Who knows, maybe the Government, in proposing the Constitutional amendment, wanted to officially put us in the Parliamentary sovereignty instead of letting us to lie to ourselves and think we are in the constitutional democratic state. I so look forward to a Constitutional challenge to the proposed amendmend which I think will go ahead regardless of the passianate overt and covert misgivings against it.

Essentially you are saying that Sisulu overlooked a matter at home which she went abroad to see advocated.

Regrettably, I know of only one way to construe this (although I hope I am wrong).

We can only hope she learnt something meaningful. Though some may well question whether she merely went for the tours and free finger food.

The SAD SAD Thing was during the construction of Phase one, Lindiwe Sisulu (one of the impatient ones) was attending the WUF3 (world Urban Forum) in Canada – where the theme was:

NO relocation WITHOUT Consultation.

Do you think she learnt anything? Considering the mess she has left.

According to the Professor, government misconducted itself in, speaking broadly, three respects. In the first place, it failed to engage meaningfully with the residents so as to, I suppose, explore resolutions that would have avoided litigation.

Secondly, the facts go to showing that government, inasmuch as it resorted to the emergency provision reflected in the PIE Act, acted impatiently rather than out of true urgency.

Thirdly, and most disquietingly, government acted dishonestly. It did so insofar as it made certain misrepresentations which can only be described as being of the fraudulent variety. A species of governmental conduct that should be intolerable.

The Court overlooked the foregoing in that it held that government can tacitly withdraw consent that was tacitly given in the first place despite (a) proof to the effect that government was naughty and (b), patent and distressing proof to the effect that some of the most vulnerable members of our society will sustain grave prejudice.

In a nutshell, I cannot see how a court meant to (a) employ various constitutionally and jurisprudentially recognised means to foster and safeguard basic rights and (b) ensure that government does not stray out of bounds could give government such leeway despite its reprehensible behaviour.

Besides that, the judgement is pretty horrible in general. And you are right, its hugely paternalistic but what can you expect from a bunch of people who have never lived in a shack nor even bothered to visit a Temporary Relocation Area.