Dr Chrispas Nyombi, Associate Professor, school of Law, University of Derby

1. Introduction

The idea behind an East African Federation (EAF) dates back to the early 1960s, around the time Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar were gaining independence from Britain. The political leaders of the four nations had become interested in forming an EAF. Julius Nyerere even offered in 1960 to delay the imminent independence of Tanganyika in order for all of the East African territories to achieve independence together as a federation. Consequently, the East African Community (EAC) is the only Regional Economic Community (REC) in Africa whose treaty explicitly states that it aspires to establish a political federation. Article 2 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community (EAC Treaty) establishes a Customs Union and a Common Market as transitional stages towards political federation. Once realised, it would be the most populous nation in Africa with around 283 million people and 4th in the world’s population, greater than that of Russia, Japan, Mexico and Indonesia, behind only China, India and the United States. While the official language will be English, Swahili was proposed as an official lingua franca, spoken by around 200 million people in Africa, predominantly in East Africa. However, the initial stages of integration have faced many implementation challenges thereby casting a shadow of uncertainty over the proposed federation.

This blog does not seek to interrogate specific policies and theories on federalism but rather, to explain the foundations of the EAF and the prevailing bottlenecks to achieving Nyerere’s vision. Therefore, this blog aims to contribute to the discourse on measures to accelerate the creation of a Political Federation in the EAC.

1. The foundations of the East Africa Federation

In June 1963, Kenyan Prime Minister, Jomo Kenyatta, met with Tanganyika’s President, Julius Nyerere, and Ugandan Prime Minister, Milton Obote, in Nairobi; the three discussed the possibility of merging their three nations. But the project seemed to stall, largely due to political differences, but not in vain, as Tanganyika and Zanzibar formed a union in April of 1964, consequently forming the United Republic of Tanzania. A few years later, with a vision of creating a United States of East Africa, the leaders of these newly independent countries set their differences aside and created the EAC in 1967, which at the time used the East African shilling as its currency. It was later dissolved in 1977 and the unfortunate dissolution occurred following political disputes between the Partner States regarding legislative seats and the lack of political will for nations to cooperate. There was also some grumbling within Partner States particularly Tanzania, that the integration would benefit Kenya the most as it was the most developed country out of all the Partner States.

Two decades later, following six years of negotiations, the leaders of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania signed the re-formed EAC Treaty. It came with a four-step plan; first a Customs Union, second a Common Market, third a Monetary Union and fourth, a Political Federation. The end goal was to create a union of the Partner States of the EAC, currently, the Republic of Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Republic of Kenya, the Republic of Rwanda, the Republic of South Sudan, the Republic of Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania, into a single federated State. This means, for all intents and purposes, the whole area was to become one sovereign state or country.

1. The building blocks of the East Africa Federation

The idea of establishing an EAF gained momentum in 2005 following the creation of a Customs Union with the objective of removing tariffs on imports and exports among Partner States thereby setting up the groundwork for national integration. This is reflected in subsequent EAC Development Strategies. The Fourth EAC Development Strategy (2011/2012-2015/2016) sought to consolidate the benefits of a fully-fledged Customs Union, including enhancing market access and trade competitiveness. Similarly, the Fifth EAC Development Strategy (2016/17 – 2020/21) had the overall goal of consolidating the Single Customs Territory (SCT) as envisaged under the Common Market and Monetary Union Protocols. The latest, Sixth EAC Development Strategy (2021/22- 2025/2026), seeks further consolidation through the enhancement of regional industrial development and institutional transformation. Therefore, there is sustained effort, reflected in the EAC Development Strategies, to streamline and iron-out prevailing challenges to the efficient operation of the EAC Customs Union. However, many problems still persist including Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) and varying customs valuation procedures resulting in different computed values for taxation.

In addition, since 2005, the EAC Partner States have been working towards the creation of a single market. The EAC Common Market Protocol provides for the progressive implementation of the free movement of goods, the free movement of persons, the free movement of labour, the right of establishment, the right of residence, the free movement of services and the free movement of capital. In implementing the Common Market Protocol, the EAC made efforts to identify and reduce NTBs linked to the introduction of the Common External Tariff (CET) and free trade arrangements concerning goods coming from EAC Partner States. As a result, Partner States have resolved some of the NTBs which were identified as barriers to regional integration in the first Common Market Scorecard (2014). However, a number of unresolved NTBs persist, including:

1. Restrictive business practices in various forms including harassment by county and city by-laws, multiple levies which raise cost of doing business and restrictions against traders from certain localities.
2. Failure to implement agreed laws regarding the single air space in the EAC region to allow regional airlines to operate as domestic airlines.
3. Weak harmonisation/convergence of policies and strategies among EAC Partner States to support the growth of cross border trade and investment.

In response, the EAC Secretariat has initiated mechanisms such as National Monitoring Committees to work with the Partner States to eliminate NTBs. To strengthen them, the EAC should consider having a legally binding NTB elimination mechanism that provides for sanctions that can be imposed by an independent body.

Furthermore, the EAC Partner States have begun the process of harmonizing critical policies and putting in place the requisite institutions to attain a single currency for the region by 2024 as outlined in Part H of the Protocol on the Established of the East African Community Monetary Union. The federation’s proposed common currency, inspired by the European Union’s switch to the Euro in 1999, would be the East African shilling, which was the sterling unit of account in British controlled areas of East Africa from 1921 until 1969 following the collapse of British rule. As a result, in 2013, the EAC Partner States, apart from South Sudan, agreed to progressively converge their currencies by harmonising fiscal and monetary policies. Kenya Uganda Tanzania and Rwanda now present their budgets simultaneously every June. However, progress has been slow and there is still a long way to go. A currency union still looks difficult for two reasons; the first being that each country still has its own unique currency and the second is that each currency has experienced wildly different exchange rate fluctuation which means convergence would be somewhat difficult.

While a Political Federation was originally supposed to be last in the phases of implementation, it has been fast-tracked so that it can be implemented alongside the Monetary Union. In 2018, a committee of experts was set up to process the drafting of a constitution and in January 2020, the committee announced that it would have a draft constitution ready by the end of 2021, with ratification expected by the end of 2023. However, the committee has struggled with delays fuelled by political tensions between Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda. For instance, Rwanda boycotted a consultation meeting on drafting the constitution and accused both Burundi and Uganda of supporting opposition political movements in Rwanda. As a result, the deadline is expected to be missed.

1. What are the prevailing bottlenecks and how to overcome them?

Having examined the progress made towards realising the EAC’s four-stage plan with the ultimate goal of forming Political Federation, it is evident that a number of strategic bottlenecks remain and if not resolved, would continue to impede the integration process. Four bottlenecks are examined here. First, there is the fear that Partner States will lose power and independence of decision-making. Uncertainty remains on how the political federation will modify the sovereignty of the Partner States and the kind of sovereignty that will emerge out of the political federation. In particular, since federation results in the birth of a new international entity, Partner States are still grappling with the idea of ceding sovereignty. As a way forward, it is important that the East African people are sensitised to appreciate that political federation involves ceding some sovereignty. The EAC should also implement fully the stages of integration preceding the political federation before launching it so that its citizens can see the tangible benefits thereby building the necessary support and confidence in eventual federation.

Second, the EAC Treaty indicates that political federation is the ultimate objective of the Community (Article 5 (2)) but does not provide any guidance to the process on the establishment of the EAC political federation or specify the nature of the desired federation. This leaves only the principles provided for in the treaty including that of equitable distribution of benefits, subsidiarity, complementarity, variable geometry and asymmetry as a guide. It is therefore suggested that Partner States negotiate a new arrangement for the establishment of a Political Federation on the basis of concrete principles with a clear appreciation of the model of political federation desired.

Third, there is a general fear that poor governance practices including human rights abuse and failure to observe constitutionalism and the rule of law may spill over to Partner States with better governance records. Thus, a federation risks undoing progress made at national level, for example, in fighting corruption. As a way forward, the EAC Partner States concluded a Protocol on Good Governance and they should build on this by establishing strong implementation mechanisms and empower the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) to be a strong defender of regional standards on good governance including extending its jurisdiction to cover human rights.

Last, differences in the levels of social-economic development between nations and even within nations could endanger the integration efforts. So how do variably-developed economies move into a Single Market without disadvantaging some Partner States? It is the author’s suggestion that the Partner States should develop new policies to improve the operationality of the EAC Development Fund and agree a deadline for Partner States to streamline their national laws and policies to conform with the Common Market Protocol.

1. Summary

In conclusion, for the EAC to realise the desired vision, a systematic mind-set change on the way integration is approached should be considered. In order to realise this, action is needed to operationalise Articles 8 (4) and (5) of the EAC Treaty to “…confer precedence of Community organs, institution and laws over similar national ones…” and diagnose the inherent problems associated with forfeiture of individual sovereign status of Partner States. Also, Partner States should first realise earlier stages of integration envisaged in Article 5 of the EAC Treaty, that is; Customs Union, Common Market, strengthened by a Monetary Union. Overlapping entry into different stages of integration is partly to blame for the delays, institutional shocks and resistance. To avoid this, the EAC should develop a rational roadmap towards a political federation with milestones and benchmarks. It is also critically important that leaders of the seven Partner States send a clear signal of strong political will and commitment to the political federation through their actions. Overall, despite the enormous strides that have already been taken towards achieving the integration targets, without political will and commitment coupled with the right integration strategies and policies, the EAC citizens and other stakeholders would remain ever more sceptical about the political federation and the imperatives of such union.

 

Author: Emilia Onyema, Independent International arbitrator, and Professor of International Commercial Law at SOAS University of London.

Introduction

Most arbitration laws and rules provide for an odd-number arbitral tribunals and generally, the majority of tribunals, are composed of either a sole or three-member arbitrator(s). Examples are, Article 7(1) of the UNCITRAL 2010 Arbitration Rules; Article 12(1) of the ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules; and Article 12 of the 2012 KIAC Rules.

This blog examines the nature of these two types of tribunals and focuses on the participation of arbitrators in a multi-member tribunal and suggests the need for greater engagement of all the members of a tribunal in any arbitration. This refers to more engagement of all the arbitrators in the tasks of the tribunal. This will ensure that co-arbitrators gain actual practical experience and develop their practice as arbitrators. This blog examines these issues from the perspective of a sole arbitrator tribunal and a multi-member arbitral tribunal and concludes.

Sole Arbitrator

An arbitral tribunal composed of a sole arbitrator appears to be favoured under some national arbitration laws and arbitration rules, particularly in (seemingly) less complex and low value disputes. In some institutions, the sole arbitrator tribunal is favoured for the appointment of new arbitrators. In such a tribunal, the individual forming the tribunal is all by themself during the arbitral proceedings and makes all decisions by themself. They may appoint a tribunal secretary but the role of such a secretary is very limited and not considered in this blog [for more information on tribunal secretaries, see ICCA 2015 Report].

At the end of the proceedings, the sole arbitrator determines the issues and makes their decision. Some arbitration practitioners describe the sole arbitrator tribunal as a lonely one. The arbitrator has no one to bounce ideas off or discuss the issues arising from the dispute. New entrants as arbitrators, also find themselves sitting as sole arbitrators. As is well known, the vast majority of disputes are not as straightforward as they may initially appear. This may be a good experience for the new arbitrator to ‘cut their teeth’ but the workload may also cause disillusionment for the unsuspecting.

On the positive, we recognise that this creates a good opportunity for the sole arbitrator to learn their trade and develop their practice. However, because they are all by themself, the benefits will be greatly multiplied or enhanced when the sole arbitrator acts under a set of rules that provides scrutiny of awards before such awards are published [such as under the ICC, KIAC, Iran Centre, Rules]. Such a scrutiny process allows experienced arbitration colleagues that are members of the particular centre or their court, to read the draft award with fresh eyes and provide comments for the consideration of the sole arbitrator. In the experience of colleagues, such scrutiny, they say, has always been helpful and reassuring to them of the soundness of the decision they make.

As it relates to the sole arbitrator and their opportunity for repeat appointments, one major downside to acting as a sole arbitrator, is the fact that other arbitrators cannot speak to your practice or abilities as an arbitrator. This ‘recommendation’ by other arbitrators remains important with arbitrator recommendation databases such as Arbitrator Intelligence. These databases draw their ratings or recommendations from the comments or feedback from other arbitrators who can speak to the practice of those arbitrators they have sat with. Therefore, if an arbitrator always acts as a sole arbitrator, few colleagues can speak to their arbitration practice. This is compounded by the fact that few commercial arbitral awards are published except, if the award’s enforcement is challenged or it goes through an annulment procedure, to possibly bring the award into the public domain.

This blog, therefore, suggests that there must be a balance in the acceptance of appointments by prospective arbitrators. In particular for new entrants who need the support of other colleagues to develop their practices and decision-making abilities. It may, therefore, be more prudent for new entrants to be appointed onto multi-member tribunals with established arbitrators from whom they can learn and who can ‘recommend’ or speak directly to their practice and abilities. This recommendation presupposes that in such a multi-member tribunal, all arbitrators fully engage with the process and meaningfully contribute to the proceedings and decision-making, which may not necessarily be a correct presumption.

Multi-member Tribunal

The other type of arbitral tribunal is usually composed of multiple individuals of an odd number and the most common is a three-member tribunal. There can also be five or even more members tribunals but this configuration does not impact either way on the discussion in this blog. A multi-member tribunal has the advantages of discussion and sharing of views and ideas on the dispute between its members. In addition, members of the tribunal can speak from direct knowledge of the arbitration practice of the other members of the tribunal as discussed above.

It is important to observe that this type of tribunal may impact the cost of the arbitration as the parties may pay more for more arbitrators or more hours spent by the tribunal. It is also correct to observe that a multi-member tribunal may impact on the fees earned by each arbitrator as they may share the pre-determined fee payable and so earn less than if the tribunal was composed of a sole arbitrator.

A multi-member tribunal may also take longer with greater logistical problems with physical meetings and different time zones for virtual hearings. One major task in a multi-member tribunal (which is not relevant in a sole member tribunal) is the selection and appointment of a presiding arbitrator. We note that most information available online on the presiding arbitrator focus on how such arbitrator may be selected and appointed. One example is the Jus Mundi Protocol. There is little published on the role of the presiding arbitrator which is primarily managerial. An 2017 article from the China Business Law Journal notes that the presiding arbitrator has great influence over the outcome of the arbitration.

Some arbitration laws and rules allocate a greater role or function to the presiding arbitrator, who generally may be paid a higher fee. For example, the presiding arbitrator may on their own, make procedural decisions and effectively chair meetings whether with the parties or only the tribunal members. The presiding arbitrator also leads the evidentiary hearing and corresponds between the tribunal and parties (particularly in the absence of a tribunal secretary) and in ad hoc arbitrations may organize the deposit and payment or disbursement of funds from the parties. In recognition of these extra tasks, the presiding arbitrator may earn a little more or clock more billable hours than the co-arbitrators.

Some (presiding) arbitrators have sometimes bemoaned the lack of participation or little engagement from some co-arbitrators appointed onto multi-member tribunals. The possibility that a co-arbitrator can passively go through the arbitration without performing any major task of drafting or leading a meeting with the parties, is very concerning and is the main trigger for this blog.

If the argument is for new entrants to be appointed onto multi-member tribunals as discussed above, then all arbitrators must have the opportunity to fully participate in any tribunal they are appointed onto. This blog recognises and examines two different managerial styles adopted by presiding arbitrators and argues that a more participatory tribunal, with a division of tasks to be performed by all members of the tribunal, is the more beneficial style for the parties and the international arbitration community. The blog also acknowledges the possibility that more presiding arbitrators style will fall somewhere between the spectrum of the two polar-opposite styles discussed below.

Presiding Arbitrators Management Styles

There appears to be two polar-opposite styles adopted by presiding arbitrators. One style can be described as ‘participatory’ which engages with the co-arbitrators, and the second style can be described as ‘domineering’ or ‘controlling’, which does most of the tasks by themself and the co-arbitrators are not as engaged as they could possibly be.

The participatory presiding arbitrator is one that ensures the active participation of all members of the tribunal. They engage the co-arbitrators and may allocate some drafting tasks for the consideration of the tribunal before it is issued. For example, co-arbitrators can draft the terms of appointment, agenda for the preliminary meeting, procedural orders, and other decisions of the tribunal and may be allocated sections of the final award to draft. As a learning tool, such participation will be beneficial to new entrants who when they are appointed as sole arbitrators, will understand the process and how to write various decisions.

The domineering presiding arbitrator’s style is to take absolute control over the arbitration (in some cases as though they were a sole arbitrator) with the misconceived notion that the success of the arbitration is their sole responsibility. In such a situation, the presiding arbitrator forgets that the success of the arbitration is the responsibility of the tribunal (not one arbitrator). Such presiding arbitrator basically takes charge of the arbitration and performs all or most of the tasks themselves and hopefully keeping the co-arbitrators informed.

There are tasks that the presiding arbitrator can and ideally should share with the co-arbitrators, particularly at the award drafting stage. For example, the co-arbitrators or one of them can draft the procedural history, the issues can be split between the arbitrators (after deliberations) to draft, with the presiding arbitrator pulling all drafts together as one document for review of the members of the tribunal. Some presiding arbitrators prefer to draft the final award by themselves (after the deliberations) and circulate to the co-arbitrators for comments and further discussions, if necessary, before the draft is finalised for publication to the parties or to the institution.

As already noted, it may be that some presiding arbitrators fall somewhere between these two broad descriptions. It is however important that presiding arbitrators avoid the domineering style.

The question that these two styles raise is whether the parties (and co-arbitrators) should be informed of the managerial style of the proposed nominee to preside over the tribunal, before they are appointed. To effect this, it will require each arbitrator to identify their presiding style and the reasons for their preferred style, and their willingness to adapt as necessary and as needed by the co-arbitrators.

Conclusion

This blog shares some thoughts on the managerial styles of presiding arbitrators and identified two broad styles, one being participatory (and which is the preferred option if circumstances permit) and the domineering style which should be avoided. The blog also argues for each arbitrator (particularly new entrants) to resist having too many appointments as sole arbitrator or as co-arbitrator without any experience of sitting as a presiding arbitrator.

Par 

Selma JERIBI

Université Paris-Saclay (Evry Val d’Essonne), France

La France a toujours entretenu, en matière d’arbitrage, avec le continent africain des liens forts et dynamiques. Elle continue, encore aujourd’hui, à nourrir ce partenariat qu’on peut qualifier de vigoureux et privilégié. En effet, cette relation particulière explique le fait que Paris soit souvent choisis comme siège de l’arbitrage mais surtout que la reconnaissance et l’exequatur des sentences rendues au sein du continent africain soit souvent demandées en France. 

Cependant, ce choix est loin d’être laissé au hasard en ce qu’il détermine un certain nombre de conséquences juridiques essentielles tels que les juridictions compétentes pour statuer sur un éventuel recours en annulation de la sentence arbitrale. Il fixe, également, la possibilité pour la sentence d’être exécutée en vertu de la Convention de New York ; celle-ci revêt une importance considérable en ce qu’elle poursuit un but d’harmonisation des règles régissant la reconnaissance et l’exécution des sentences étrangères. 

L’attractivité de la France quant à l’exécution de la sentence arbitrale s’explique par sa spécificité relative à l’autorisation de la reconnaissance et l’exécution d’une sentence étrangère, même si celle-ci a été annulée dans son pays d’origine. En effet, comparé à d’autres pays, la position française est favorable à l’arbitrage international. 

En particulier dans le célèbre arrêt Hilmarton (Cass. 1re civ., 23 mars 1994, n° 92-15.137),  la Cour de cassation française a affirmé, pour la première fois, que « la sentence rendue en Suisse était une sentence internationale qui n’était pas intégrée dans l’ordre juridique de cet État, de sorte que son existence demeurait établie malgré son annulation et que sa reconnaissance en France n’était pas contraire à l’ordre public international ». Autrement-dit, si une sentence étrangère a été annulée, celle-ci peut tout de même être exécutée en France, dès lors qu’elle remplit les conditions d’obtention de l’exequatur dans l’ordre juridique français. 

Une autre illustration tout à fait stupéfiante est venue renforcée cette position. Il s’agit l’arrêt Putrabali (Cass. 1ère ch. civ., 29 juin 2007, premier arrêt n° 05-18.053) qui affirme un principe selon lequel « la sentence internationale n’est rattachée à aucun ordre juridique ». Elle constitue « une décision de justice internationale dont la régularité est examinée au regard des règles applicables dans le pays où sa reconnaissance et son exécution sont demandées ». Ainsi, si une sentence a été annulé par les juridictions du pays du siège de l’arbitrage, ceci ne fera pas obstacle au fait qu’elle puisse être exécutée en France. Cette décision consacre une certaine autonomie de la sentence internationale. 

Cette solution se fonde notamment sur l’article VII-1 de la Convention de New York qui permet, en effet, à la partie qui demande l’exequatur d’une sentence de se prévaloir des dispositions plus favorables à l’exécution de la sentence de la loi de l’État requis que celles prévues par la Convention elle-même. Autrement-dit, on peut se prévaloir des règles d’un pays plutôt que celles de la Convention de New York, dès lors qu’elles sont plus favorables aux parties. 

De plus, un autre arrêt rendu par la Cour de Cassation (Cass. civ 1re, 17 oct. 2000, n°98-11776) a confirmé, concernant une sentence arbitrale prononcée à Dakar, que les règles régissant la reconnaissance et l’exécution sont à la fois applicables aux sentences arbitrales internationales et aux sentences rendues à l’étranger. Le caractère interne ou international étant indifférent, selon la Cour de Cassation. 

En résumé, l’annulation d’une sentence internationale ou étrangère ne constitue pas un cas de refus d’exécution en France. 

Cette solution libérale contraste avec celle concernant les sentences rendues en France puis annulée par les juridictions étatiques françaises. Celles-ci ne bénéficient, évidemment pas, de cet avantage. En effet, l’article 1504, alinéa 2, du code français de procédure civile précise que le recours en annulation emporte de plein droit recours à l’encontre de l’ordonnance d’exequatur ou dessaisissement du juge de l’exécution quand celui-ci ne s’est pas encore prononcé. Ainsi, si l’exequatur a été accordé elle sera annulée à l’occasion du recours en annulation.

En conclusion, le choix de la France comme siège de l’arbitrage ne permettra pas aux pays du continent africain de bénéficier de cette solution avantageuse qu’est la reconnaissance et l’exécution de la sentence en dépit de son annulation. En revanche, s’ils choisissent d’exécuter la sentence rendue à l’étranger en France, ils pourront profiter de cette exécution alors que celle-ci a été annulé dans le pays du siège de l’arbitrage. 

 

The 2^nd AYA Mentoring Programme: The Reflections of a Mentee

Ibrahim Godofa*^[1]

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great mentor” – Japanese Proverb

This aptly describes how I reflect on every session with my mentor and buddy during this programme. I have been actively seeking to make progress in the field of arbitration for a couple of years now, dating back to my days as an undergraduate student of law at the University of Nairobi. I went into this programme hoping to add on to what I have already learnt. However, the things that I have learnt have given me immense clarity towards my ambitions in this field.

Together with my mentor and buddy, we were able to arrange frequent sessions online during which we had open and candid conversations around my budding career in arbitration. Sessions were well structured with clear objectives and agenda and a sufficient time allocation to go through them. The end of each session provided a clear idea of what is to be deliberated upon during the next one. During these sessions, I also received very generous feedback on my progress regarding various exercises that we set at the beginning of the programme. Under the guidance of the mentor, we also evaluated the progress of the programme at regular intervals.

I picked a lot of lessons throughout the programme. Through an eye-opening brainstorming session and guided personal reflections, I managed to gain clarity on my specific areas of interest in arbitration. Following extensive feedback on my sample writings in investment arbitration, I have gained massive knowledge in this area which will certainly form the foundation of my career in this sector. After a couple of discussions, I am happy to have developed a clear professional profile and career plan in arbitration for at least the next five years. These are just but some of the key lessons I picked.

The impact of the programme on my career is one that is still unfolding. As at the conclusion of the period for the mentoring programme, I can confidently report that my knowledge, skills, and ambitions in arbitration have moved from point A to point B. I now enjoy a wider understanding of my areas of focus in arbitration. This has given me the leverage to follow nuanced debates and developments in these areas. Additionally, I now have a much better appreciation of the contexts behind the various developments in international investment arbitration courtesy of picking my mentor and buddy’s brains on topical issues. I cannot wait to see what the future holds for me in investment arbitration as well arbitration & technology.

In addition to guidance in arbitration, I was lucky to gain insights into other areas of practice from my mentor and buddy. Being a bar candidate, I was just at the beginning of my legal career during the duration of this programme. This naturally meant that I was filled with many questions regarding my early years in practice, further studies, as well as the different paths that exist in the practice of arbitration and the law. I could not have been any luckier with the choice of mentor and buddy that was availed to me. My mentor is in academia and my buddy works with a reputable arbitral institution. Both are also experienced practitioners. The wealth of wisdom available to me at this nascent stage in my career has been immense. I now feel better equipped not just in pursuit of my arbitration ambitions, but also as I embark on pupillage and as I continue to ponder about further studies. Further, the fact that the programme partners one mentee with one mentor and one buddy provides a priceless one-on-one opportunity to sufficiently interact with an undivided attention. Due to this close interaction, a mentee can easily gain mentors for life who choose to continue committing to their growth even beyond the lifespan of the programme.

It is apparent that the programme has been of great benefit to me. However, I believe it could have even been better. Taking place in the middle of a global pandemic meant that the restrictions in place robbed the programme off some valuable activities. During our first session for example, one of the parameters identified by my mentor to report back on was my experiences sitting in and observing arbitration sessions. This was ultimately defeated by logistical circumstances related to the pandemic. This is an exercise that would have been very important towards enhancing my skills as a future arbitrator. The programme duration of six months also seemed rather short to collaborate on projects that would have required a longer period to perfect.

These notwithstanding, there are reasons why I believe that this programme has been especially helpful to me. Key among them was the stage in career development in which I was during the programme. In my jurisdiction, as I suspect is the case in several other jurisdictions, it is not particularly easy to gain meaningful knowledge, and skills in a field like arbitration while still in school or in the first few years of practice. An exposure to a programme like this at this opportune moment, is likely to enable a young practitioner to hit the ground running and avoid many pitfalls that would have taken several years in practice to perfect. Recollecting from my experience, I believe many younger practitioners deserve a chance to be considered for such a programme earlier on in their careers.

The last six months have been the most significant for my ambitions of a career in arbitration so far. I owe a lot to my mentor and buddy for their selfless commitment towards developing my potential. And a hat tip towards the Association of Young Arbitrators for enabling the dreams and passion of young African arbitration enthusiasts and practitioners to find encouragement and support from accomplished arbitration giants on the continent and the world over. We are all better for it.

1. Mentee in Team ‘J’. Mentor (Professor Emilia Onyema), Buddy (Dr. Mohamed Hafez). ↑

We are delighted to launch our African Arbitrator Interview Series today!

The series features African arbitrators in discussion with Arbitrator Intelligence Ambassadors

In our first video, Africa Campaign Co-Chair Alice Gyamfi had the pleasure of interviewing arbitrator and academic Dr EMILIA ONYEMA of SOAS University of London.

We are grateful to Emilia for sharing her insights and experiences.

Emilia on arbitrator appointments:

“We have to rely a lot on personal knowledge and information, who we know, who we have seen act, who we have sat with. Arbitration is very tricky because it is like introducing people.. and they fall in love. When they fall out of love, they come calling that you introduced me to this person and so one has to be more careful with the names you suggest because you want to almost be sure that the names you suggest, they can actually deliver if they get that appointment. The other thing that has really worked well is institutions and groups such as Arbitrator Intelligence and GAR and groups that put names together…We are trying to expand and get more people involved.”

You can watch the video on youtube https://youtu.be/e18MhveSK6c or directly here.

Wolters Kluwer International Group has kindly donated copies of two books edited by Emilia as prizes for this campaign.

Arbitrator Intelligence website can be reached here https://arbitratorintelligence.com/

September 18th, 2020 is a day of mourning for the legal community around the world. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, aged 87, after serving on the Supreme Court of the United States for a little over 27 years.

She was the daughter of a Russian Jewish immigrant and her mother was also born to Jewish immigrants but from Austria. In her early years the Holocaust was happening to her people, even though she was far away from the place in which this awful event took place, she must have suffered because of it.

Not many years before her birth, the 19^th Amendment of the United States Constitution was passed, and women just gained the right to vote in the United States. She also lived through times when anti-miscegenation laws prohibited interracial marriage and interracial sexual relations among other things. She saw many things change through her lifetime.

To make a career as a lawyer, or any profession for that at her time as a student and at the beginning of her career, she suffered from discrimination for the simple fact that she was a woman. Not much was expected at the time professionally for women and nevertheless she kept fighting.

She had a strong belief in equality, certainly on human rights but also on discrimination in general. She was in favor of affirmative action programs and believed in respecting the law, all the law, including international law which she cited many times.

She believed that affirmative action programs would lead to equality and advance specially for vulnerable groups affected by unemployment, lack of health care and quality education as well as poverty. She believed that everyone has the same rights regardless of their nationality, race, religion, among others.

The African Promise has a value that is certainly in line with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s principles. She achieved, against the odds not only to be a Justice in the Supreme Court of the United States but an icon in equality and a warrior against discrimination.

I’m sure that one day, a letter like this will be written praising the African Promise results. Because something has been wrong for a long time, it does not mean that it cannot be changed. Courage is needed to step up and gain a place in the world. The world is becoming smaller with technology and every day we gain more access to knowledge and people we didn’t have before.

I know that the day in which everyone will be included and considered in the arbitration world is very near, there’s still much to do, but also much has been done and the African Promise will always be remembered as a cornerstone of this achievement.

Dr. Ernesto Briseno, MCIArb.

Abogado, Ispayur, Madrid, Spain

Email: eb@ispayur.es