadvantage in comparison to English and Afrikaans mother tongue speakers who had a choice of language in which to proceed [11]. While they may have been genuine effort on behalf of the SA government to promote and 'use' all the official languages in its judicial system, many intertwined hindering factors emerged are still left undiscussed and un-investigated.
The above is clearly articulated by [5] when he says the following:
The policy of the Department of Justice is that in cases where one of the parties does not speak the language, the case should be conducted in English - the legal lingua franca - and should a case go on review, the records have to be translated in English
On the contrary, the Asmara Declaration on African Languages and Literatures of January 2000 states among other things, that, African languages are vital for the development of democracy based on equality and social justice.
The above assertion made in the Asmara Declaration of African Languages cannot be overemphasised. Ignoring linguistic justice is a recipe for disaster. To highlight this, [4] quote [12] who mentioned that, "what began as a simple request for English to be used in the courtrooms .escalated into a crisis in which dozens of people have died, hundreds have been imprisoned.".
It is against this backdrop that the present article will attempt to examine whether equitable use of indigenous official languages in the South African courts of law is attainable or not. In order to realize this aim, the article will endeavour to answer the following questions:
a) What are the challenges regarding the use of official indigenous languages in the South African courts of law?
b) What are the systemic hindrances to the use of these official indigenous languages as operating languages of the courts and not only for interpreting and translation purposes?
It has to be noted that all these questions will be ventilated and answered not in any particular order. The reason for this is because the answers to these questions are so intertwined and sometimes arguments cut across different questions at once.
2. Materials and Methods
The objects of this Research are: first, to highlight the unfair language practice that is still persisting in the South African Judicial System despite the provisions contained in the democratic constitution of equitable use of all official languages. The researchers in this study rely on researching secondary data about inadequate use of official indigenous languages in the South African Judicial System and carried out an extensive literature review and this articulates to the chosen research approach which is qualitative research approach. Second, to explore the variables that contribute to this appalling state of affairs where English is predominately used in the South African
Judicial System. This was effected through textual analysis as a lens. Third, to suggest possible measures that could be applied to lessen or circumvent the situation.
The main hypothesis in this Research is: the hypothesis that there is an unfair and inadequate usage of official indigenous languages in the SA Judicial System with specific reference to the courts of law. This was tested by conducting a desk-top based investigation.
Null hypothesis (H0): There is no unfair and inadequate usage of official indigenous languages in the SA Judicial System with specific reference to the courts of law.
To round off the above, we reiterate that the researchers relied on researching secondary data about inadequate use of official indigenous languages in the South African Judicial System and carried out an extensive literature review enabling him to gather information related to the topic under study. Secondary data is a process of carrying out a systematic review of previous literature as it relates to the research topic. The investigation adopted qualitative research method as its approach and the reason is because this is a desktop study which involved textual analysis. In other words, literature (texts) on the use of indigenous languages with specific reference to the SA courts of laws were analyzed and scrutinized. In this study, the researcher collected secondary data from previous qualitative studies relating to the research topic. Furthermore, the investigation used Afrocentricity [12] as its linchpin. This was done to so that the investigation can be approached from an African perspective. Furthermore, we also compliment this approach with views from other Afrocentric scholars such as [13] and [14]. This theory starts from the premise that phenomena which are of African nature should be viewed from the perspective of the African person. Therefore, [15] views are thus apt when one attempts to establish whether fair and adequate justice without prejudice is exercised for speakers of these SA official indigenous languages if SA courts of law operate the way they operate according to their different levels. Secondly, in order to properly examine the possibility of fully integrating official indigenous African languages in our courts of law, it is evident that this question would need to be addressed from an African perspective. Thus, an apt foundational theory in this regard would be Afrocentricity [16] since it is a "frame of reference wherein phenomena are viewed from the perspective of the African person" [16]. The emphasis here is that for long lasting solutions, problems afflicting African countries such as South Africa can best be understood, illuminated and resolved from an African perspective, not Western or Asian as is presently the norm [4].
3. Results
The results that are presented below flows from the arguments ventilated above:
a) What are the challenges regarding the use of official indigenous languages in the South African courts of law?
According to [17] there are at least 25 tongues spoken in South Africa. The 11 official are chosen from the above 25 tongues. The 11 official languages are, therefore, just a proportion of the full range of tongues. Thus, the argument that African indigenous languages will enjoy parity with English and Afrikaans in terms of use without clear-cut prioritization of these languages is clearly presumptuous particularly in the context of our courts of law. The SA courts of laws takes place in different regions requiring different language prioritizations. The argument is that South Africa's language policies that govern our courts of laws should take into account the peculiarities of various situations in our country.
The then Acting Chief Justice Raymond Zondo during his interview for the position of Chief Justice responding to the issue about Language Policy of the Courts uttered the following,
'... they were once instructed to look into the language of records' and what came out was that ... 'they had a split, there was the minority view that said it must be English English English all they way and there was another view that wanted African languages to be used together with English. He further said if appointed to the position of Chief Justice he has no intention of trying to change it if he is appointed Chief Justice. ' [18].
The above assertion indicates that SA is far from redressing the linguistic injustice created by the past apartheid regime. It has to be remembered that multilingualism as a language policy for post-1994 South Africa has been proclaimed by President Mandela and all the ministers of educa-
tion from Sibusiso Bengu to the present, but the truth is that within this multilingual and multicultural policy, some languages and cultures are 'more equal than others'; and it is those previously official languages - English and Afrikaans - that continue to be the de facto official languages at the expense of the African languages of the country's majority [19].
Furthermore, it has to be understood that to infringe one's language rights, is to infringe one's human rights. The Constitution obviously has the interests of all South Africans at heart in terms of language policy, but whether this is evident in practice remains to be seen [20]. Thus, the argument in this article is that multilingualism as a language policy is good but not an effective policy to realize the provisions in the SA constitution. You cannot level the playing field with a mul-tilingualism policy in the SA situation. A policy that prioritizes these indigenous languages should have been the start with the intention to move towards a multilingual policy when the playing field was level. Thus, we argue that the principle of 'fair discrimination' is the way to go given the SA situation. This argument stems from the adage 'you cannot treat things (in this case the SA official languages) that are not equal in an equal manner'.
The distribution of languages of South Africa spoken inside and outside of households in SA as indicated in the below figure speaks volumes about the 'picture of languages' in SA. However, it looks like those tasked with the work of drafting language policies particular in the judicial system are oblivious to the 'picture'. English still enjoys predominance all in the name of globalization. Fig. 1 below depicts a sorry state of affairs because it is clear that majority of African speak these indigenous language but the SA judicial system still use the languages of their former colonial masters for court proceedings and other related matters such as the language of record keeping. This is what need to be challenged and confronted.
Afrikaans English EsíNctebeíe IsiXhosa h.i/ijkj
Khotr Narna and San languages Sepedi Sesotho Setswana ■ S a an Ts hi vert da XEtsonga Other
09b 5PS 109É 15?í Z09S 25» 30?i
Share of household members
O Inside O Outside
Fig. 1. Distribution of SA languages spoken inside & outside of households 2018. Source: Statista.
com 2018
Currently, many black people who seek justice through the courts of laws do not have the requisite English competency to engage and participate 'fully' in the judicial proceedings. In addition to this, many of SA police officers (who are very much important in the court proceedings)
lack of English language proficiency [15, 21]. Among many other causes, this is attributed to the fact that English is not a native language of the majority of South Africans. Again, due to the inadequate grasp of English on the part of the majority of SA and the police officers, departments such as the department of justice are then forced to hire more personnel in the form of linguists to help with the court process. All this becomes more expensive for both the department and the country because this requires more funding to pay for services of this other experts who are involved in the court proceedings.
'.witnesses and the accused can testify in any of the eleven official languages or rely on the services of a translator when doing so, lawyers, magistrates and judges may speak only English and Afrikaans, even when all parties before the court speak a first language other than English or Afrikaans [1]. Thus, the argument we advance in here is that all official languages should be treated the same.
Language in the South African judicial system is regulated through policies (e.g at Regional courts, High courts and Constitutional court). One hurdle in integrating South Africa's indigenous languages in the judicial system fully, seem to emanate from the inherited legacy pertaining to institutional inequalities and differences between SA courts of law. The inequalities relate to the language procedures and practices (as enabled by the current language policies in the SA judicial system) that weigh against those who do not speak English and Afrikaans. These language policies do not seem to be adequate to correct the linguistic injustice that still prevails in SA particularly in the courts of law. These policies play unintended role of displacive or displacivity. It is clear that this is not a problem of identifying gaps between language policy and practice but a problem of ineffective and ill-conceived language policy.
Universities (i.e. higher education sector of SA education system) where once instructed to develop their own language policies and report to the government (i.e Department of Higher Education and Training) about their progress in every three years. Why the same strategy was not applied to the judicial system. Is the Judicial System not one of the State owned Enterprise (SOE)? If so, why was it left out on the above matter?
[22] argue that if linguistic rights are to be implemented in Africa, there is need for countries to develop strategic plans that will guarantee linguistic justice. There are various language policies within the SA judicial system which draws from the constitution. However, there are no implementation plan/s to fully integrate official indigenous languages in the SA judicial system that we a researchers in this article are aware and this is a serious challenge for linguistic justice in this country.
The other challenge faced by the official indigenous languages with specific reference to the SA courts of law is the lack of political will and this manifest in the lack of qualified staff to implement the policy of integrating SA official languages and cultures into the SA judicial system is a major challenge for SA. Relatively, very few linguists are employed within the SA judicial system and this is a serious void if one is serious about integrating these languages into the system.
Law societies are also key players in promoting the use of a particular language. The argument here is that associations such as Law societies should take an active role in the integration process of these official indigenous languages into SA courts of laws and as of now that is not happening.
The other problem is globalization. SA judicial system wants to be seen to be on par with global practices, trends and standards forgetting that SA constitution is based on among other things, correction of linguistic injustices of the past. Why do we want to treat these (i.e. South African official languages) equal when they are not equal. When are going to level the playing field before we treat them as equals?
b) What are the systemic hindrances to the use of these official indigenous languages as operating languages of the courts and not only for interpreting and translation purposes?
Official African indigenous languages in SA enjoy Constitutional and legislative protection. However, the argument is that it is at legislative level where most problems occur because of the relative ease with which legislation can be amended. Remember it is very difficult and time consuming to amend the constitution. This hindrance is as a result of the system.
The other systemic hindrance stems from the conceptualization of the SA judicial system and its operation principles. [21] argue that the division of powers makes it impossible for language
regulation in the administration of justice to be completely based on personality. These powers are one cause of linguistic injustice perpetuated to people who speak these official indigenous languages in SA. This powers are lopsided in favour of English. In principle, English is not regulated at any level of the SA courts of law. Yet the majority of the people in SA do not speak English nor understand English to an extent that they can have a legal argument using English.
The other problem we argue relates to the interface between 'the right to use a specific language and the right to an interpreter in the court of law'. Again, this is a systemic challenge. We argue that the right to use official indigenous languages in the judicial system and the right to an interpreter are two different rights and should not be confused. The right to use an official indigenous language is a right enshrined in the SA constitution (i.e in the Bill of Rights), in other words it is a constitutional right. At the constitutional level, this right is entrenched in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 - Chapter 2, Bill of Rights which provides as follows,
Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right:
- to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language;
- whenever this section requires information to be given to a person, that information must be given in a language that the person understands.
On the other hand, the right to an interpreter is concerned with trial fairness or due process [21]. These are clearly different rights. The SA judicial system seems to be content with the notion that 'offering someone the right to an interpreter is fair as far as linguistic justice is concerned. We argue that this is not necessarily true and [21] explicates this point well when he says the following:
fair trial rights are procedural in nature, procedural rights flow from the principle of full answer and defense which is a fundamental tenet of most legal systems. Such rights have no regard for the language being spoken or its status as an official language. The right to an interpreter does not add to the linguistic legal infrastructure.
According to [21] the implications of not recognizing this distinction are serious because those who argue that the right to an interpreter is a language right conflate these separate kinds of rights on the basis that both confer a right to be understood in court, thus this line of reasoning does not appreciate the difference between a proceeding in the official language of one's choice and a trial with an interpreter. The case of Mthethwa v De Bruin in 1998 attest to this contention where Mthethwa, a school teacher, wanted to testify in his own Isizulu indigenous language but the court held that the right to understand in section 35(3)(k) of the Constitution14 does not entail the use of an indigenous language if English is understood [6].
The other that is embedded within the judicial system in SA is the issue of English record keeping. The limitation of record-keeping to English as a language entail that indigenous languages will never be a legal discipline that emanates from the academic discourse if the judiciary perpetuates a narrative that attributes the content and meaning of these languages to logistical problems, the exclusion of indigenous languages from the sphere of record-keeping does not accord with the imperatives of section 6(2) and inhibit their constitutionalised status as envisaged in section 6(1) [6].
Language policies in institutions like the Department of Justice, which are part of the system, are a problem. For example, most of these policies are littered phrases and clauses that are anti-indigenous languages. Take for example, the 'wherever practicable' caveat which is prevalent in some provisions in the language policies that regulate language matters in the SA courts of law is among other things a contributing factor to official African languages not being fully utilised in the SA courts law. These language policies draws from the constitution which in some provisions also make use of the caveat 'wherever practicable'. English is not regulated in our courts of law. This is a serious systemic challenge that should not be left to perpetuate.
For example, one anecdote will illustrate the 'contagious, dangerous and ineffective' of this propensity to use the caveat 'wherever practicable or reasonably practicable' in some of the provisions particularly when it comes to African indigenous languages without looking at its implications carefully. In his/her comments on the SAPS Language policy, an SAPS Language Practitioner expressed his/her satisfaction regarding the caveat 'reasonably practicable' used in some of the pro-
visions regarding indigenous languages because s/he assumed that was a fair and just 'expression'. S/he cited the facts that 'we SA blacks have many languages and are not yet developed'. Yet, s/he forgets that the very same democratic constitution of SA requires that strategies and plans be put in place by various State Owned Enterprises (SOE's) including the SAPS department to 'develop and promote' these languages. On the face of his/her comments, it appeared that Language Practitioner did not envisage the challenges that could come with the caveat 'reasonably practicable' due to its potential many interpretations. Although globally appreciated and praised (i.e the SA Constitution), the continued widespread propensity to use the caveat 'reasonably practicable/wherever practicable' has continued unabated. Even the currently developed language policies in various SOE's are still littered with this uninspiring caveat. This lack of adequate response to the problem belies 'the development and use' of these official African indigenous languages in many government spheres.
In recent years, various astute linguists and political analysts have made efforts to caution those tasked with the responsibility of developing 'these' language policies about using the caveat 'reasonably practicable/wherever practicable' loosely, but fears of resistance, hostility towards, or suspicion about, not using the caveat 'reasonably practicable' deterred many language policy developers from refraining to use the above mentioned caveat when it comes to the use of official African indigenous languages. This caveat is used willy-nilly without without looking at some negative implications might occur due to various interpretations that might come with his use. For example, recently the Minister of Basic Education (i.e. Mrs Motshekga) in SA in answering a recent parliamentary Q&A (Question and Answer) echoed the following regarding Department of Basic Education Language Policy change:
'...her department values mother tongue education and thus encourages learners to learn through their Home Languages wherever it is feasible and practicable'.
All in all, there remain some disconcerting gaps in our knowledge of the problems that can be attributed to the frivolous use of the caveat 'reasonably practicable'. Some need evidence to be built to guide the use of this caveat in our language policies in SA SOE's. One of the objectives of this study is to indicate and prove that this issue is one of the factors that hinder 'full' use these official African languages in our courts of laws. Thus, in a nut shell, the policy change and shift from a Eurocentric focus to an African character of education has not occurred in. in South Africa [19]. This is in our view travesty of linguistic justice.
The first, is the legislative requirement that the record be produced in English [22].This could be remedied by amending the courts language of record policy if we are serious about promoting and developing these indigenous languages at all levels. The second problem is more pervasive and consists of a lack of non-legislative elements of a bilingual judicial system in SA. We argue that these elements should include creating policies and regulations that would deliberately and significantly promote the use of official indigenous languages in the courts of law and also create conducive context in which these languages will be used free of these covertly suffocating languages policies.
Prospects for further research.
Based on the above-accentuated results and arguments, we hope that this study will ignite further research to investigate the following,
- language policy development in the South African Judicial System;
- an investigation into equitable use of the languages encapsulated in the constitution of the Republic of South Africa;
- training of law practitioners in South Africa with emphasis on the language of operation matter;
- promotion and development of indigenous languages in law contexts. 4. Conclusion
Based on document review [22], this paper sought to employ Afrocentricity as an alternative lens to critique and explore various perspectives that highlight hindrances to the full use of SA official indigenous languages in the SA judicial System with specific reference to the courts. It has been established that the use of SA official indigenous languages in the judicial system still leaves much to be desired. We argue that use of these indigenous languages is a form of empowerment
on its own on the part of people who speak these languages and this is captured well in the below quote: '.the importation of English in the nineteenth-century Cape courts was not driven only by considerations of dominance or perceptions of cultural superiority.underlying reason was quite simply. the need to promote justice for the English-speaking section of the population' [5].
It is therefore, paramount that the 'need for justice' be applicable equally among all citizens of South Africa including those that speak these official indigenous languages. We also argue that in SA we need radical linguistic justice if we serious about redressing the previous linguistic injustice of apartheid era. This ideology of 'the co-existence of English and the official African indigenous languages spoken in South Africa' should be revisited with the view to reviewing it. Furthermore, the quantitative data shared in this article allowed us to challenge the assumption English exist harmoniously with these official indigenous languages particularly when it comes to our courts of law because English has established itself as the unquestioned lingua franca in post-1994 South Africa, and dominates in public life, education as well as workplaces. ' [22]. Thus, we argued that the dominance of English in the SA judicial system should be questioned and challenged. Institutions of higher learning were law practitioners study, they (lecturers) rely heavily on international assessors to assess the work of students. For example, it is now mandatory that among theses and dissertations assessors, there should be one international assessor. It would seem that these institutions are oblivious to the fact that most of these international assessors are still rooted in Eurocentric ways of doing research, thus research or knowledge production mechanisms that are Afrocentric in nature takes a serious knock and the manifestations are seen in our courts of laws.
We often hear about Afrikaners fighting for their language rights in institutions of higher learning, but we hardly hear about Africans in particular Blacks fighting for their language rights in institutions of higher learning or even for this languages to be fully used in our judicial system. Have we accepted that our languages are inferior and cannot operate in high level discussions? Thus, we conclude that the SA judicial system is already based on a Eurocentric model that is steeped in Western epistemology and traditions and we argue that this has to be challenged with the intention of making indigenous languages the important levers of our judicial system.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in relation to this paper, as well as the published research results, including the financial aspects of conducting the research, obtaining and using its results, as well as any non-financial personal relationships.
References
[1] Leedy, P. D., Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design. Boston: Pearson.
[2] Azibo, D. A. (2011). Understanding essentialism as fundamental: The Centred African Perspective on the Nature of Prototypical Human Nature Cosmological Ka (Spirit). The Western Journal of Black Studies, 35 (2), 77-91.
[3] Posel, D., Hunter, M., Rudwick, S. (2020). Revisiting the prevalence of English: language use outside the home in South Africa. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-13. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1778707
[4] Adonis, B. (2019). Workplace Literacy Practices of clerks in the South African Police Services (SAPS). University of Cape Town. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/31163
[5] Deumert, A. (2010). Tracking the Demographics of (Urban) Language Shift - An Analysis of South African Census Data. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31 (1), 13-35. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/01434630903215125
[6] Madadzhe, R. N. (2019). Using African Languages at universities in South Africa.The struggle continues. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 58, 205-218. doi: http://doi.org/10.5842/58-0-843
[7] Gruben, V. (2006). A Comparative Examination of Official Minority Languages in the Judicial System: Foundational Principles. 32 Supreme Court Law Review, 1. doi: http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2302699
[8] Ntlama-Makhanya, N. (2021). Revisiting the Debate on the Constitutionalised Status of Indigenous Languages as Language of Record in South African Judicial Proceedings. Beijing Law Review, 12 (4), 1077-1094. doi: http://doi.org/10.4236/ blr.2021.124055
[9] Musau, P. M. (2003). Linguistic Human Rights in Africa: Challenges and Prospects for Indigenous Languages in Kenya, Language Culture and Curriculum, 16 (2), 155-164. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/07908310308666664
[10] Mekoa, I. (2016). Silent no more: Challenges facing black African academics at South African universities. Cape Town: The Incwadi Press.
[11] Docrat, Z., Kaschula, R. H., Ralarala, M. K. (2021). A handbook on Legal Languages and the quest for linguistic equality in South Africa and beyond. African Sun Media under the SUN PReSS Imprint. doi: http://doi.org/10.52779/9781991201270
[12] Walsh, M. (2005). Will Indigenous Languages Survive? Annual Review of Anthropology, 34 (1), 293-315. doi: http://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120629
[13] Ramaoupi, N., L. (2011). African-Centred Education and African Languages: Content and Curriculum in Post-Apartheid Education and Training in South Africa. Policy Brief, Africa Institute of South Africa. Briefing, 56.
[14] The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act No. 108 (1996). Government Printers: Pretoria.
[15] Kajee, L. (2000). An Investigation into Language Police and Training and Development in South African Industry, with particular reference to Departmental Practice at ESKOM. University of Natal.
[16] Lemmer, E. M.; le Roux, J. (Ed.) (1993). On the black child and proficiency in the medium of instruction. The Black Child in Crisis. Pretoria: CTP Book Printers, 146-170.
[17] Distribution of Languages spoken by individuals inside and outside of households in South Africa (2018). Statista.com. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1114302/distribution-of-languages-spoken-inside-and-outside-of-house-holds-in-south-africa/ Last accessed: 04.07.2022
[18] Ndenze, B. (2012). Cops battle to take down statements. IOL News. Available at: http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/cops-battle-to-take-down-statements-1.1377111 Last accessed: 02.11.2014
[19] Kekana, T. (2015). Workplace English Writing Needs: a case a case study of perspectives and experiences of police constables at selected police clusters in Gauteng province, South Africa. University of South Africa.
[20] Lubbe, H. J. (2009). The right to language in court: A language right or a communication right? Beijing Law Review, 12 (4). Available at: https://www.scirp.org/(S(vtj3fa45qm1ean45%20vvffcz55))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=3124839
[21] Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
[22] Van Niekerk, G. (2015). Multilingualism in South African courts: The legislative regulation of language in the Cape during the nineteenth century. Fundamina, 21 (2), 372-39Í1. doi: http://doi.org/10.17159/2411-7870/2015/v21n2a10
