1. Legal Education & Public Interest Lawyering in East Africa: The Role of University –based Law Clinics Feb.5-6, 2014 Kampala, Uganda

2.  Development of CLE: 1960’s- 1970’s (US)  Idea borrowed from medical field—good pedagogical tool  Conducive environment/social factors—rights movement  Clinics mostly related to social justice objectives & challenging status quo  Institutional support from American Bar Association—student practice rules; accreditation (pushing for CLE at law schools)  Institutional/Uni support to make CLE part of the law school curriculum  Trend spreads to the Americas & Africa –models & focus shaped by context social factors & needs in the regions

3.  Walk-in legal aid clinics :widely across Africa, Americas; support to indigent; good exposure for students to live cases & clients; engage students in client representation; ethical dilemmas; honing of legal research & writing skills; responsibility for another human being; attention to the client.  Clinic course (with simulations): no live cases, purely pedagogical tool & not service oriented. Main goal-teaching legal skills through simulation.  Volunteer/Student-led clinics: not part of the curriculum, student-led initiatives that focus on engaging communities- legal assistance, referrals, legal empowerment.  Thematic specific clinics: tax, intellectual property, women, children, domestic violence, immigration, PwD, Human Rights, small business. (US-well funded CLE)  Street law/community law model: students visiting schools/communities to teach about the law, constitutional rights. Legal empowerment focused!  Strategic litigation clinics (public interest): focus on achieving fundamental legal, institutional reforms and tackling structural issues perpetuating human rights or constitutional rights violations at national or regional levels.

4.  Accredited course- part of law school curriculum (elective)  Clinic seminar –teaching skills on legal representation, client- centredness, legal research & writing, trial advocacy, simulations, class discussion of cases & ethical issues;  Live cases/projects assigned to student teams-full responsibility to handle cases & projects with minimal staff oversight; -cases address wide range of international human rights issues;  Supervision by clinic staff—close supervision to mentor students on client representation and making court submissions;  Student exposure:  --Exposure to live international human rights issues, jurisprudence, socio- economic and political context in other countries;  --Exposure to using the law as a tool for social change & legal or institutional reform  --Generating student interest & commitment to human rights law practice  --Enables ‘student agency’ in playing an active part in fundamental reforms  Fora: Regional and International Courts/Mechanisms targeted  (ie: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; UN mechanisms);

5.  Strong emphasis on pedagogy- CLE as a tool to impart legal skills  Legal aid clinics- service oriented; expose students to needs/rights of indigent  Specialized clinics- specific thematic focus clinics  Human rights clinic model- first developed in the US & spread to the Americas  Enabling factors:  Social context—1960’s rights movement; interest in social justice & human rights  Support by ABA—CLE becomes part of law school curricula; accreditation raises CLE profile  Student practice rules enables students to litigate cases w/ staff supervision  Additional institutional support- CLEA; clinical conferences & networks, funders w/ CLE interest  Accreditation has made it easier to secure funds from core university budget  Interest in practical approach to teaching law in US (no mandatory internship reqm’t)

6.  Legal services model predominate in Africa—influenced by social context!!  Majority of universities in Africa with law departments/schools have a law clinic.  With exception of SA & Nigeria, boasting clinics in most of the law schools across the 2 countries; most other countries may have established clinics only in the leading or main universities; CLE still not widespread across the region. Some have yet to establish a university-based law clinic as such.  Factors affecting development of predominant CLE in Africa: SOCIAL CONTEXT  --access to justice focus/meeting overwhelming demand for services by indigent communities  --filling the gap left by State  -focus on professional training – “learning by doing”  -weak funding sources—limited university budgets;  -not focused on changing status quo or generating fundamental legal reforms  Exception: SA –strong institutional support-State sponsors/supports university-based law clinics- recognize role in promoting access to justice and complementing State duty to provide legal services  Recent trend- specialized clinics--example: HIV clinics & PwD clinics (external support)  No human rights or strategic litigation clinic model in the region—trend has not developed as yet.  Why not?? Limited political space to challenge gov’t action; limitations on student practice in court; formalistic law curriculum w/ focus on theory or commercial law?

7.  Student exposure: expose students to public interest law, human rights and social justice issues  Skills building: Hands-on experience with live cases & projects (critical legal analysis skills; human rights fact-finding and documentation; legal research & writing; advocacy skills; strategic lawyering skills; public speaking & presentation skills)  Agents of change: placing students at center of social change actions; students become players in fundamental legal & intuitional reforms  Professional training: placements w/ human rights NGOs (w/ supervision) hones professional skills  Commitment to public interest/human rights law- training a new generation of public interest lawyer; lawyers socially conscious and aware of civic duties to their community.  Bridging the gap between theory & practice: applying human rights law to real-life contexts & cases; students learn to appreciate and respond to complex socio-legal issues in context!  Learning in context: students exposed to topical issues and learn to address them through interactions with local human rights experts, advocates & activists; not purely theoretical learning.

8.  Securing funding (weak university support/financing); must compete for funds from external donors  Limited political space to allow for HR clinics challenging status quo  Formalistic law curricula w/ little appreciation of the human rights clinic model  Limitations on student practice in courts  National judicial system/judiciary rigidity/formalism