سودانايل أول صحيفة سودانية رقمية تصدر من الخرطوم
أخبار أخرى
هذه مكاتبات جرت في 2006 بيني وبين البروفسير كلف تومسون، عميد كلية القانون بجامعة وسكونسن (مادسون) والمحاضر بكلية القانون بجامعة الخرطوم في الستينات، حول القانون الذي يحكم العلاقة بين الرعاة والمستثمرين في الزراعة الآلية التي تطفلت على أرضهم. وتومسون بالمناسبة هو صاحب كتاب بالإنجليزية لم يصدر بعد عن ثورة أكتوبر 1964 التي شغف بها لمنزلة القانون والقانونيين في اشعالها وترتيب بيتها بعد ذلك. قرأت لتومسون مقالاً في مجلة قوانين السودان (1965) تطرق فيه لقضية ناشبة بين رعاة ومستثمرين زراعيين في منطقة القضارف. واسترعى انتباهي ذكره بأن القاضي الذي فصل في النزاع استعان بقانون إنجليزي (ربما رأى تومسون مفارقته للظرف العدلي المتعين) بدلاً من ان يبدع حكماً يتكيف به مع وضع التقاضي المتعين. وعبرت له عن حدسي أن اتباع القاضي للقانون الإنجليزي بغير بصيرة ربما اضر بمصالح الرعاة. وبدا لي أنه قال إن القانون الإنجليزي القديم لابد قد جنح في زمانه إلى تمكين أهل الزراعة على حساب أهل الماشية. وسيقودنا هذا، إن صح، إلى ظلم بين لرعاة القضارف الذين تقحمتهم الزراعة الالية مدججة بالدولة وببنكها الزراعي والبنك الدولي الذي رعى الزراعة الآلية بوصفها من الحداثة يستبدل بها اقتصاد الرعاة الشقي الفقير. ولم أرد بهذه المذكرة سوى لفت النظر لعنايتي الباكرةبالرحل ومصلحتهم في ذمتي لأنني من قلائل الباحثين في جيلي الذين وقفوا عن كثب على ديناميكية حياتهم ومنطقها.
أورد النصوص الإنجليزية للخطابات المتبادلة لفائدة من أراد.
Ibrahim, Abdullahi A. wrote:
Dear Cliff,
I will take you back to an old article, that of 1965; the SLJ edition.
On pages 494-495 you made reference to a dispute in al-Gadarif over land for which the judge resorted to English law when he could have, in your criticism, referenced local practices. I am curious as to what English cases (dates) that judge cited in his ruling. Would you kindly explain the terms “liability for trespass” and “liability for negligence” in this context?
I want to cause you to be nostalgic a little bit. Thanks.
Abdullahi
From: Cliff Thompson [mailto:cfthomps@wisc.edu]
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:46 PM
To: Ibrahim, Abdullahi A.
Cc: Cliff Thompson
Subject: Re: missing person
Dear Abdullahi,
1)I found my volume of SLJR 1965 with no search, and that big book did bring nice nostalgia. I hope I documented my basic point with footnote 104 on the same page. I added the Gedaref anecdote because it was vivid in my mind. Saeed Mohd Ahmed and Zaki Mustafa (both on the Sudan law Project) may have both been along, certainly one was there, a typical long evening of chat with some of the judges. I never collected the case, which I’d read that day or within the preceding couple of days, a short decision relying not even on a rule from an English case (what the English more than Americans call the ratio decedendi) but on an aside, an obiter dictum. The situation of the case involved liability for the trespass of cattle on setlled farm land, and the policy of the govt was trying to help settle farm land. The contrast of possible rules was between “strict liability for cattle trespass” (the owners of the cattle would be respponsible for damage even if they had not been negligent) vs. “liability only for negligence” (reasonable care would be required of the cattle owners, but not strict responsibility (normally put on persons who deal in ultra-hazardous activities).
Anyway, instead of trying to think of a decision that might make sense in terms of policy, the judge just tried to make a mechanical, automatic decision, based on obscure English doctrine. I think we all agreed the narrow approach was not a good method.
2) I don’t think you’ve sent me the email for the person(s) in Kht to help track Abdel Hamed Abdel-Rahim
3) for interest see the attachment, which I’ve made available in hope of getting some students into my African Law course next semester. If it mistates anything you are doing, at least you’re not named by name!
All the best
Cliff
Ibrahim, Abdullahi A. wrote:
Dear Cliff,
Thanks for answering my query. What is the “ratio decedendi?” I have been looking at which side the law was on in the conflict between nomads and agribusiness. How would the judge’s ‘mechanical decision” could have prejudiced him toward the agribusiness? Could you suggest a reference to consult on the historical context of these English precedents? I am coming to this issue from a suspicion that agribusiness men benefited from this “lack of creativity” on the part of judges. The nomads received the short end of the stick in these elite and business transactions. I don’t want to make these assertions boldly although anthropology sources are on my side. Thanks.
I read with relish the descriptions of the course. Thanks for acknowledging me. I would miss being here to plan a visit to Madison to participate in this unique academic even. In addition to publishing something from the book in this year anniversary of the revolution, I would explore the possibility of telecasting the class closet to the 21st of October to a gathering of interested Sudanese in Khartoum. Think about it.
Abdullahi
Dear Abdullahi,
ratio decidendi used in regard to a judicial decision roughly means the rule for which the case is an authority. The Latin phrase is not much used in the US, but at least when I was a student, was much discussed in England. As you might imagine, there were many theories about how you arrived at the “correct” ratio decidendi for a case.
re the nomads vs agribusiness, for sure the use of English precedents in no way contributed to a rational policy dispute or resolution. The English rules sometimes date back for centuries. The American Holmes famously attacked judicial rules for which there was no justification except history. But what else may have been at work in Sudan would be speculation on my part (e.g., that the courts used the English cases as a shield for forwarding agribusiness which they favored)
