This study examines the role of institutional mechanisms in local government accountability by undertaking a comparative assessment of the Nigerian institutional provisions against the European Charter of Local Self-Government. The specific objectives of the study are to examine the institutional mechanisms for local government accountability in Nigeria, evaluate the Nigerian mechanisms, using the provisions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government and subsequently determine how the effective deployment of institutional mechanisms may enhance the prospects of local government accountability. The study adopts as methodology a comparative analytical framework, under which it uses the provisions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government to evaluate the Nigerian institutional mechanisms. Findings of the study led to a conclusion that for emerging political systems, which Nigeria typifies, institutionalized mechanisms of (political) accountability in the local government system, are truly less effective than the non-institutionalized or informal mechanisms. For the effective deployment of institutional mechanisms to enhance the prospects of local government accountability, the study concludes that a judiciary component of the local structures of governance is an unconditional necessity, as in the absence of such conditions; the incidence at the local level, totally ceases to be describable as government.

/pdf/institutional-mechanisms-for-local-government-accountability-1k8odzzbgi.pdf

Institutional mechanisms for local government accountability: Evaluating the Nigerian provisions against the European charter of local self-government

The judiciary and the Constitution in Zimbabwe

A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree: 
Masters of Laws LLM by Dissertation (Research) LAWS8002 
Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management - School of Law 
University of Witwatersrand, 
2017

Unlocking the impact of South Africa's correctional centre conditions on inmates' rights

The system of budgetary control includes a variety of procedures, obligations and instruments which lead to change the workplace and offer better services and goods.The budgetary control process is compromised of budgeting, planning, controlling and evaluating, which provides a formal basis for monitoring and controlling, towards the achievement of the objectives specified in the budgeting and planning stages, thus providing evaluating and makes auditing as a component part in the process which is necessary to be able to make corrections to current operations and activities in order to meet the original objectives and plans.Furthermore, accountability is an essential element of good governance so the need for accountability and efficiency of service
delivery in public organizations, put‟s public organizations at the fore front in establishment of control systems. Hence it is necessary to explore the factors that determine and impact accountability in the public sector.This paper presents the relationships between budgetary control, planning, monitoring and controlling,
auditing, and integrity with accountability in the public sector and their impact on accountability in the public sector is examined.

Toward a unifying framework for budgetary control and accountability in the public sector

The majority of livestock farmers in the selected rural areas of Giyani Policing Area (GPA) (Makosha and Xikukwana) are losing out to stock theft with ineffective justice system options on offer (Magistrates’ Court vs Traditional Court). They work in isolation on these courts destroys the livestock farmers’ relationships with the local courts further causing increase in stock theft cases. This paper adds to the limited body of knowledge on the subject under exploration by highlighting the salient dimensions and components found to be essential in understanding the impacts of the available court systems. All of these salient dimensions and components were supported by literature review and fieldwork participant’s responses. It is for this reason that the paper proposes this avenue of research. The paper adopted qualitative research approach, data were collected from 30 participants involving (7) Giyani SAPS STU officials (Key Informant Interviews - KIIs), (20:10) rural livestock farmers (Focus Group Discussions) and (3) Department of Justice and Development: Giyani Magistrates’ Court [DoJ & CD: GMC] (KIIs) officials purposively, supplemented with courts session direct observations. The main findings of the paper show that the Traditional Court finalise stock theft cases speedily with financial rewards to the affected victims. The paper finds that the both officials for the courts in contention encounter difficulties to establish ownership of unbranded livestock, possession of stolen livestock illegally relocated or even slaughtered and control on the part of stock thieves. The impact of stock theft on rural livestock farmers resource-poor and small-scale farmers, is often more severe because they often lack resources to prevent and protect their livestock and they have small numbers of livestock. The paper also highlight the fact that the livestock farmers do not trust the functioning and performance of local DoJ & CD: GMC, their hope lies on the local traditional court operation. For recommendation; the paper advices that all role-players in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) should find ways to improve and expedite the handling of stock theft cases. It is noted that dealing with stock theft cases remains a specialised field for prosecutors, thus, the skills levels of court officials dealing with these matters need to be appropriate and adequate. Furthermore, the training of livestock farmers and responsible stakeholders of either of the available courts should be improved.

Justice for Rural Livestock Farmers in Giyani Policing Area

Incidents of a lack of accountability, often associated with an element of corruption, amongpublic officials and institutions when rendering public services, is a worldwide occurrence.In an attempt to address this governance tendency, governments increasingly look towardsmore sophisticated managerial methods such as improved monitoring and evaluationsystems, and performance management systems, to address accountability deficits ingovernance. Such a managerial method is not necessarily similar to the rational theory as aremnant of the New Public Management (NPM). The prevailing belief in the NPM is thatimproved effectiveness and efficiencies enhance accountability and eliminate corruption.Accountability, however, is a political concept that relates to a power discourse. Citizens areoften unable to influence government decisions affecting their lives and eliminate theabuse of power by the government. A key challenge in practice is, accordingly, to createforms of accountability in terms of which citizens can have control over and sanction suchabuse of power. This type of approach necessarily positions accountability in a non-rationalneo-institutional theory framework. The article explores existing accountabilitymechanisms that scholars propose as solutions to address governance challenges and tostrengthen weak accountability. These mechanisms are analysed so as to indicateweaknesses and strengths of each. It then deals with other accountability mechanisms thatrelate to a neo-institutional theory framework and discusses strengths and weaknesses ofthose mechanisms. The article concludes with proposals of alternative innovativeaccountability mechanisms with which citizens could hold the public sector to account.

/pdf/mechanisms-to-improve-accountability-in-the-public-sector-44nx07arwq.pdf

Mechanisms to improve accountability in the public sector

The courts of law exercise their judicial authority with independence and impartiality and therefore an order issued by a court may only be altered by another court with higher jurisdiction. When a court convicts a person of a crime, it considers an appropriate punishment, for example a prison sentence, to reach carefully determined objectives aimed at the rehabilitation of the offender. Once sentenced, the offender is placed in the custody of correctional services to serve the sentence imposed. The role of correctional services is to aim at attaining a positive change in the conduct of the offender. A Correctional Supervision and Parole Board, however, has the authority to place a prisoner on parole after considering a profile report on that prisoner. This administrative action is tantamount to an alteration of the trial court's judicial decision on an appropriate sentence. The Correctional Supervision and Parole Board is not part of the court of law structure and its action appears to be in conflict with the indication of the Constitutional Court that a non-judicial official may not encroach upon the functions of a judicial official. The purpose of this article is to focus on the distinct actions and independence of the judiciary and highlight the complexity of the process that the trial court follows before deciding on an appropriate sentence in a particular case. This article also reflects on the question of whether a Correctional Supervision and Parole Board should have such significant authority that it impacts on a court's judicial decision. To sustain the stated question, mention is made of the current challenges that thwart the effective functioning of such a Board. Proposals are made as to a more appropriate role for a Correctional Supervision and Parole Board so that its administrative actions would not be tantamount to an alteration of the trial court's sentence.

Mike Van Heerden

Papers

Mechanisms to improve accountability in the public sector

Parole board administrative action : an encroachment on the judicial decisions of the courts of law of South Africa