Zimpapers Logo

Tafadzwa Mutsika Review Correspondent
At Harare Magistrates’ Court more than 75 percent of communication with witness, accused and complainant relies on the use of an interpreter. The interaction between the court, client and interpreter involved is rather complex. Criminal cases such as murder, rape, fraud and theft are very difficult subjects to listen to and then to find appropriate and adequate words to render them into another language.

Then there are the associative images in the victim friendly court – the more eloquent and articulate the narrators, the more powerful and intrusive are the images. When I started my internship last year at Harare Magistrates’ Court, I was mostly concerned with whether I would be able to cope with the emotional content of the interpreting.

Dealing with such matters has not become easier over the whole semester that I have been attached at the Magistrates’ Court. From a layman’s point of view, interpreting is short-term, temporary and factual. The reality is slightly different. Most of my work at Harare Magistrates’ Court has been long-term, emotionally complex and requires close co-operation with the court.

Relationship with the court
A close and trusting relationship often develops between the court and interpreter, especially in the long-run, and this inevitably places the interpreter in the same ethical standing as a legal professional. Whilst this can be a very seductive process, I often have to remind myself that I neither possess the tools nor the structure to assume a role for which I have no training or professional know-how.

My responses in pre- and post-session discussions are based on instinct, common sense, life experience and gut-reaction and not on qualified legal contributions. My work limitations are largely shaped and defined by professional ethics. Most of the time I try to align my body language to that of the court as in most cases my relationship to the complainant, witness or accused is similar to the one the court has with the participants.

Successful interpretation is often determined by a smooth and open teamwork between all concerned in which the bonds and limitations are well defined. Ideally, in these settings the court does not feel threatened and the interpreter does not feel excluded.

Trust is paramount – the court’s trust of the interpreter with the language, the interpreter’s trust of the court’s understanding of the cultural issues and taking the right legal direction and the participant’s trust in both by simply opening up.

Sometimes, I feel quite unrealistically – in the context of working at the magistrate’s court but not in my “outside” work – that notebook and pen during sessions would be very useful implements.

I have to make instant decisions as to how a question will make sense to the witness, complainant or accused (and vice-versa) and my interpretation must not vary from what has been asked by any party during trial.

So the challenge is to make sure that the person I am interpreting for understands what has been said without in any way changing the exact meaning as put across by the speaker.

Translatability and untranslatability
Many participants in court often use metaphors, proverbs and idioms for which there is no direct equivalent meaning in the language that one has to interpret to. Sometimes it is quite a challenge to immediately come up with an approximation when an equivalent does not immediately spring to mind. But on the other hand to spend time searching for that elusive word or expression could cloud the waters if the interpreter breaks the momentum and flow of the session.

Unless the issue is of a major importance, in which case I ask for further elaboration, the nuances often get lost during the session.

These are challenges we often wrestle with and while nuances may sometimes disappear, the meaning must always prevail.

In long-term court sessions, where collaborations between all parties concerned have been well established, I tend to render the ideas and the meanings rather than concentrate on word for word interpretation.

Empathy with the client
I have a profound empathy with all participants – as guided by professional ethics but there are subtle limitations that may hinder communication. Interpreter, witness, complainant and the accused’s limitations are difficult to define because often the witness or accused comes from the same sociocultural or ethnic background as the interpreter and their lives might be intertwined outside the court.

There could be feelings of envy, jealousy, admiration and expectation that place the interpreter in an entirely different position from the simple one of a linguist facilitating communication.

Sometimes the witness or the accused might want the interpreter to act as advocate and problem-solver for matters entirely before the court.

Alternatively, the accused, complainant or witness may wonder whether the interpreter will not betray their confidences to the outside community where they may have shared links. This is especially true in sensitive cases which are tried in camera.

I remember wondering about professional boundaries in one particular case during which I forged very strong links with a family that I particularly identified with.

Apart from being their constant interpreter throughout their many comings and goings to the court, I also met with them socially.

Having clearly overstepped my professional limitations, I became privy to a great deal of information that could have furthered or hampered their court case. I had to keep on reminding myself that I was not their legal advisor.

I am happy to say I maintained my professionalism and in the sessions I could distance myself sufficiently from the family to remain purely the professional and objective interpreter.

When the family was referred to another court with whom I had worked before, I was very concerned about their perception of my bond to the family and the threat this might potentially pose to court case.

I was worried that the person presiding over the case may have their attitude to the concerned parties coloured by my relationship with the magistrate and also my relationship with the family.

But my fears turned out to be unfounded as the matter was dealt with fairly within the confines of the law.

Tafadzwa W Mutsika is an interpreter and translator, journalist and PR consultant. Feedback: [email protected]