It is this sort of debates we yearn for on thid blog. Let us go study and descent to the sparring grounds. The views of Hefer Jafta, Scott and Cameroon seem correct. The two latter judges are correct on their conceptualisation of the nature and scope of precedent !

I am sceptical on their position that on aspects where the CC was giving unsolicited cratch course on interpretation it must be ignored by these judges who at times begrudglingly accept constitutional jurisprudence. I hold that the academic advances of the CC are not binding but persuasive.

The attribution of the authorship of the CC judgment to Jafta is totally unwarranted and employed to depict Jafta as fixated with a judgment he had written and wanting to be regarded as human compass on the interpretation of same. The effect of such is uncollegiality, yet Cameroon [at para 98] professes respectfullness!

It seems to me an effort at demonstration of intellectual paramountcy on theoritical questions on precedent. It is well reasoned piece of writing.

It must noted that the CC, usually does not deal with the factual dispute but defers to competent authority to deal with the matter after clarifying the constitutional aspects unless justice so requires. The fact that the CC was not ceased with the factual dispute before it does not make a heap of beans.

Our country has endured many odd years of every aspect of life shrouded by secrecy particularly the political affairs of our society.

All “democracts” are so committed to stick too deep the shaft of the spear of freedom of press and freedom of expression.

I want to advance some criticism on the judgment and your viewpoint on your suggestion of befuddlement in the manner in which the court sought to resolve the tension between the right to privacy and freedom of press.

The press must be entitled to report on privates affairs of mankind in so far as such activities infringe on the the total rights and freedoms of society or other persons, national security, precipitate immorality or criminality, public safety and so on.

The media must not be permitted to run amok soliciting details of private sexual activities and tastes of individuals, bedroom lies(so long as they are not criminal) regardless of the status of the persons involved politicians, prominent business persons and other famous personalities.

It must only be public interest which must lift the veil of secrecy. Public interest is wide concept whose main thrust is to protect society from injurius acts from powerful persons. It is not a tool by means of which to trammel all rights especially privacy.

I am impressed by article 8 of the European Convention on Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms which quarantees the right to respect for private and family life, one’s home and personal privacy. This rights cannot be interferred with except in terms of law and neccesitated by open society.

Open and democratic society does not mean talking about the fact that your parents have sex every single day in the private space, professorial commitments obliterated the social fibrancy of X, that a president is a monk or a certain judge is gay. Those are private affairs of the individual whose media coverage must be at the instance of or with the consent of the affected individual.

The doctrine of public interest can only pry open the curtains of my bedroom if I had raped X in my house, assaulted by spouse or partner for sexual gratification, has sex in a state vehicle on my road to inspect RDP houses.

The right to secrecy must pale into insignificance to the extent that it offends the laws of the land, generally accepted societal moral tastes, rights and freedoms of others such as having sex in a public toilet, on the beach, presidential office, on the streets and so on.

The issue that one prefers oral sex than virginal penetration is a pure personal choice which does not have to be reported by the media.

The mosley Case in Britain makes a good read. It asserts that publication whose sole aim is to satisfy the curiosity of a certain public as to the details of the private life of a person, whatever their fame, should not be regarded as contributing to a debate of general interest in society ( Leeupoel v Belgium (2006).

These english jurisprudence would be helpful to shape an approapriate constitutional jurisprudence in so far as protecting our private sexual activities is concerned.

Prof. disclosing or revealing the names of the parents will invariably lay open the identities of the children involved. The marital certificate seems to elevate western marriage above customary marriage and so on. This is problematic. The kernel of the issue is,however, the wrong application of freedom of press in sexual matters of individuals! The judges missed the mark here.

Where I think the judges erred is to think section 12 is unconstitutional.

I think tthe section sought to ensure that the graphic sexual details of spouses remains within the bounds of the courtroom where the private personal sexual disputes of spouses are resolved.

These details are not for the media or the public but the concerned individuals, witnesses and the judges to make a judicial injunction.

The total liberal approach to freedom of press as regards private lives is unjustified. The befuddled or bizarre decision would not have arisen.

The confusion is to invoke public interest philosophy in a private bedroom! The judges are groping in the dark in the hope of creating open and democratic sociary even in our bedrooms. This is private property!

You can right serious thesis on this topic. Prof !