The African Core Group Presentation
When I’m not with master trainers, the Chief Justice of India, the US Ambassador to the Czech Republic, or going on field trips, my mind is in Africa.
In May, Marek and Monique invited me to join their weekly roundtable. Monique is the Justice Consultant at the CEELI Institute and manages the African Judicial Exchange Network. She’s frequently traveling, and it’s always surprising to see where she’s joining us for the virtual roundtable. As I got to know her better, I discovered she has a fantastic sense of humor, a background in international corrections, and a treasure trove of captivating stories. Marek is the Director of Programs and one of the two leadership heads at the CEELI Institute. He’s also a member of two bands, one of which is famous in the Czech Republic. Their debut album received three Anděl nominations, the Czech equivalent of the Grammys. After attending an OECD conference in Paris, Marek took to the stage for a concert in Prague. To put it simply, he’s an outstanding boss. Marek and Monique have traveled together for work throughout Africa and Asia, so they have a unique and exceptional sense of professional comradery. I always look forward to my weekly Tuesday roundtables with them, and they never fail to brighten my day.
The African Judicial Network is a recent and developing extension of the CEELI Institute’s network. Marek emphasized that although we’re expanding our reach, the Institute focuses on quality over quantity. We like to be specific and deliberate with our partnerships to ensure the maximum impact of our programs. Our core group comprises eleven Anglo-African countries, and the judicial members are interested in a range of topics, including asset recovery, anti-corruption, cyber security, and cryptocurrency. During our first meeting, Marek and Monique took the time to inquire about my interests to ensure that I’ll be content and effective in my role. Their effort to spark my passion for research truly showcases my fantastic experience here. I answered honestly: I have recent analytical experience in certain African countries, which has given me a substantial intellectual interest in the continent. But beyond that, I’d find the greatest joy in performing the most helpful research possible for them and the Network. We decided that I would research the anti-corruption systems in all eleven countries and build an internal comparative law template for the CEELI Institute to reference while they develop programs and publications for the Network.
I didn’t want to make a document that was sort of helpful, I was all in. I listened carefully at our meetings to exactly what Monique and Marek wanted. When there seemed to be an absence of information, I dug deeper. Laws that buttressed countries’ anti-corruption systems were like elusive animals, and I was the hunter. After a few weeks of roundtables filled with constructive feedback, the product began to form. Monique and Marek saw external potential for it. There was suddenly a chance that it would be sent to the African Judicial Network before the core group meeting to see if they’d be interested in using my work as a reference tool in their countries. I sent in a finalized version of nine countries and held my breath. The next day, I was invited to attend the core group meeting and introduce myself and my research to the members. Marek and Monique were curious to see how the judges and justices would react to my anti-corruption analysis; I, on the other hand, was extremely nervous. Presenting a holistic framework of a nation’s anti-corruption system is already daunting, much less when my audience is esteemed judicial members and it’s their home countries.
That evening, the Villa was silent. The only other people in the historic landmark were our security guard and a housekeeper, who had been patiently waiting for a small gap in my packed EST schedule to tidy up my office. My RA meeting finished at 19:00, and the core group meeting was live. With an apologetic bow to the housekeeper, I grabbed my laptop and notes and hustled into the CEELI Institute’s small kitchen—affectionately known as the “office in a pinch.” The African judges and justices were already having a lively discussion. I enjoyed the show, it brought back fond memories of the master trainers. Everyone introduced themselves and their country whenever they participated; you could feel that the conversation spanned a continent. The CEELI Institute does prioritize quality over quantity, but the valuable impact of our work nevertheless grips the entire globe.
The last item on the list was my research. Monique cued me, I turned my camera on, and presented in front of thirteen judges and justices from eleven African countries. I wrapped up by thanking them for the privilege of participating in this collaboration and welcomed any questions and comments in the future. The sound of Monique’s moderation shortly after was supremely comforting, but it only lasted for a few seconds. Her concluding remarks were suddenly interrupted, “Yes, this is Justice X from Uganda.” My stomach dropped. I discovered a new level of intellectual fear.
“I think the presentation from Emma is very informative. From what I’ve seen so far, in Uganda, her research is wholesome and reflects what is on the ground.” He praised me for the intelligible way I approached my analysis. But how far is the research going to go? Can I tell them what other things I’d put in to have a full-blown reflection on the topic?
I smiled and described additional sections on domesticating international treaties and clarifying the distinctions between seemingly identical commissions. Less than a second later, “Emma, this is Justice Y, a point you might want to consider for the Zambian perspective…” In Zambia, various agencies are pursuing corruption when their mandate isn’t defined as prosecutors or investigators of corruption. With that comes suspicion of abuse by the ruling party. Are they using the agencies to fix the opposition leaders? “There’s a lot of that simmering in Zambia. Are these agencies generally prosecuting corruption or are they being used as an engine for suppressing opposition?” Core group members from several countries began chiming in because, depending on the party in power, some public institutions I’d researched would go after the political opposition. A justice from Ghana explained how the Special Prosecutor is in a tussle with the courts, and that’s defining the paradigm of the Office of the Special Prosecutor in terms of what they can do in fighting corruption. For instance, a few weeks ago, the High Court placed an injunction on the Special Prosecutor (who has the power of arrest) and said he couldn’t arrest a particular person. The comments kept coming. Each justice wanted to give me a contextual background to build my research and highlight distinctions. They brought my analysis to life before my eyes. After a while, Monique stepped in and took me out of the hot seat. I beamed with pride when she promised to give the members my contact information to continue our conversations. My work had engaged them.
Twenty minutes later, I stepped into the cool night air and headed towards the vineyards, where my mother and godmother were waiting for me. I couldn’t believe I’d just presented my comparative legal research to judicial members from eleven countries. It was an incredible feeling, especially because Marek and Monique trusted me to deliver for them. I’d gone from creating an internal CEELI tool to exhibiting my work to our core group and possibly being “semi-publicized.” And the response was clear: the African Judiciary Network was interested.
