PART A: Background to the African Regional Human Rights System serve as substitutes for permanent members if they were unable to carry out their duties. Prior to its suspension, the Tribunal could issue preliminary rulings and advisory opinions135 and had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between states and community; disputes between natural or legal persons and community; and disputes between community and staff.136 The powers of the Tribunal pursuant to applicable law were limited to interpretation of the SADC Treaty, all its protocols and subsidiary instruments adopted by institutions of the SADC. Article 24(3) of the Protocol states that decisions of the Tribunal are final and binding and there is no further instance of appeal. Article 32(5) stipulates that if a Member State fails to give effect to decisions of the Tribunal, the decisions are enforceable through the SADC Summit; however, the weakness of enforcement powers due to a lack of political will of Members States was exposed following the Tribunal’s judgement in the Campbell case137 on discriminatory property legislation in Zimbabwe. This ruling initiated a discussion about limitation of Tribunal’s powers, eventually resulting in disbandment of the Tribunal.138 The case concerned a group of white farmers, whose land was confiscated by the government, as a consequence of a compulsory land expropriation programme. The Tribunal held that Amendment 17, section 16b of the Zimbabwean Constitution, which excluded the possibility of challenging land expropriation, denied applicants the right to a fair hearing and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, thereby breaching Article 4 (c) of the SADC Treaty.139 Following refusal of the Zimbabwean government to comply with the decision and pay the farmers compensation and the failure of the Summit to act, Zimbabwe successfully lobbied with other SADC Member States for the Tribunal’s suspension. Although the Tribunal was not a human rights court per se, Article 14 of the Protocol conferred special powers on the Tribunal to interpret the SADC Treaty in line with the principles of human rights, rule of law and democracy.140 Therefore the Tribunal could and did adjudicate on human rights cases.141 If the Tribunal’s mandate was limited to disputes between States, its role in human rights protection would be 135 SADCT Protocol, Articles 16 and 20. 136 Ibid., Articles 17, 18 and 19. 137 SADCT, Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, Case No. SADC (T) 2/2007 (28 November 2008). 138 SADC Heads of State and Government, 32nd Summit, Maputo (Mozambique), Final Communiqué (18 August 2012). 139 SADCT, Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, Case No. SADC (T) 2/2008, supra note 138, p. 18. 140 Article 14, SADCT Protocol. 141 See for example SADCT, Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, Case No. SADC (T) 2/2008; L. T. Gondo and Others v. Zimbabwe, Case No. SADC (T) 5/2008, (9 December 2010). 41