We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2006, several African countries have undertaken reform of their mental health legislation. This chapter examines mental health laws introduced in recent years in two African countries, Zambia and Ghana, to establish whether these legislative measures comply with CRPD standards in respect of the recognition of legal capacity. To examine this question, we first provide a brief overview of Article 12 and General Comment No 1 issued by the Committee on the Rights of persons with Disabilities, briefly noting the controversy that has arisen in respect of the Committee’s interpretation of this Article. We also consider the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The chapter then measures the Zambian Mental Health Act of 2019 as well as the Mental Health Act, 2012, of Ghana against the international and regional norms on legal capacity. In this process, we also consider the difficult question of whether the approach which holds that involuntarily psychiatric interventions can never be compatible with the CRPD is feasible in African contexts with limited resources. We finally look at the lessons that may be drawn from the legislative processes in these countries.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.