The South African Public Protector, the Ugandan Inspector-General of Government and the Namibian Ombudsman: a Comparative Review of their Roles in Good Governance and Human Rights Protection

Abstract

Three African ombudsman institutions – the South African Public Protector, the Ugandan Inspector-General of Government (IGG), and the Namibian Ombudsman – as well as attendant legislation, are assessed in terms of the historical role played in ensuring good governance and human rights protection. South Africa, Namibia and Uganda were chosen for comparison because all are transitional societies with similar recent histories, and because over the last two decades all three countries have been in the process of reforming and transforming their societies by attempting to improve the protection of human rights. The differences between the three ombudsman institutions, however, are not a reflection of their strengths and weaknesses, as they were established under different circumstances, for slightly different reasons, and within particular contexts. The differences are, in fact, grounded in the extent of the mandates of the institutions; the level of their independence; the extent of their powers; and how they exercise such mandates, independence and powers. The Namibian Ombudsman has several ‘strengths’ over its counterparts: a much broader mandate; a unique, innovative and progressive environmental mandate; and a higher level of independence. The Ugandan IGG, on the other hand, seems to enjoy more powers than its counterparts. It is concluded that all three institutions have played, and continue to play, an important role in good governance and human rights protection – albeit in varying degrees.