The statement by President Jacob Zuma about the need to “review” the powers of the Constitutional Court has elicited much comment. The Black Lawyers Association (BLA) has issued a welcome statement in which it argued – as I did earlier this week – that an amendment of the powers of the Constitutional Court would mean that we would be abolishing the current constitutional democracy “and remarry the parliamentary sovereignty”. On reflection, I suspect that I was wrong and that the powers of the Constitutional Court can be amended in such a way that we would not return to a system of parliamentary sovereignty, but which would return us to a system in which the supremacy of the Constitution as well as the Rule of Law is not upheld.
Let me explain.
The BLA correctly points out that such an amendment would be unlikely to hold water as it might require a 75% majority of members in the National Assembly to vote for it. The ANC at the moment has 65.9% of the seats in the National Assembly (3 seats short of a two-thirds majority)and the DA, Cope and the IFP (who would presumably all be opposed to such an amendment) holds 28.5% of the seats in the National Assembly. This means that the ANC will not be able to garner the necessary 75% majority to validly change this aspect of the Constitution.
This argument might, at first, seem strange as the powers of the Constitutional Court are contained in chapter 8 of the Constitution and the provisions in this chapter can be amended by a two thirds majority of members of the National Assembly (and six of the nine delegations in the National Council of Provinces). Section 165(5) states that “an order or decision issued by a court binds all persons to whom and organs of state to which it applies”, based on the assumption that an order or decision is made by the majority of judges sitting in a case.
Section 167 of the Constitution sets out the powers of the Constitutional Court, confirming that the Constitutional Court is the highest court in all constitutional matters; that it may decide only constitutional matters, and issues connected with decisions on constitutional matters; and that it makes the final decision whether a matter is a constitutional matter or whether an issue is connected with a decision on a constitutional matter.
Section 167(4) states that only the Constitutional Court may decide disputes between organs of state in the national or provincial sphere concerning the constitutional status, powers or functions of any of those organs of state; and may decide on the constitutionality of any parliamentary or provincial Bill referred to it by the President or Premier or Acts referred to it by 30% of the members of a legislature. That Court also has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the constitutionality of any amendment to the Constitution; and to decide that Parliament or the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation.
The pivotal section is probably section 167(5) of the Constitution, which states that:
The Constitutional Court makes the final decision whether an Act of Parliament, a provincial Act or conduct of the President is constitutional, and must confirm any order of invalidity made by the Supreme Court of Appeal, a High Court, or a court of similar status, before that order has any force.
How could these powers be amended? One possibility is that the Constitution could be amended to remove the power of the Constitutional Court (as well as other courts) to review acts of the President and/or other members of the executive. This would mean that the Constitutional Court would retain the power to declare invalid acts of various legislatures but that it would not be allowed to inquire into whether the President or perhaps other members of the executive have infringed the rights of anyone or have acted in breach of their constitutional or other legal duties.
This would not make Parliament supreme again, but two other very serious and deeply problematic consequences would inevitably flow from such a possible amendment.
First, the executive would become more powerful and we would move in the direction of creating an imperial Presidency (much like the imperial Presidency created by the 1983 tricameral Parliament under PW Botha). This is because, in controversial matters, the majority party in Parliament will try to circumvent judicial review by the courts by delegating more and more power to the President and/or his executive. Although our courts have argued that unlimited delegation of powers by the legislature to the executive is not allowed as it infringes on the separation of powers (hence the declaration of invalidity of the provision on which the President relied to try and extend the term of office of the former Chief Justice), the Parliament would obviously delegate as much power as it legally can to the President.
As the President is not democratically elected (but elected by the National Assembly, which in effect means at the moment that it is elected by just over 4000 delegates at the ANC elective conference), such a move has the possibility of eroding the democratic nature of our system of government.
Second, the President would no longer be subject to the Constitution and the law and would, in effect, be above the law. If the President failed to exercise his powers as dictated by the Constitution or other legislation (as he was found to have done in the Menzi Simelane case) or if he acts in a way that infringes on the rights of others, his actions would not be reviewable and the President would then potentially become a law unto himself.
This would result in an indirect amendment of section 1(c) of the Constitution, which states that our democracy is founded, inter alia, on the value of the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law. There will no longer be a supreme Constitution and neither will there be full respect for the Rule of Law. Even if section 1(c) of the Constitution is not itself amended, such an amendment to section 167 would result in an effective scrapping of section 1(c). This would, I contend, require a 75% majority in the National Assembly.
If Parliament amended section 167 in this way but relied on a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly in terms of the section 74(3) process, the Constitutional Court would be able to review this amendment and would be able to declare it invalid on the ground that the amendment should have been passed in terms of the section 74(1) process which requires a 75% majority in the National Assembly.
What the Constitutional Court would almost certainly not be able to do is to review an amendment on grounds not related to the question of whether the correct procedure (as prescribed in section 74) was used when the Constitution was amended. Some commentators seem to have suggested that the Constitutional Court can declare invalid a constitutional amendment because it clashes with other provisions in the Constitution. This is not correct. In the floor crossing case the Constitutional Court made this clear when it found that:
Amendments passed in accordance with the requirements of section 74 of the Constitution become part of the Constitution. Once part of the Constitution, they cannot be challenged on the grounds of inconsistency with other provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution, as amended, must be read as a whole and its provisions must be interpreted in harmony with one another. It follows that there is little if any scope for challenging the constitutionality of amendments that are passed in accordance with the prescribed procedures and majorities.
The curious part of this statement is that the part where the Court stated that there is “little if any” scope for such a review. This phrase probably gestures at the obiter dictum (not binding opinion) by Justice Mahomed in the Premier, KwaZulu-Natal v President of the RSA judgment, in which he raised the possibility that amending the basic structure of the Constitution would itself not be permissible. In that case he stated that:
It may perhaps be that a purported amendment to the Constitution, following the formal procedures prescribed by the Constitution, but radically and fundamentally restructuring and re-organizing the fundamental premises of the Constitution, might not qualify as an “amendment” at all.
But this statement was made with reference to the Interim Constitution, which did not contain a super-entrenched founding values section similar to section 1 in the 1996 Constitution. I would think that our Constitutional Court would argue that an amendment of the provisions of section 167 which would remove some powers from the Constitutional Court would amend the “basic structure” of the Constitution, but that the essence of this “basic structure” is contained in section 1 of the Constitution and therefore requires a 75% majority in the National Assembly.
The consequence of this is that the ANC dominated Parliament will not be able validly to amend the Constitution to radically reduce the powers of the Constitutional Court. If it did, the Constitutional Court will declare that amendment invalid. What would happen after that is, of course, anyone’s guess.
Big Ups to Theo Botha for touching the right nerve. We sleep well at night knowing that he is looking over our pensions. This guy deserves an Order of Baobab from the government. He is a true South African who gives more than he can take and run the risk of being humilated by greedy elites at AGM’s. There is no doubt that he is on the side of the people and his contribution dwarfs some of those who are feeding off the VARIOUS HANDBOOKS.
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page292520?oid=562212&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226
Now that Malema is fading, things are starting to be more clearer. We will soon realise that he is or was not our biggest problem.
“The consequence of this is that the ANC dominated Parliament.”
That I assume must be the crux of the problem then. We needs Whitish, “color-blind” racist two-party system like the USA and Britain. Or how about lets just stop this democracy farce and implement simple racial quotas for representation in parliament – your UCT BEE/AA bosses would love that one won’t they?
Look. We all know what the problem is.
The bunch of illiterates on the ANC’s lists who polish benches in the Asembly when we are lucky and do not understand their obligations under S44(4) and 55(2) of the Constitution nor the President’s under S83 & 84(1).
I say those of us who have been viewed as persona non grata in our own country since 1994 resile from this sham modus vivendi and start the preparations to put the ANC government ‘under administration’.
“What would happen after that is, of course, anyone’s guess.”
Not to difficult to make that guess. JZ will refer to the minority judgement of Moegoeng and repeat what he has already said:
“There are dissenting judgments. You will find that the dissenting one has more logic than the one that enjoyed the majority.’
If the current former future president has taken over by then he will just say “Bloody agents”.
The “section 1[c]=75% needed”- argument has one serious flaw:
The ANC dominated composition of the JSC, coupled with the Presidents prerogative in appointing whoever he wishes to the ConCourt.
Point is, that specific [somewhat strained] interpretation must [first] be followed [adopted] by the ConCourt – before it holds sway. And a suitably ANC-packed ConCourt [just one or two further "Mogoengs" needed] won’t adopt that somewhat strained interpretation. Then such 66.66% majority amendment of the pesky section 167[5] would be declared valid.
Easy.
They [Southern African liberation movements] did it with the SADC tribunal without blinking an eye.
Can be done again.
In the pursuit of the constitution behind the “Constitution”: The NDR.
Chris (not the right wing guy!)
February 17, 2012 at 11:23 am
LOL Right Wing Guy,
“JZ will refer to the minority judgement of Moegoeng and repeat what he has already said”.
Did you mean the judgement where god’s son disagreed without giving reasons.
I think he said “That is between me and my god”.
“As regards the celebrated ”struggle for life,” it seems to me for the present to have been rather asserted than proved. It does occur, but as the exception; the general aspect of life is not hunger and distress, but rather wealth, luxury, even absurd prodigality — where there is a struggle it is a struggle for power.” F. Nietzsche
Pierre, I suspect you are correct in saying one would need a 75% majority to substantially reduce the powers of the CC. (Compare the debate in the U.S. around the powers of Congress – by a simple majority – to amend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, a move punted by the right when it is unhappy with some SC decision or another, e.g. the school prayer battles of the 1970′s and 80′s.)
If it is so that we need a 75% majority to clip the wings of the arrogant whitists on the CC, I say that is all the more reason we must start working NOW to boost support for the ANC in time for the next election! The only way we will do that is by stepping up the pace of TRANSFORMATION.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
February 17, 2012 at 13:43 pm
Agreed. Did you not read my comment above?
“Or how about lets just stop this democracy farce and implement simple racial quotas for representation in parliament – ”
Our “democratic” system aught to be simplified with a simpler system of demographics. Our racial classifications on our birth certificates in conjunction with our racial categories as prescribed to us on census day can substitute these token election.
Lets just call it a democraphy.
Ozone, you proposal to institute DEMOCRAPHY is wise and well considered. Consider also that we would save the money consumed in having a separate census and “national election.” The genius of your proposal is that these two expensive exercises would be consolidated into a single collective expression of our pigments.
Yes, I can already hear the plaintive liberal objection that there may be “Africans” who may want to vote DA, thus skewing the electoral census. But that is rubbish. First, no African would want to vote DA. Second, any notional African who WAS inclined to vote DA would not really be “African!”
Lol. Can’t believe we agreed on something.
I hope WC will bring in a Case Management System and indirectly monitor our courts system.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=280832&sn=Detail&pid=71616
THE PEOPLE SHALL EAT on your behalf.
“Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi offered insight on Friday into why many politicians suffer the curse of bulging stomachs and widening waist lines.
“The problem as a public representative is that there is food everywhere,” he said during a human development cluster briefing in Parliament.
“There is always an availability of food. That is the danger of this profession. That is the nature of this job.”
Honor and respect for the rule of law the old-fashioned racist White way.
German President Christian Wulff: “I have acted without fault and always been honest”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17072479
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
February 17, 2012 at 15:04 pm
Hey Dworky,
“Second, any notional African who WAS inclined to vote DA would not really be ‘African!’”
Indeed that is so.
Perhaps Dmwangi could be enlisted to help Zuma
redaftredraft our Constitution to incorporate that wisdom.Dm wisely told us that Zuma can do anything – sort of like Superman but politically speaking (and he’s not vulnerable to Kryptonite and he defeated his own home grown Lex Luthor).
He, Dm, has a good point though, after all our Constitution is just words on paper – some Tippex, a good eraser, a counterfeiter and we’re all done.
“Die ANC betwis nie Suid-Afrikaners se reg om die grondwetlikheid van wette in die konstitusionele hof te toets nadat dit deur die parlement goedgekeur en deur Zuma onderteken is nie.
Maar landsburgers moet die Grondwet “respekteer” en eers wag dat die parlement en die president hul werk afhandel vóórdat hulle die howe nader, het hy gesê.
“Ons moet die Grondwet en (wetskrywende) prosesse respekteer. As die prosesse gerespekteer word, sal die uiteindes gerespekteer word.””
Have to agree with that. Respect for the Constitution implies that all parties must act reasonably, fairly, responsibly and in the spirit of the Constitution. I do want to respectfully request the sensationalist and alarmist author of this blog to take note of that. He is an opinion former, and he should ask himself if he is not much more than a self-obsessed, rent-seeking media whore.
http://www.rapport.co.za/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Grondwet-nie-van-God-ANC-20120218
Jy praat stront soos gewoonlik.
Brett Nortje says:
February 17, 2012 at 10:59 am
Look. We all know what the problem is.
The bunch of illiterates on the ANC’s lists who polish benches in the Assssembly when we are lucky and do not understand their obligations under S44(4) and 55(2) of the Constitution nor the President’s under S83 & 84(1).
Lets hope Dr Mulder and others will realise how easy it is to banish someone with a different view to the dustbin of society without engaging with the issues at hand. Let him join the likes of Malema, Manyi and others in experiencing this popular treatment.
‘He, Dm, has a good point though, after all our Constitution is just words on paper – some Tippex, a good eraser, a counterfeiter and we’re all done.’
Maggs:
Take a sabbatical from being PdV’s catamite and study your country’s history. Codified rules (or judicial interpretations of them) that are contrary to the majority’s will are unlikely to obtain their consent. What ensues is usually not pleasant. (E.g. Legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed.)
Politics always trumps law. Therefore, if you want a particular policy implemented, I suggest you persuade a majority of your fellow citizens instead of trying to foist it on them via judicial fiat.
Who slipped in the HANDBOOK? It was never part of the original deal.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=281001&sn=Detail&pid=71616
Gwebecimele
February 19, 2012 at 20:06 pm
I can’t recall Mulder singing kill the k… He was responding to a popular misunderstanding of history that is being used to vilify a certain group of South Africans, a misunderstanding of history that even our ultra politically correct UCT academics reject.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/who-is-an-african-1.367010
I say it is irrelevant who “owned” the land in 1401, 1652 or 1801. What is relevant is the fact that we live in a modern industrial state and that the land (just like our mineral wealth) is a resource that belongs to all South Africans and must be developed and utalized accordingly.
Dmwangi
February 19, 2012 at 21:39 pm
Hey Dim,
“study your country’s history”.
Instead of talking nonsense and impressing White people about your graduate school, you should first get to know what you are talking about.
For a supposedly well informed fellow, you’re really ignorant.
See below (thanks Gwebs).
The ANC has always stood for basic democratic principles which include:
…
an independent judiciary and constitutional court protected from any government or party political interference;
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=281001&sn=Detail&pid=71616
p.s. That graduate school which impressed White people, sure taught you a lot about padding. Whatever does all this KAK mean in context?
“Codified rules (or judicial interpretations of them) that are contrary to the majority’s will are unlikely to obtain their consent. What ensues is usually not pleasant. (E.g. Legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed.)
Politics always trumps law. Therefore, if you want a particular policy implemented, I suggest you persuade a majority of your fellow citizens instead of trying to foist it on them via judicial fiat.”
Well done Minister Radebe – this is indeed inspirational.
Cabinet has approved an additional R150 million for law enforcement agencies to fight fraud and corruption, says Justice & Constitutional Affairs Minister Jeff Radebe.
http://www.businesslive.co.za/southafrica/2012/02/19/more-money-to-fight-corruption
“Radebe said a target had been set of arresting and prosecuting 100 persons suspected of serious corruption who have more than R5 million in illicit assets by April 2014.”
So the safe limit is R4,999999 million?
“The R150 million, Radebe said, would be distributed among the departments and that it came from monies that were confiscated from illicit activities.”
So R20 to R30 billion per year is stolen and the recovery allocation is – R150 million???? Impressive, especially considering that is not even from monies recovered!!!
@ Maggs
“Radebe said a target had been set of arresting and prosecuting 100 persons suspected of serious corruption who have more than R5 million in illicit assets by April 2014.”
I hope there is also a target of about 10 White males CEO’s in this target.
Did you see allegations about Zuma’s brother who is being used as a FRONT on a LABOUR BROKING business in the papers this weekend?
Call the HOTLINE.
http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/zuma-s-brother-in-bee-controversy-1.1237423
Gwebecimele
February 20, 2012 at 9:18 am
Yeah – saw the Michael Zuma thing.
It’s unsurprising – there’s not much difference between that and Zuma’s son + Motlanthe’s girlfriend/ICT/Sahara.
And see this – http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2012/02/20/the-poor-left-in-the-lurch
Gwebecimele
February 20, 2012 at 9:20 am
Again the same DA style “everything is corrupt” bullshit in the media. The bottom line is this –
“Treasury regulations require government departments and municipalities to adjudicate all tenders with a consideration to price and BEE or historically disadvantaged individual (HDI) status ownership.”
That is weighted scoring system – normally 90/10 or 80/20. It is therefore possible for a company with low BEE rating to win a contract based on a very competitive price. Not as single shred of evidence offered in that report to support a claim or perception of corruption. But this is the game that is consistently played by the media and that informs an ignorant public.
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
February 20, 2012 at 9:44 am
So where is the evidence for “corruption”? eventually all people are somehow “linked” or related, that constitutes no evidence of corruption except if you have evidence for obvious irregularities in the award of tenders and or contracts.
ozoneblue
February 20, 2012 at 9:48 am
Hey OB,
Where in that comment did you find the suggestion of corruption?
This is what usually happens. BEE company tenders on job and offers the lowest price/BEE ratings. They get the contract based on transparent and generally agreed principle.
However because of BEE/AA they often lack the experience and the expertise and fail to perform on the contract. No “corruption” involved. Just stupid racist policies designed by politicians, academics, lawyers, and accountants who haven’t a fucking clue what it takes to successfully complete certain kinds of projects .
ozoneblue
February 20, 2012 at 9:48 am
Hey OB,
Where in that comment did you find the suggestion of corruption?
@ Gwebe
“I hope there is also a target of about 10 White males CEO’s in this target.”
Gwebe is right.
It is time that we created a system of “negative” affirmative action too, with racially-based arrest and prosecution quotas! Why is it that virtually every person we see in court facing criminal charges is a black male? And that 90% of M&G “corruption” smear victims are black?
We need to TRANFORM our prison population until it is demographically representative of the rich racial and gender tapesty of our rainbow nation!
Thanks
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
February 20, 2012 at 10:16 am
Dworky,
“Why is it that virtually every person we see in court facing criminal charges is a black male? And that 90% of M&G “corruption” smear victims are black?”
hehehehehe!
Because the Black crooks have not yet learned how to outsmart the system and get to be seen as the good guys.
Whatever happened to the “SILKS” who raided the RAF?
And the thugs who buggered off to OZ with stolen money?
Then there’s deals with the likes of Mark Thatcher.
Barry Tannabaum, Radovan Krejcir, Vito Palazzolo …
Mainly of course are the apartheid criminals who got away with their crimes against humanity ….
@ Maggs
“the Black crooks have not yet learned how to outsmart the system …”
Maggs, sometime I think you really are the RACIST DA “PLANT” that OB charges.
Your suggestion that black crooks are stupider than whitish crooks is revoltingly offensive. If you do not withdraw it, I am going to address you as “Maggadur” in all future postings!
WDYS?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
February 20, 2012 at 10:30 am
LOL Dworky
“Your suggestion that black crooks are stupider than whitish crooks is revoltingly offensive.”
Certainly not stupider – less “competent” and “experienced” when it comes to the power and benefits of asking for ‘further particulars’ and other stuff that turns beating the system into a fine art. As you well know, that was an apartheid era privilege not accorded to Black crooks and criminals.
Give it some time – we’ll get there.
p.s. Dworky – please may I borrow that word “stupider” to use on Dmwangi??
I’ll give you half of my Streetwise Two when I eventually get it!
Maggadur Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
February 20, 2012 at 10:58 am
Certainly not stupider – less “competent” and “experienced”.
Sure – the only time you ever insist on competence is when you post your usual annoying kak and kla about the CC or the judiciary or the “corruption”. It is very simple boet, the quality of the system cannot be expected to exceed the quality of its constituent parts. It is very much a matter of garbage in, garbage out.
@ Maggs
“[Black crooks are] certainly not stupider – [but] less “competent” and “experienced”
Maggs, I thought we had established that the idea that “experience” made one more skilled in a given profession was a whitish incumbent status-quo myth designed to keep the blacks out. Now, you tell us that white crooks get away with it more because they are more “competent” and “experienced.”
This is the kind of abominable RACIST DA-style rubbish that is anathema to me!
Lets hope this deal will benefit many black professionals and there is many more to come.
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page295023?oid=562413&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226
The real centenary of Land Act of 1913 is next year.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=165309
“This possibly explains why a member of the ANC who accuses white people of stealing land during the imaginary period of colonialism and apartheid is exposing himself to the danger of being expelled from the party for sowing racial division.”
That is if course the strawman and the lie behind the contemporary set of grand RACIST myths as advocated by Black nationalists like Malema. That ALL land in what is now South Africa was stolen by “white people”. Mulder never denied that there was colonialism and/or apartheid that lead to land dispossession either. What he challenged was the assumption and assertion that all land in South Africa “belonged” to a specific ethnic group i.e. the grouping referred to as “Africans” as defined in AA/BEE formulas including the EEA.
ozoneblue
February 20, 2012 at 11:04 am
Hey OB,
You still have evaded.
Do tell, where in that comment (February 20, 2012 at 9:48 am) did you find the suggestion of corruption?
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
February 20, 2012 at 21:21 pm
“Yeah – saw the Michael Zuma thing. It’s unsurprising – there’s not much difference between that and Zuma’s son + Motlanthe’s girlfriend/ICT/Sahara.”
So what was the point of your post as read in conjunction with hundreds if not thousands of posts about “corruption”.
What the are you trying to say – that anybody with the surname Zuma or Malema or Gupta should refrain form doing business?
ozoneblue
February 20, 2012 at 21:35 pm
OB,
“So what was the point of your post as read in conjunction with hundreds if not thousands of posts about “corruption”.
What the are you trying to say – that anybody with the surname Zuma or Malema or Gupta should refrain form doing business?”
You asked AND answered?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
February 20, 2012 at 11:08 am
Dworky,
“Now, you tell us that white crooks get away with it more because they are more ‘competent’ and ‘experienced.’”
You’ve caught OBitis!
Where in my posts did I refer to White crooks?
I must admit though that I do wonder why Black crooks and criminals are deprived to the knowledge and experience to make them competent to stick the middle finger at the law.
For example while Black tax evaders are promptly caught and made to pay with interest, the King of evaders has got SARS running in rings and will probably end up “never having to say he is sorry”.
Nifty eh!
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
February 20, 2012 at 21:39 pm
So what is so “unsurprising” and what did you mean with “between that and Zuma’s son + Motlanthe’s girlfriend/ICT/Sahara”.
WTF has Jacob Zuma’s son private life got do with this? Do you also interrogate the private lives of the family members of Helen Zille, PdV or Bulelani Ngcuka as part of your hobbies. Please tell us how much land does PdV’s parents or brothers and sisters own. Or who pays your UCT salaries you hypocritical maggot – perhaps HO and Anglo American?
ozoneblue
February 20, 2012 at 21:53 pm
Hey OB,
“your UCT”
MY UCT?
I don’t have a UCT.
Yet.
But if you know of one that I can acquire, please do let me know!
“I don’t have a UCT.”
Really – who is this whimpy looking 45+ year old student then?
http://uct.academia.edu/MaggsNaidu
looks a hell of a lot lot like this happy family oke doesn’t he?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Maggs-Naidu/738916240
@ Maggs
You wrote that black crooks are “Certainly not stupider – less “competent” and “experienced””
It seems fairly clear that the you were saying was that black crooks, while not stupider than whitist crooks, were less ‘experienced” that whitists.
Or did you have another comparator in mind – say Croatian crooks?
Gwebecimele says:
February 20, 2012 at 16:24 pm
Don’t you think Pierre ought to come clean about the real purpose of the Land Act of 1913 and the practice of compensation for land people were forcibly removed from before then?
Think how I’m going to spank him?
ozoneblue
February 20, 2012 at 22:19 pm
Hey OB,
“Really – who is this whimpy looking 45+ year old student then?”
Hmmm – that may be a guy who owns a UCT.
Is he?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
February 20, 2012 at 22:26 pm
Hey Dworky,
You racist!
The alternative to Blacks is not necessarily Whites.
Reds, Yellows, greys, PINKS …
But since you mentioned it, do you think White 10 year olds should be allowed to play cricket for their provincial teams?
Another one lost his marbles!
Somebody should tell this oke, Nigel Willis, that our Constitution is tamper proof.
And that I was only kidding about Tippex and an eraser.
The answer may lie in merging the two courts but having recourse to the principle of seniority to determine who is to sit when en banc hearings of eleven judges on Constitution Hill are required to hear matters of truly weighty significance. …
Nigel Willis is a Judge of the Johannesburg High Court and a former member of the Labour Appeal Court. He writes in his personal capacity.
http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/the-constitutional-court-debate-1.1237763
If the courts were to be seen as society’s mechanism for the peaceful resolution of disputes, what would happen if you were to restrict their function?
http://www.citypress.co.za/Columnists/Judging-the-judiciary-Jeremy-Cronin-20120218
Cicero Langa
February 21, 2012 at 8:57 am
Cronin is blowing a lot of hot air.
Talking about tampering with the Constitution or the Constitutional Court in anticipation of speculative possibilities is just silly.
Even more silly, in the context of his piece, is him asking :
What happens if, let us say, the Constitutional Court rules in favour of the conservative white agricultural unions currently challenging the constitutionality of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act?
And then goes on to bash former CJ saying :
He does a racial and gender quota head count. So long as these debates are framed in “us” and “them” terms, as the ANC versus the Constitution, or the executive versus the judiciary, we will not make much progress.
http://www.citypress.co.za/Columnists/Judging-the-judiciary-Jeremy-Cronin-20120218
Anyway an evaluation of the CC and its role in transforming South Africa will be interesting and will more than likely make a powerful statement – I suspect that those politicians (and crooks) who have been at the forefront of trying to undermine it, will end up with egg on their faces.
Maggs, apologies for calling you a RACIST.
It just touched a nerve when you trotted out the old line about blacks not being “competent” or “experienced.”
Thanks.
With the amendment of our own Constitution, and perhaps our own Napoleon, in mind when last has anybody read Animal Farm?
Some useful analogies, I would say.
@ Cicero
“With the amendment of our own Constitution, and perhaps our own Napoleon, in mind when last has anybody read Animal Farm?”
With respect, this is misplaced alarmism.
May I remind you that the animals has no written constitution to protect them against tyranny – whereas we have what many experts call the finest constitution in the history of the world?
The animals’ seven commandments were written on the wall of the barn, with the most important one being ‘all animals are equal’.
As time passed the commandments were subtly changed to suit the pigs’ agenda.
May my alarmism be forever misplaced.
“We don’t want to review the Constitutional Court, we want to review its powers,” Zuma said during an interview with the Star.
“It is after experience that some of the decisions are not decisions that every other judge in the Constitutional Court agrees with.”
Christine Quanta speaking on 702 sort of said, speaking “benevolently” that Zuma does not know what the heck he is talking about!
LOL @ President Zuma and his wonky advisors.
Zuma may have won the battle of not choosing the most suitable of legal minds for CJ – history will remember him for a decision worse than the AIDS denialism of Mbeki.
But this is a war (of stuffing up the CC) that he and his motley crew will lose.
Not even “The Fiends of JZ” are coming to his defence!
“We remain convinced that there is no basis to reduce the powers of the Constitutional Court to review the decisions of the legislature or executive,” Vavi said in Mthatha, in the Eastern Cape, at the weekend.
According to Business Day, [Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima] Vavi said the Constitutional Court had handed down valuable judgments that “cemented key socio-economic rights for the working class majority”.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/vavi-defends-concourt-1.1243180
[...] De Vos P ‘A 75% majority needed to amend powers of Constitutional Court?’ 17 Feb 2012 via Constitutionally Speaking here [...]