Abstract
Intellectual and political skepticism about the place of the courts in effecting social transformation is not uncommon. In The Hollow Hope, American scholar Gerald Rosenberg strongly criticised the famous US Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education and asserted that it was nearly impossible to generate significant social reforms through litigation, primarily because courts are relatively ineffective and weak. He also argued that courts pale into significance in comparison with other social and political forces, such as, a reforming parliament, a foresighted Executive or a determined civil society. Just as Hitler asked the Pope: where are your battalions? courts lack the financial muscle or the political authority to effect change on their own, thereby attracting a similar kind of cynicism and doubt.
Highlights
Intellectual and political skepticism about the place of the courts in effecting social transformation is not uncommon
To take just the example of gender justice over the last year, a court in Columbia found that femicide was a crime,[3] while another in Botswana recognized a group advocating for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals.[4]
The Court noted that the law prioritised enforcement of intellectual property rights in dealing with the problem of counterfeit medicine and failed to exempt generic drugs and medicines from the definition of counterfeit goods. As a consequence it inadequately protected those who needed such drugs to enhance their health: It has not taken an approach focused on quality and standards which would achieve what the respondents have submitted is the purpose behind the Act: the protection of the petitioners in particular and the general public from substandard medicine
Summary
Intellectual and political skepticism about the place of the courts in effecting social transformation is not uncommon. A number of fairly far-reaching decisions in a range of areas have changed the image of the institution from one riddled by corruption, compromise and cowardice, to a body that is forcing the pace of transformation in the East Africa region In light of these changes, this article starts by providing some background to how the 2010 Kenyan Constitution (the Constitution) changed the human rights landscape in the country. The lens of analysis shifts from the substantive rights to the groups which are supposed to benefit most from their judicial protection: first, women in Part 6, followed by the situation of sexual minorities—with a particular focus on the LGBTI community in Kenya—in Part 7 Using these examples, the article concludes with some reflections on whether these court led interventions will lead to fundamental transformation of the social and economic landscape in the country
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
