Beyond the Courts: How the Benghazi Justice Conference Could Shape Parliamentary Leadership on Rule of Law in Africa

As Benghazi prepares to host an international conference on justice and legal reform, its multidisciplinary architecture presents important lessons for parliamentary governance across Africa

By Olu Ibekwe

When policymakers, legislators, judges, human rights practitioners, correctional authorities, academics and international experts gather in Benghazi from 28 to 30 July 2026 for the First Benghazi International Conference on Justice and Legal Reform, much of the attention will understandably focus on the condition of justice and correctional institutions in Libya.

However, the significance of the conference extends beyond its immediate national context.

The gathering presents an opportunity to examine a broader and often overlooked principle: justice reform cannot be delivered by courts alone. Sustainable reform requires modern legislation, effective executive implementation, independent judicial institutions, parliamentary oversight, professional correctional administration, credible human rights monitoring and sustained public accountability.

Organized by the National Committee for the Follow-up of Prison and Detainee Conditions, with the National Council for Public Freedoms and Human Rights of the Libyan House of Representatives participating in the organization and issuing invitations to national, regional and international institutions, the conference brings together stakeholders who ordinarily operate in different parts of the governance system.

Its architecture is therefore one of its most noteworthy features.

Rather than approaching justice reform solely as a judicial or executive matter, the conference seeks to bring legislators, human rights institutions, correctional authorities, judicial professionals, academics, policymakers and international organizations into a common conversation. This reflects a whole-of-government and, more accurately, a whole-of-governance approach based on the understanding that durable reform depends on sustained dialogue and coordination across institutions.

That insight has relevance far beyond Libya. It speaks directly to governance challenges confronting many African states, where justice-sector reforms are sometimes undertaken in isolation from legislative modernization, institutional oversight, human rights monitoring and adequate public financing.

Justice as the Foundation of Reconciliation

The conference is being convened under the theme “Justice is the Foundation of Reconciliation.”

That theme situates legal and correctional reform within the wider pursuit of peace, national reconciliation and sustainable stability. It recognizes that justice is not simply about resolving individual cases or administering punishment. It is also about rebuilding confidence in public institutions, protecting human dignity and establishing a credible foundation for social and political reconciliation.

According to the conference programme, discussions will be organized around four principal dimensions:

• the legislative dimension;
• the procedural dimension;
• the humanitarian and political dimension; and
• the international dimension.

The agenda covers legal frameworks for protecting the rights of inmates, alternatives to custodial sentences, institutional development, digital transformation, humanitarian initiatives, peace building, national reconciliation and international cooperation. It also highlights implementation of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, commonly known as the Nelson Mandela Rules.

Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in their revised form in December 2015, the Nelson Mandela Rules establish internationally recognized minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners. They are founded on respect for the inherent dignity and value of every person deprived of liberty and provide guidance on such matters as accommodation, healthcare, discipline, investigation of deaths in custody and independent prison inspection.

By addressing legislation, institutional procedures, human rights, correctional administration and reconciliation together, the Benghazi Conference acknowledges that these issues cannot be effectively separated from one another.

The Parliamentary Significance

One of the conference’s most important features is the participation of the National Council for Public Freedoms and Human Rights, an institution linked to the Libyan House of Representatives, in its organization and international outreach.

This parliamentary connection is significant because discussions about justice reform are frequently dominated by courts, ministries of justice, prosecutors, police institutions and prison administrations. Although all these institutions are indispensable, they operate within legal and financial frameworks largely shaped by legislatures.

Parliaments enact the laws governing criminal offences, arrest, detention, trial, sentencing, imprisonment, rehabilitation and reintegration. They amend outdated laws, create oversight institutions, approve public expenditure and scrutinize the performance of executive agencies responsible for justice and correctional administration.

Courts interpret and apply legislation, but they ordinarily do not write national criminal-justice policy or appropriate the funds required to implement it. Executive institutions administer justice policies, but their authority and resources must remain subject to law and democratic accountability.

Justice reform therefore requires legislative ownership alongside judicial independence and effective executive implementation.

The involvement of an institution associated with the House of Representatives signals recognition that legislatures should not remain peripheral to discussions about correctional reform, human rights and the rule of law. Parliament has both the authority and responsibility to ensure that reform proposals are translated into legislation, adequately financed and subjected to sustained oversight.

Parliament as an Institution of Accountability

Parliaments are commonly described as law-making bodies, but legislation is only one part of their constitutional responsibility.

They are also institutions of accountability.

Through parliamentary committees, investigations, public hearings, questions to ministers, budget scrutiny and consideration of reports from public institutions, legislatures can examine whether justice agencies are operating lawfully, effectively and in conformity with human rights standards.

In the correctional sector, parliamentary oversight can help answer fundamental questions:

Are detention facilities operating within the law?

Are inmates being treated with dignity?

Are correctional institutions adequately funded?

Are deaths, injuries and allegations of ill-treatment in custody independently investigated?

Do prisoners have access to legal representation, healthcare and complaints mechanisms?

Are women, children, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable detainees receiving appropriate protection?

Are rehabilitation and reintegration programmes producing meaningful results?

These are not matters that should be left exclusively to prison administrators. They concern public expenditure, constitutional rights, institutional accountability and the legitimacy of the justice system itself.

Parliamentary committees can visit detention centres, receive evidence from correctional officials and human rights institutions, review annual reports and require governments to respond to identified violations or institutional failures.

Budgetary oversight is equally important. Governments may announce ambitious reforms, but such reforms cannot succeed without sufficient resources for infrastructure, healthcare, staff training, legal aid, rehabilitation, digital record systems and independent inspection.

Parliaments therefore provide a necessary bridge between policy commitments and practical implementation.

From Punishment to Correction and Rehabilitation

The conference programme’s emphasis on correctional and rehabilitation institutions also presents an opportunity to reconsider the purpose of imprisonment.

A justice system cannot be assessed only by the number of people it arrests, prosecutes or imprisons. It must also be evaluated by whether it respects due process, protects society, treats offenders humanely, reduces reoffending and prepares those who have served their sentences for successful reintegration into society.

This requires a shift from an exclusively punitive approach towards a genuinely correctional philosophy.

Rehabilitation programmes, education, vocational training, mental-health support, family contact and post-release assistance are not signs of institutional weakness. They are practical investments in public safety and social stability.

The conference’s proposed consideration of alternatives to custodial sentences is especially relevant. Imprisonment may not always be the most appropriate response to minor or non-violent offences. Carefully designed non-custodial measures can reduce prison overcrowding, lower public expenditure and enable appropriate offenders to remain connected to their families and communities while being held accountable.

However, alternatives to imprisonment generally require clear legislation, judicial guidance, institutional capacity and effective supervision. This again demonstrates why correctional reform requires cooperation between parliaments, courts and executive agencies rather than isolated administrative action.

The Rule of Law Is an Institutional Ecosystem

Perhaps the central message underlying the conference is that the rule of law operates as an institutional ecosystem.

Within that ecosystem:

• parliaments enact laws, approve budgets and exercise democratic oversight;
• courts interpret and apply the law independently;
• prosecutors make decisions about criminal proceedings;
• law-enforcement agencies investigate offences and enforce lawful orders;
• correctional institutions administer sentences and support rehabilitation;
• human rights bodies monitor compliance and investigate violations;
• legal practitioners defend rights and support access to justice;
• universities and research institutions generate evidence and policy options;
• civil society organizations represent affected communities and promote accountability;
• regional and international organizations provide standards, expertise and comparative experience.

If one part of this system is weak, unaccountable or disconnected from the others, the entire justice chain may be compromised.

Modern laws will have little effect where institutions lack the capacity or willingness to implement them. Independent courts cannot protect rights effectively where individuals lack access to lawyers or where judicial decisions are ignored. Prison reforms cannot succeed where correctional authorities remain underfunded, oversight mechanisms are ineffective or overcrowding is driven by excessive pretrial detention.

Conversely, executive efficiency without judicial independence or legislative oversight may produce administrative power without adequate accountability.

The challenge is therefore not merely to reform individual institutions, but to strengthen the relationships among them.

That is why the conference’s multidisciplinary architecture matters. By creating space for institutions to examine common problems collectively, the gathering can help expose gaps between law, policy and implementation that may not be visible when sectors operate in isolation.

Why the Conference Matters to Africa

Although the conference is being held in Libya, its principal concerns are shared across the continent.

Many African states continue to confront prison overcrowding, prolonged pretrial detention, inadequate legal representation, deteriorating correctional infrastructure, limited rehabilitation services and weak independent oversight.

At the same time, governments are seeking to modernize justice administration through digital technology, alternative dispute resolution, revised criminal procedures and improved institutional coordination.

The problem is frequently not the total absence of reform initiatives. It is their fragmentation.

A ministry may pursue prison reform without corresponding amendments to criminal-procedure laws. Courts may introduce case-management systems while correctional services continue to rely on incomplete manual records. Human rights institutions may document abuses, but parliaments may not systematically consider their reports or compel executive responses.

Similarly, countries may endorse international and regional standards without adequately translating them into domestic legislation, budgets and institutional practices.

The Benghazi Conference offers an opportunity to examine these disconnections.

Its integrated structure suggests that justice reform should be treated as a continuing governance project rather than a collection of unrelated institutional initiatives. That approach aligns with Aspiration 3 of the African Union’s Agenda 2063, which envisages an Africa founded on good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law.

Justice reform also contributes to peace and security. Where citizens do not trust courts, police, correctional institutions or public authorities, grievances may deepen and social conflict may become more difficult to resolve. Conversely, credible institutions can help create confidence that disputes and violations will be addressed through lawful processes rather than violence or political retaliation.

This gives the conference’s theme “Justice is the Foundation of Reconciliation” wider continental resonance.

Lessons for National Parliaments

National parliaments across Africa could draw several lessons from the conference’s focus.

First, justice-sector oversight should not be irregular. Parliamentary scrutiny often intensifies only after a prison disturbance, a high-profile abuse allegation or a major court decision. Effective oversight should instead be continuous, systematic and evidence-based.

Second, parliamentary committees responsible for justice, human rights, security, finance and public accounts should coordinate their work. Correctional reform cuts across all these portfolios and may be weakened when committees consider the issues separately.

Third, national legislatures should create structured relationships with national human rights institutions. Reports and recommendations from such bodies should be formally considered by relevant committees, followed by government responses and implementation monitoring.

Fourth, parliaments should examine whether existing criminal laws contribute unnecessarily to prison congestion. Outdated offences, restrictive bail systems, slow trial processes and limited non-custodial sentencing options can all increase pressure on correctional institutions.

Finally, members of parliament should recognize detention conditions as a matter of constitutional governance rather than administrative detail. The treatment of persons deprived of liberty is one of the clearest tests of whether a state respects human dignity even when individuals are unpopular, accused or convicted.

Lessons for the Pan-African Parliament

The conference also provides an important opportunity for reflection by the Pan-African Parliament.

As the parliamentary organ of the African Union, the PAP provides a continental platform through which African parliamentarians can promote democracy, good governance, human rights, justice and the rule of law. Its Committee on Justice and Human Rights is specifically mandated to assist the Parliament in harmonizing and coordinating Member States’ laws and to advocate respect for freedom, civil liberties, justice and human and peoples’ rights.

Justice and correctional reform therefore fall naturally within the wider concerns of the Parliament.

The PAP can contribute by convening national and regional parliaments, human rights institutions, justice-sector officials, academics and civil society organizations to examine shared legislative and oversight challenges.

It can also promote parliamentary implementation of African and international human rights commitments. The Parliament has previously emphasized its ability to mobilize national and regional legislatures in support of implementation of human rights decisions across Africa.

The Benghazi Conference demonstrates the potential value of this convening function. Parliamentary institutions need not wait until fully developed legislative proposals reach their chambers. They can initiate dialogue, identify policy gaps, commission comparative research and build political support for reform.

The PAP’s continental character gives it a particular advantage. It can draw upon the experiences of different legal systems, including common-law, civil-law, Islamic-law and customary-law traditions, while identifying principles capable of application across diverse national contexts.

From Dialogue to Continental Legislative Action

The most ambitious lesson for the Pan-African Parliament concerns the possibility of moving from dialogue to a practical continental legislative initiative.

The Benghazi Conference is not itself presented as a process for developing an African model law. Any suggestion of such an instrument must therefore be understood as a forward-looking proposal arising from the issues on its agenda, rather than as an anticipated conference decision.

Nevertheless, the conference raises an important question:

Could the Pan-African Parliament consider developing a Model Law on Correctional Services, Detention Standards and the Protection of the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty?

The PAP already uses model laws as soft-law instruments that national governments and parliaments may adapt to their particular constitutional and legal circumstances. The Parliament’s established formulation process involves technical research, legislative drafting, stakeholder consultations, committee consideration and eventual parliamentary adoption.

PAP has developed or advanced model laws in areas including policing, disability, food and nutrition security, cooperatives, labour migration and gender equality. These instruments are intended to provide common legislative frameworks while preserving room for national adaptation.

Correctional services and the protection of persons deprived of liberty may be suitable for similar continental consideration.

Why a Focused Model Law May Be Preferable

A broad Model Law on Justice Sector Reform could become excessively ambitious.

Justice systems encompass courts, prosecution services, police institutions, legal aid, prisons, customary justice, administrative justice, judicial appointments, court financing and constitutional safeguards. Attempting to address the entire sector in one instrument could produce a framework too general to offer practical legislative guidance.

A more focused model law dealing with correctional services, detention standards and the rights of persons deprived of liberty may be more workable.

It would relate directly to the principal themes of the Benghazi Conference while addressing common legislative concerns across African states.

Such an instrument would not impose a single prison system on all Member States. Nor would it replace national constitutions, criminal laws or correctional legislation.

Instead, it could provide a set of adaptable principles and legislative provisions that national parliaments could use when reviewing or developing their domestic laws.

The Importance of National Adaptation

Any continental model law must respect the constitutional diversity of African states.

A model law is not a binding treaty and should not be presented as one. Its value lies in offering practical legislative guidance that national parliaments can adapt to their legal traditions, institutional structures and available resources.

This flexibility is especially important in justice reform.

Correctional systems differ significantly in their administration, terminology and relationship with ministries, courts, police services and local authorities. Some states operate federal systems, while others are unitary. Some maintain specialized correctional oversight bodies, while others rely on national human rights commissions, judicial inspections or ombudsman institutions.

The objective should therefore not be mechanical uniformity.

It should be harmonization around minimum principles, including human dignity, lawful detention, accountability, independent oversight, rehabilitation and protection from abuse.

A Potential Legacy Beyond Benghazi

The First Benghazi International Conference on Justice and Legal Reform is not expected, on the basis of its published programme, to produce a Pan-African model law.

Its immediate purpose is to facilitate presentations, scientific sessions, panel discussions and expert dialogue concerning justice, correctional reform, legal safeguards, national reconciliation and international standards.

Nevertheless, conferences can make their most enduring contribution by placing important ideas into wider institutional circulation.

By bringing parliamentary actors, judicial professionals, correctional authorities, human rights bodies, academics, policymakers and international organizations into one forum, the Benghazi Conference can help advance a broader understanding of justice reform as a shared governance responsibility.

For the Pan-African Parliament, the conference may offer both a lesson and an opportunity.

The lesson is that legislatures must be actively involved in shaping, financing and overseeing justice reform.

The opportunity is to consider whether Africa’s national parliaments would benefit from a carefully researched and broadly consulted Model Law on Correctional Services, Detention Standards and the Protection of the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty.

Such an initiative would not emerge automatically from three days of discussion. It would require political commitment, technical expertise, stakeholder participation and sustained institutional leadership.

But if the Benghazi dialogue helps place that possibility on the continental agenda, its impact could reach considerably beyond Libya.

Conclusion

Justice reform requires independent courts, but it cannot be delivered by courts alone.

It requires parliaments capable of enacting modern laws, scrutinizing budgets and holding public institutions accountable. It requires executive agencies that implement policy lawfully and effectively. It requires correctional authorities that protect dignity while promoting rehabilitation. It requires human rights institutions that monitor compliance, civil society organizations that amplify public concerns and scholars who provide evidence for better policy.

Most importantly, it requires these institutions to understand that they form part of a common constitutional ecosystem.

As Benghazi prepares to host the First International Conference on Justice and Legal Reform, the conference’s multidisciplinary architecture is itself an important statement. It recognizes that justice, reconciliation and institutional reform are interconnected and that no branch of government or public institution can secure them in isolation.

For Africa, that message is timely.

The future of justice reform will depend not only on what happens inside courtrooms, but also on what happens in parliaments, correctional institutions, human rights bodies and the wider systems through which public power is exercised and held accountable.

The rule of law is not the work of one institution. It is the shared responsibility of the entire constitutional order.