Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in Africa is growing and flourishing but the region is not a global leader in conflict resolution. The African region still has many challenges to overcome. The region has the potential to expand, grow and thrive with foreign direct investment to boost its economies and ensure stability for its infrastructure. The African region is rich in many natural resources, but, unfortunately, interstate conflict causes instability to social, political and economic rights. This article explores the weaknesses and challenges within the African region with a view to activating the potential of the region to become a global leader in alternative dispute resolution. The enforcement and implementation mechanisms of alternative dispute resolution require an evaluation of current systems to ensure that there is an animate thrust of dispute resolution. The African systems have their strengths, but an evaluation of any system always exposes weaknesses. Corruption within the African region is a common theme, since government does not play an active role in deterring corruption, and this causes the public to mistrust all initiatives that stem from government influence. The article discusses the situation in four African countries, showing that corruption, lack of education and a lack of skilled ADR practitioners cause a dysfunctional system that cannot embrace ADR. For an ADR system to function smoothly, numerous ADR practitioners are needed to resolve conflict competently. Furthermore, a selective system of favouring laws that support only the government as opposed to investors causes an imbalance, and discourages investors from investing in Africa. A way needs to be paved, not to negate international practices relating to investor disputes, but rather to work holistically with national laws, to harmonise laws and overcome any conflict of law within the region.

Resumo Na África do Sul, a Lei de Promoção da Acesso à Informação nº 2 (PAIA), de 2000, dá efetividade ao direito de acesso na Seção 32 da Constituição da África do Sul (a Constituição). A Seção 7 da PAIA prevê que esta lei não se aplica aos registros necessários para processos criminais ou civis após o início do processo, em que o acesso a esse registro já tenha sido previsto em outra lei. Quando os registros são obtidos por violação à Seção 7, não são admissíveis como prova em processos criminais ou civis. O objetivo deste trabalho é verificar se as regras estabelecidas pela corte para a fase de pré-julgamento (Discovery) limitam o direito constitucional de acesso à informação. A metodologia empregada neste artigo envolve uma análise jurídica, a saber: uma análise de limitações utilizando a Seção 36, a cláusula de limitação da Constituição. Este artigo apresenta ainda análises de jurisprudência que interpretam o exercício do direito de acesso à informação antes e depois da aprovação da PAIA, para destacar a anomalia da aplicação da Seção 7. Este artigo argumenta que a Seção 7 representa uma limitação inconstitucional do direito de acesso à informação, o que enseja um desafio no âmbito constitucional.

Abstract In South Africa, the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) gives effect to the right of access information in Section 32 of the South African Constitution (the Constitution). Section 7 of PAIA provides that PAIA does not apply to records required for criminal or civil proceedings after commencement of proceedings where access to that record is already provided for in any other law. Where records are obtained in contravention of Section 7, they are not admissible as evidence in criminal or civil proceedings. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the discovery rules of Court limit the constitutional right of everyone to access information. Consequently, the methodology employed in this paper involves a legal analysis namely: a limitations analysis utilising Section 36, the limitations clause of the Constitution. This paper further engages in case law analysis interpreting the exercise of the right of access to information before PAIA was passed and after PAIA was passed to highlight the anomaly of the application of Section 7. This paper argues that Section 7 unconstitutionally limits the ambit of the right of access to information and a direct constitutional challenge on this provision is necessary.