Quote of the week

The judgments are replete with the findings of dishonesty and mala fides against Major General Ntlemeza. These were judicial pronouncements. They therefore constitute direct evidence that Major General Ntlemeza lacks the requisite honesty, integrity and conscientiousness to occupy the position of any public office, not to mention an office as more important as that of the National Head of the DPCI, where independence, honesty and integrity are paramount to qualities. Currently no appeal lies against the findings of dishonesty and impropriety made by the Court in the judgments. Accordingly, such serious findings of fact in relation to Major General Ntlemeza, which go directly to Major General Ntlemeza’s trustworthiness, his honesty and integrity, are definitive. Until such findings are appealed against successfully they shall remain as a lapidary against Lieutenant General Ntlemeza.

Mabuse J
Helen Suzman Foundation and Another v Minister of Police and Others
30 March 2007

Are law lecturers thin skinned?

I see that the claim for damages by Mervyn Dendy, who used to be an Associate Professor at Wits Law School, was rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Dendy had applied for promotion to full Professor with some other of his colleagues and was rather aggrieved at not being successful. The SCA upheld exceptions to the claims made by him on the ground that a reasonable person would not have felt humiliated and insulted in the circumstances.

I suspect the claim had more to do with the politics of affirmative action than with a person feeling personally slighted, but I do not know Mr Dendy, so can’t say for sure.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest