I would be very grateful indeed if you could give me authority to that effect.

You may wish to look at Mureinik’s famous article in the SALJ arguing that students in disciplinary hearings should enjoy audi rights. (Hlophe JP has cited this article several times in his own writings.) I do not believe either of them has ever gone so far as to argue that s. 35 type rights apply in the admin context.

Please explain to me how you interpret Nel v Le Roux.

Re the text, please note that:

1. S. 35 (3) provides that the right to be presumed innocent, and a panoply of other rights attach to accused persons AS A MATTER OF CRIMINAL LAW.

2. S. 33 provided no such thing.

I challenge you to provide a single authority to the effect that the panoply of criminal accused’s rights apply in the admin. context.

Kevin much respect you did ok

but yes lets wait and see what happens

kevin Ill come out in your defence on this one, you are actually correct.

I saw you on SABC news last night, you stuttted alittle but im sure you were nervious tv shy

but what you failed to tell the public in hlophes matter that the standard of proof in disciplinary cases is by a preponderance of the evidence. You dont need emails fax’s or sms to prove his guilt even though that would help but there is a phone call so keep that in mind

Preponderance of evidence:

1)Falsehoods to justify His improper behavior.

2)By a preponderance, Improper ex parte communications.

3)Allowing social or other relationships to influence an outcome in a criminal case

4)Attempted retaliation

5)Race and racism

start with those Kevin

and then Ill show that hlophe should be impeached not only of undue influence but perjury and bringing the judiciary indisrepute in the years as acting as a judge. I look for to his defamation case.

Like Leigh, I must disagree with your dismal of the presumption of innocence as “semantic.” If you read Nel v Le Roux you will see that it has practical implications that give an accused special rights in a criminal trial, over and above those in administrative settings.

One implication of the presumption of innocence is that the accused cannot be compelled to testify, and her silence cannot be the basis for an adverse inference.
But that does not apply in administrative proceedings. There is nothing to stop the tribunal in a disciplinary context from taking silence into account.

More generally the absence of a presumption of innocence in non-criminal proceedings gives license for the relaxation of various procedural safeguards.
I offer that as yet another rebuttal of you treatment of the presumption of innocence as “semantic.”

It seems to be a widely recognised principle that the party which makes an allegation is generally saddled with the task of establishing it. Only then would the party against whom the averment was made be called upon to answer.

So if if you mean to advance that Hlophe presently faces mere allegations which have yet to be tested and proved, then I agree. That is, he has not incurred liability.

But as Michael has consistently stressed – and which you correctly conceded in your post dated July 31 at 8:55pm – the term ‘presumption of innocence’ is best confined to criminal law contexts.

Skhokho said something about racism at universities suggesting that hanging with people of one’s own race is racist. I hink people go for that which is most similar to them. It may be race, socio-econimic class, res, types of schools or the schools themselves. much like at my high school where the separeation was less on race than who was or was not a border.