The government yesterday sent mixed signals about its previously announced intention to “review” the decisions of the Constitutional Court when it released a “discussion document” which (laudably) affirmed its respect for the independence of the judiciary and the notion of the separation of powers, but (worryingly) seemed to question the wisdom of retaining a distinctly adversarial system of judicial review.
This antagonism towards an adversarial kind of judicial review seems to be focused primarily on cases where the courts were not enforcing social and economic rights and where the judicial review of government action would signal a failure on the part of the judiciary to “co-operate” with the other arms of government in pursuit of (unnamed) constitutional values or goals.
Speaking at a media briefing yesterday, Minister of Justice Jeff Radebe announced the release of a discussion document on the transformation of the judicial system and the role of the judiciary in a developmental state (Pdf document) to frame a “national dialogue” on this programme of “further transformation”. These documents are conceptually incoherent and its authors seem to be confused, as it tries to marry a consensual model of separation of powers with a model that retains (some form of) judicial review for an independent judiciary. One cannot have both a consensual model of separation of powers and an independent judiciary that acts as a true check on the exercise of power by the other branches of government. Suggesting that one can, is at best misinformed and at worst misleading.
This conceptual confusion probably flows from the fact that the government of the day is retreating slightly from its position taken in November last year about the need for a serious review of Constitutional Court decisions. This retreat might have been caused by the public outcry about the perceived intention of the government to interfere with the powers of the courts to review and set aside acts by the other branches of government.
It might also be animated by the sinking realisation that both the proposed review of the Constitutional Court and any possible amendments to its powers will be impossible to implement. After all, who will actually be able to peruse all the documents before the Constitutional Court in every single case ever heard by that court to make a sensible assessment of its performance? And in the absence of such a wide ranging perusal of all relevant documents, any review of the Court will be nonsensical and meaningless as it will not tell us anything about whether the court fulfilled its mandate (or whether it was, for example, hampered in its task by the tardiness of the lawyers who appeared before it or the dismal quality of the papers before it).
The discussion document talks about a need for “further transformation of the judicial system”, but fails to indicate what such further transformation would be aimed at or how it might look. The review clearly does not relate to the current package of constitutional amendments and laws before Parliament aimed at streamlining the courts and enhancing the powers of the Chief Justice. This is because the Minister stated that the current reforms will be finalised before the review is actually concluded. It is therefore unclear what “further transformation” (over and above the current package of amendments and Bills) is envisaged by the government. However, answering questions at the media briefing yesterday Minister Radebe refused to rule out further amendments to the Constitution, suggesting that the government is keeping its options open and that the outcome of this review will depend on which faction in the cabinet gets the upper hand.
In the discussion document and in the speech delivered by the Minister at the media briefing, the government re-affirmed the longstanding commitment of the ANC towards the respect for human rights. The Minister also stated that the envisaged further transformation of the judiciary is underpinned by the separation of powers and an independent judiciary.
Arguing that the values contained in the Constitution – including that of an independent judiciary and the rule of law (but significantly not including the supremacy of the Constitution and judicial review) – are also the values that the ANC has consistently stood and fought for, the Minister stated that the ANC-led government would defend these values at all cost. The Minister recognised that the judiciary had an important role to play in transforming the state and society and in safeguarding and protecting the Constitution and its values through its “constitutionally entrenched judicial authority”.
However, it is not as clear from the Minister’s speech as it should be that the ANC-led government’s continued commitment to the separation of powers and an independent judiciary includes a continued commitment to the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution and the powers of the courts to review and declare invalid not only those provisions of legislation which are in conflict with the Constitution, but also those actions by the executive which infringe on human rights, are not authorised by law or fail to comply with the requirements of rationality and non-arbitrariness which are inherent in a system based on respect for the Rule of Law.
In fact, it is clear that the government is at best uneasy with the notion of an independent Constitutional Court that acts as a vigorous but necessary check on the other branches of government. It would prefer a court that works with government to achieve a common goal – rather than a court that vigorously and in an “activist” manner checks the powers of the other two branches of government and embarrasses the legislature and especially the executive by sometimes declaring some of their actions unconstitutional and invalid.
Judges, suggested Minister Radebe, must exercise their power of judicial review “with great circumspection”. The three branches of the state, claimed Minister Radebe, “are co-equal partners entrusted with distinct constitutional powers in their quest to realise the ideals of a democratic South Africa”. Whether this would mean that one branch – the judiciary – would retain the necessary power to trump the other branches when those branches failed to act in compliance with the Constitution or ordinary law (and hence would retain the power to declare invalid unconstitutional laws and unlawful and unconstitutional acts by the President and other members of the executive), is not as clear from this statement as it should have been.
To be fair, the discussion document affirms that the modern concept of constitutionalism rests on two main pillars:
First, the existence of certain limitations imposed on the state, particularly in its relations with citizens, based on certain clearly defined sets of core values. Secondly, the existence of a clearly defined mechanism for ensuring that limitations on the government are legally enforceable. In this broad sense, constitutionalism has a certain core, irreducible and possible minimum content of values with a well-defined process and procedural mechanisms to hold government accountable.
As the discussion further notes, there are some debate about the degree to which judges should be empowered to “interfere” with the decisions of the other branches of government:
Striking a balance between policy and law becomes necessary in the current times where courts are increasingly placed in a situation where they have to pronounce on matters of public policy. The interface between the courts’ power of judicial review and the policy terrain that is the purview of the Executive and the Legislature becomes even more delicate in the South African situation where the Constitution enshrines a justiciable Bill of Rights. It is in this context, in particular in the interpretation of the socioeconomic rights in the Bill of Rights, that judicial power should, by necessity, be vested in a mechanism independent of the legislative and executive powers of the government, with adequate guarantees to insulate it from political and other influences.
The government seems to have realised that – as a matter of practical politics and constitutional design – it will not be possible at present to address its unhappiness with the courts who strike this balance differently than the government would have wanted them to, as the government will not be able to reduce the powers of the courts to review and set aside unconstitutional or other unlawful acts by the legislature and the executive.
Instead, there are passages in the document which suggest that the government is hoping that it will be able to water down the independence of the judiciary by creating mechanisms that will help to break down the strict separation between the judiciary on the one hand and the other two branches of government on the other. The conceptual incoherence comes to the fore in these passages which, quite frankly, I find rather frightening. This is because the passages suggests a fundamental lack of understanding and/or respect for the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in a constitutional democracy. The document thus makes the following extraordinary claim:
The importance of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the state to cooperate and act interdependently in exercising their distinctive constitutional obligations for the common good of the country cannot be over-emphasised. Government must function as an integrated, singular unit in pursuit of the vision set out in the Constitution. Formidable state machinery, acting in unison, is a requisite to overcome the colonial and apartheid legacy of inequality, and the deprivation of the majority of our people. The principle of separation of powers envisages a system of mutual co-existence and interdependence by all three branches of the state.
Of course, if the three branches were to act in complete unison as an integrated singular unit “for the common good” (a common good defined by those politicians who happen to be in power), it would be difficult to see how one branch of that government would consistently declare invalid the acts of the other branches of the government with which it works in unison. At best the branches will debate the constitutional issues at stake beforehand and the two political branches will alter course to ensure compliance with the Constitution. At worst the two political branches will be able to prevail politically on the judiciary to re-interpret the provisions of the Constitution to give the legislature and executive more leeway to do as they please.
This vision of the three branches all working as an integrated whole towards a common goal (defined by the political party in government) therefore seems to be at odds with a modern notion of a separation of powers in a constitutional state in which the courts retain the power vigorously to check the power of the other two branches of government. The document quotes from a chapter in a Canadian Law Commission Report entitled “Interdependence not independence: Institutional and administrative dimensions of judicial independence”, written by Richard Simeon to support its view. Simeon argues for the need for interdependence and the collegiality of effort for the effective coordination and consolidation of programmes of the state towards a common vision. With reference to the American Constitution (but not in line with the South African jurisprudence) Simeon makes the claim that no clear lines can be drawn between the branches of government:
The doctrine of separation of powers is often invoked to justify the institutional independence of the Judiciary. But sometimes forgotten is the other core of the principle of the US Constitution, checks and balances. The American constitutional design does not envision the three branches as existing in splendid isolation from each other. Rather, tyranny is avoided by having each branch check and balance each other – in other words to be interdependent. The relationship among them is indeed ‘indelibly political’. A blend, as a US judge puts it, of ‘separateness, but interdependence, autonomy, but reciprocity’. At any time there is a dialogue, or negotiation with the other branches about… budget, jurisdiction, size, procedures, and administration.
What the document fails to say is that the chapter from which it quotes was written by a political scientists (and not a judge or a lawyer) and that the author introduced his remarks by saying that he was talking as someone concerned with public administration, a person who believed that the constitution was not of much help in any discussion about the relationship between the branches of government. It also does not mention that this view flies in the face of the view taken by the Canadian Supreme Court (which is indeed staffed by real judges, not political scientists) in the Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.) judgement, a case in which that court made the following statement directly at odds with the views expressed by the discussion document:
under no circumstances is it permissible for the judiciary — not only collectively through representative organizations, but also as individuals — to engage in negotiations over remuneration with the executive or representatives of the legislature. Any such negotiations would be fundamentally at odds with judicial independence. … The prohibition on negotiations therefore does not preclude expressions of concern or representations by chief justices and chief judges, and organizations that represent judges, to governments regarding the adequacy of judicial remuneration….
What is at issue here is the character of the relationships between the legislature and the executive on the one hand, and the judiciary on the other. These relationships should be depoliticized. When I say that those relationships are depoliticized, I do not mean to deny that they are political in the sense that court decisions (both constitutional and non-constitutional) often have political implications, and that the statutes which courts adjudicate upon emerge from the political process. What I mean instead is the legislature and executive cannot, and cannot appear to, exert political pressure on the judiciary, and conversely, that members of the judiciary should exercise reserve in speaking out publicly on issues of general public policy that are or have the potential to come before the courts, that are the subject of political debate, and which do not relate to the proper administration of justice.
In the light of the above the proposal in the document regarding the closer co-operation between branches and the need for the branches to engage with one another in order to co-ordinate its activities so that it can operate as a single unit, is deeply troubling. The following proposal is therefore a non-starter and any judge – including the Chief Justice – who values judicial independence should reject it out of hand. The document namely proposes that one aim of any review would be to facilitate:
the establishment of mechanisms for the three branches of state to engage in regular debates to manage their interface within the context of the separation of powers in pursuit of a common transformative goal that is geared to benefit society at large.
Of course these proposals are not only conceptually incoherent, and in conflict with the understanding given to the separation of powers by judges and lawyers in other modern democracies, they are also doubly problematic in a country like South Africa with a one party dominant democracy in which the legislature and the executive (as well as the institution tasked with appointing judges) are dominated by one political party and where there is little chance that another party will take control of these branches of government or of the JSC in the medium to long term. In a one party dominant democracy, a proposal for the creation of mechanisms to allow for “debates” between the three branches of government, is a proposal to infuse party political concerns into the relationship between the three branches of government.
While the decisions of judges cannot be divorced from politics and while many judicial decisions will have political consequences, the infusion of party politics in the relationship between the legislature and executive on the one hand and the judiciary on the other will render a fatal blow to the principles of respect for the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as it will lead to an inevitable exertion of political pressure on the judiciary – as the Canadian Supreme Court warned so clearly.
The question that arises from this discussion document is the following: will the leadership of the judiciary go along with the proposals to infuse party politics into the relationship between the three branches of government or will they resist and fight for their independence and for their constitutionally conferred power to check the other two branches of government?
When he/she sends you “mixed signals” rather take it as a NO. Just ask the prez.
This is a brilliant observation by the prof:
“…..the sinking realisation that both the proposed review of the Constitutional Court and any possible amendments to its powers will be impossible to implement. After all, who will actually be able to peruse all the documents before the Constitutional Court in every single case ever heard by that court to make a sensible assessment of its performance? And in the absence of such a wide ranging perusal of all relevant documents, any review of the Court will be nonsensical and meaningless as it will not tell us anything about whether the court fulfilled its mandate…..”
Who will take on such a mammoth task?
And complete it within 18 months.
It’s simply twak.
Who will be the clots appointed to “supervise” the Concourt – taking it that the best minds have allready been appointed to the Concourt. Who are these brilliant people who know the constitution better than the Concourt – to “examine’ [in the true sense of the word] the work of the Concourt.
Its preposterous.
Hehehe!
What a tangled web we weave…
I think you protest too much. It is simple. There are well-founded historical examples.
Like the KGB minders who used to accompany sport teams from the USSR when they toured the world.
OBS has already volunteered.
Hands up anyone who doesn’t think this ‘review’ was punted because of the feelings of horror evoked at the thought of the ConCourt upholding an order overturning the NPA’s decision to halt the prosecution of Jacob Zuma 783?
Hands up anyone who doesn’t think JZ is shaking his head and grinding his teeth – again – the moment Radebe turns his back?
Brett -
“Hands up anyone …”
OK, mine’s up.
Any chance of you, or anyone here, being able to tell me whether there’s a time limit on how long judgements may be “reserved”?
From today’s Burger:
“Radebe was ook katvoet om te sê wat hy gaan doen indien daar ná afloop van die hersieningsproses aanbeveel word dat die konstitusionele hof nie die finale en hoogste hof in die land sal wees nie.”
Quelle effing horreur!
Apparently our e-tolling expert Mnr Botha is the grandson of Pik.
‘It would prefer a court that works with government to achieve a common goal – rather than a court that vigorously and in an “activist” manner checks the powers of the other two branches of government.’
More alarmism. Nothing was said by Radebe that is at odds with Ngcobo’s inveterate talk of ‘constitutional dialogue.’
Europeans must understand that African culture has traditionally preferred cooperation and consensus-building to adversarial partisanship. That is where Radebe’s coming from. Is this model of governance appropriate, or even possible, within Western political institutions, I do not know. But if it’s what the ppl want….
I would also point out that contrary to chicken-little’s fear mongering, Canada does not have constitutional supremacy and it seems to survive.
@ Dmwangi
“African culture has traditionally preferred cooperation and consensus-building”
With respect, Dmwangi, your whitish graduate school has taught you little of African culture. Our people indeed value cooperation and consensus-building. But they also understand that these require strong central leadership. A proper consensus usually develops around the nucleus of a man who is able to synthesize and promote the best interests of all the entire tribe. And this leader is in turn “channeling” the wisdom of ancestors, the collective and trans-historic body of which is the true repository of African sovereignty.
Hope this clarifies things for you.
Gwebecimele
“Apparently our e-tolling expert Mnr Botha is the grandson of Pik.”
Evidently the same family …
Dmwangi
“Canada does not have constitutional supremacy …”
Wrong: Canada does.
Dmwangi
February 29, 2012 at 16:11 pm
Hey Dm,
“Europeans must understand that African culture has traditionally preferred cooperation and consensus-building to adversarial partisanship. That is where Radebe’s coming from. Is this model of governance appropriate, or even possible, within Western political institutions, I do not know. But if it’s what the ppl want….”
Too true.
Ignore Dworky, the filthy racist – he doesn’t know nothing!
Do tell again why you abandoned your country for our country which is founded on “constitutional supremacy” vs other African countries say Kenya, Somalia, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Japan, London and the like.
A lesson for our courts, constitution and judges.
http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15213&Itemid=12
MDF:
I made a simple factual statement about Africans valuing non-adversarial forms of governance. Nothing you said refutes this. One can be ruled under an absolute monarchy or by direct democracy and still be within this paradigm.
Joeslis:
You’re wrong. Canada has a legislative override. See the ‘notwithstanding clause.’
Maggs: Only you would call Japan and London AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
Let me self-correct before Maggs becomes apoplectic: Canada has constitutional supremacy but the legislature can enact laws without regard for certain constitutional rights. Hence, ‘notwithstanding.’
A fine distinction but w/Maggs’ sophistry….
Dmwangi
February 29, 2012 at 16:11 pm
“Canada does not have constitutional supremacy and it seems to survive.”
So you are a Cdn undercover black activist in South Africa. Canada most certainly does have a Constitutional Supremacy. I can never recall, as a Cdn from a long standing Cdn political family, when the Government of the day overturned the Constitution which is fearlessly upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
If you know otherwise, please post details accordingly.
Lock them up.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=283107&sn=Detail&pid=71616
@Prof: thank for clarifying Radebe’s bullshit words by Richard Simeon, which when I read them, thought immediately: he’s giving a non legal opinion about the US political system, which is decidedly inferior to Canada’s and has very little in common with the Cdn political/judicial system. We have in Canada many wannabe Americans who try to spread their foolish opinion of US malaise to Canada. However, being that we are the US’s big brother, we tend to be tolerant of such ignorant twerps. Perhaps he was educated in one of America’s less reputable universities.
Nevertheless, Radebe using a quote by Simeon is just another example of he, Radebe, spinning pseudo lies, exploiting the correctly perceived respected Canadian law with a twist, one might say while yet not referring to a judicial decision. Reminds me of the inferior legal justification put forth for dropping charges against Zuma.
In Canada, DM, any politician, or anyone else for that matter, be it even Government, who tries to influence or threaten in any way the Supreme Court or a member of the Supreme Court of Canada, or for that matter any judge or magistrate, would not only be forced to resign immediately, but would likely also do time.
Not yourself being an indigenous Canadian you are probably not even capable of understanding the high levels of ethics, excellence or standing of the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian judicial system.
Your attempts at disinformation are being noted.
Dmwangi says:
February 29, 2012 at 16:11 pm
Yesss? In which institutions has that been the ‘tradition’?
“Europeans must understand that African culture has traditionally preferred cooperation and consensus-building to adversarial partisanship.”
‘Not yourself being an indigenous Canadian you are probably not even capable of understanding the high levels of ethics, excellence or standing of the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian judicial system.’
Alright son, keep calm. Then google, ‘notwithstanding clause.’ You’ll see various CDN provinces have invoked it many times, Including to protect heterosexual marriage.
Dmwangi says:
February 29, 2012 at 19:44 pm
MDF:
“I made a simple factual statement about Africans valuing non-adversarial forms of governance”
Yes, of course: Why should the person staging the coup and the oke being deposed necessarily have to be adversaries, Maggs, Dworky? These things can actually be quite friendly, you know!
Brett Nortje
February 29, 2012 at 21:33 pm
Actually Brett, unlike North American Aboriginal people who included and include today still, women’s circles, and women in tribal/village council circles, in order to work towards consensus which they do (including prior sweats, fasting and dancing to accomplish this) we, however, know full well the abuse of male tribal traditional leaders in Africa. DM’s comments about consensus and much else are full of self delusional kak.
Of interest perhaps to a few, NAm Indians view each individual’s beliefs and desires as a circle. Within the greater circle encompassing all circles, the consensus is created by finding in which way all circles interact at some point.
In my humble (hopefully) view DM doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Regardless DM: “in July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.
Note the word ‘nationwide’.
And regardless of the notwithstanding clause, any Cdn homosexual couple can be married. The only right the province has, grandson, is to not recognize it provincially, while nationally it is recognized. And that’s what matters, national trumps provincial. And national is Constitutionally supreme. The not withstanding clause in this and other petty provincial(ism) cases is little more than daddy telling you I don’t agree.
DM: your quote… “to protect heterosexual marriage.”
Well that says everything about your beliefs, doesn’t it. A Freudian slip perhaps. As in comparison, for example, rather referring to a quote from an enlightened mind about certain Cdn provincial attempts to deny the human rights of Canadian homosexual citizens protected under the law by the Supreme Court.
Then again, many of the readers of Prof’s blog would have got this anyway.
“African culture has traditionally preferred cooperation and consensus-building to adversarial partisanship.”
It would be difficult to make an empirical case supporting this oft repeated assertion, particularly when comparing historical models of the two supposed “opposites” (as formulated).
Even at the qualitative level it is a rather weak statement; One could make the same case for just about any culture, simply by throwing in the conditional “preferred”.
That’s fine, Sirjay. You enjoy Canada. And I’ll continue to enjoy driving my M3 on the M5.
In case you didn’t get the message, blacks run things here now– ’til Jesus comes.’
Oh, and dismissing the notion of federalism as quaint, ‘says everything about your beliefs, doesn’t it.’
Dmwangi
February 29, 2012 at 23:03 pm:
“Oh, and dismissing the notion of federalism as quaint, ‘says everything about your beliefs, doesn’t it.”
Recruiting for the DA there, Dmwangi ?
Nah, am a non-partisan guy. But I do believe in subsidiarity.
[...] De Vos P ‘Mixed signals on the review of our courts’ 29 Feb 2012 via Constitutionally Speaking here [...]
Why are Canadians posting here telling us Africans what to do?
My first boss long time ago emigrated to Canada. He said Bleks are going to fuck SA up and whites will be treated like shit as time goes on just like in that banana republic Zimbabwe. Racist bastard that.
ozoneblue
March 1, 2012 at 6:49 am
Hey OB,
“Racist bastard that.”
He sure sounds really, really awful.
It’s a pity that he’s influenced you as much as he did.
p.s. You said elsewhere “… you think I’m stupid or that I’m joking”. I deny in the strongest terms that I think you’re JOKING.
Dmwangi
February 29, 2012 at 19:44 pm
Hey Dm,
“Maggs: Only you would call Japan and London AFRICAN COUNTRIES.”
Ok, ok I made a mistake with Japan (my friend told me that it is an AMERICAN country).
But which country is LONDON?
p.s. Wanna bet that Zuma is not capable of “reducing the powers of the Constitutional Court” or reviewing it or tampering with it?
BTW is it true that Cabinet breakfasts are only provided with bacon – the eggs are being scraped of Zuma’s face and toast is the former ANC Youth League leaders?
@ Brett – note that I implied nothing about the famous fast food, the one with the red and white colours and the guy with the white beard, nor the smart teacher of law from Zilleland. But the forthcoming attraction is “Dworky is fair game”.
LOL @ the NDC.
“Comrade Julius Malema is expelled from the ANC,” the NDC said in a statement.
Expelled = former comrade!
Let’s try again.
“
ComradeJulius Malema is expelled from the ANC,” the NDC said in a statement.@maggot
He always insisted that he wasn’t a racist – just a realist. I had long heated debates with his ilk at the time when I was still a limp wristed self-loathing liberal.
ozoneblue
March 1, 2012 at 8:38 am
Hey OB,
“when I was still a limp wristed self-loathing liberal.”
Is it correct to assume that you’re not longer “limp wristed”?
Maggs, I say Mr Malema is a SPENT FORCE!
He has a lot to learn. But we now know he will never learn it.
Thanks.
Lol. I had a couple of beers on that one. Kill the boer -look who is dead now!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
March 1, 2012 at 8:53 am
Hey Dworky,
“He has a lot to learn.”
Juju’s learned a lot (like the ANC will fire you ass if you step out of line) – Zuma meant what he said when he proclaimed “he will learn”.
Hopefully you’ve learned a lot too – especially that sometimes we get too close to the woods to see the trees.
http://www.thenewage.co.za/Detail.aspx?blog_id=2061&blog_cat_id=1080
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
March 1, 2012 at 9:06 am
Trees or woods, Maggs?
http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html
South Africa: Polarized Country
Genocide Watch returns South Africa to stage 5 “polarization” on its Countries at Risk Chart
By Genocide Watch
2 February 2012
After upgrading South Africa to stage 6 “preparation” in September 2011 due to the increasing power of Julius Malema, then the Marxist racist President of the African National Congress Youth League, two quite significant developments have occurred. The first was a South African court’s ruling that Malema’s singing of the “Shoot the Boer” song constitutes “hate speech” in violation of South African law. The court issued an injunction prohibiting Malema from singing the song. The second development is the suspension of Julius Malema from the African National Congress (ANC) and his removal as President of the ANC Youth League.
Stage 5 of the eight stages of genocide is “polarization”. Given the history of Apartheid in South Africa, there is deep-rooted polarization between whites and black in the nation. Part of the polarization in South Africa is the legacy of Apartheid and the continuing dominance in the economy of white owned businesses and farms. There is also polarization from the black population, who feel excluded from real power and jobs, even though the ANC now controls the government.
A response to this black polarization was Julius Malema’s call for redistribution of wealth from the white population to the black population, which Malema claimed to be a “correction of the injustices of Apartheid.”
The current socio-economical inequalities in South Africa are leading to an increasing, rather than decreasing polarization. Since poverty and unemployment among black youth remains, tensions between impoverished blacks and wealthier whites is likely to increase.
This general polarization, which is normally non-violent, created a fertile ground for political radicalization. That was the case with the rise of Malema, former President of the ANC Youth League, when he and his followers sang the old anti-Boer song: “Kill the Boer” at rallies of the Youth League. Malema called for expropriation of white owned land when he was in Zimbabwe visiting Robert Mugabe and called Botswana’s racially harmonious society “neo-colonial”. These practices of Malema, and the slowness of the leadership of the ANC to discipline him, made Genocide Watch upgrade South Africa to stage 6 in September 2011. But now that Malema has been removed from his position of growing power, Genocide Watch is returning South Africa to stage 5.
It is very important to note that downgrading Genocide Watch’s risk assessment, does not mean that the situation is safe now in South Africa. Unfortunately, we still think Malema has a large following among unemployed youth, and tensions between black and white people are still high.
Genocide Watch continues to be alarmed at hate crimes committed against whites, particularly against Boer farmers, an important early warning sign that genocide could occur. Those who commit such crimes must be promptly brought to justice, and denounced by the political leaders of South Africa. Genocide Watch’s first six stages do not constitute genocide. Genocide Watch does not believe that genocide is currently underway in South Africa. Nevertheless, Genocide Watch will keep a watchful eye on the situation.
Brett Nortje
March 1, 2012 at 10:31 am
Hey G,
I heard that forces are mobilising for MASS GENOCIDE.
Is it true?
Are you scared?
Hey, Maggs, is this your family?
Next Grandpa is going to start with Nehru’s rowing boats being a week from Durban…
Gwebecimele says:
March 1, 2012 at 10:29 am
http://www.thenewage.co.za/Detail.aspx?blog_id=2061&blog_cat_id=1080
Brett Nortje
March 1, 2012 at 10:40 am
Hey G,
“Hey, Maggs, is this your family?”
nah – my family are all dead.
OB killed them.
Next week he’s going after our pets.
p.s. Stop picking on my grandpa – Prof MO will waer his angry face. Again!
Brett Nortje
March 1, 2012 at 10:40 am
Hey G,
“Hey, Maggs, is this your family?”
nah – my family are all dead.
OB killed them.
Next week he’s going after our pets.
p.s. Stop picking on my grandpa – Prof MO will wear his angry face. Again!
Mwangi is probably going to say: ‘God bless – rent-seeking Indians less’…
Could you tell me what Mwangi is seeking in South AFrica?
Brett Nortje
March 1, 2012 at 11:20 am
G,
“Could you tell me what Mwangi is seeking in South Africa?”
A boyfriend!
NEXT!!!!
Disciplinary action should be taken against government spokesman Jimmy Manyi for failing to get written approval for being paid as a director of the Black Management Forum’s (BMF) investment arm while he was labour director-general.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/act-against-manyi-over-breaking-law-1.1246377
@ Brett
According to the internationally respected NGO “Annihilation Alert” (“AA”) almost 68% of whitish people in South Africa had, as of December 31, 2001, either: (a) been killed in their beds; or (b), become severely disgruntled, as a direct result of the obnoxious policies of the Marxist-Engels-Stalinist ANC.
Is this true?
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
March 1, 2012 at 11:28 am
Brett Nortje
March 1, 2012 at 11:20 am
G,
“Could you tell me what Mwangi is seeking in South Africa?”
A boyfriend!’
Sorry to disappoint Maggs. I’d never be able to stomach the anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and incontinence. Can’t imagine how you manage.
And of course, am African so same-sex mating is unthinkable.
Of the ~120 days I’m in SA, I’m spending time w/the wife and kids, fulfilling S. Africans insatiable desire for consumer goods and hosting parties. Nothing sinister.
Certainly not raping gov. coffers like E. African Indians. In fact, my accountants keep telling me I need to do more tax planning!
Dmwangi
March 1, 2012 at 15:52 pm
Hey Dm,
“Sorry to disappoint Maggs. I’d never be able to stomach the anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and incontinence. Can’t imagine how you manage. ”
Liar!
On all three.
p.s. If “same-sex mating is unthinkable”, how come you ‘thinked’ up all that stuff?
p.p.s. So 120 days the dearest – there’s another 245 (264) this year – I can help out while you’re away.
Prof: This issue about the Cdn Supreme Court and its rulings in Canada, and our SA government skelms attempting to utilize faulty self serving agendas, speaking of Canada to exploit their limited self interested views is somewhat frustrating. Take homosexual marriage rights, or Quebec language rights as principal examples.
Our Cdn Constitution is indeed supreme, but it is also understanding and tolerant where tolerance is recognized as advisable to keep the peace. Yes, Alberta for example, much like the Calvinists of SA, refuses to accept homosexual marriage, however, like many other human rights in Canada provinces also have the right to object. At a national Constitutional level, homosexuals can marry, have spousal rights, pension, inheritance etc, regardless of their province of abode, and all these rights are managed at a national level.
For the French speakers, well we try our best to keep the peace there as we don’t wish Canada to be severed, and yes, in Quebec, and only in Quebec, business signs must be in French, where elsewhere in Canada, bilingualism in business and courts is imperative. Its a bit like older brothers tolerating younger siblings cause in the end we love them anyway and we love with a passion our country and forever want it to remain united.
That Radebe and SA is falsely exploiting these finer and subtle differences of Cdn Constitution law, as expressed in that their suggestion that our SA Constitution is faulty, and that it needs to be changed; well that angers me. Its abuse and complete ignorance of Canadian law for self serving enrichment.
Canada established the League of Nations, subsequently evolving into the UN.
Canada established the Peace Keepers, one of the four corner pillars of intended world peace.. All flowed from our Constitution. Lester Pearson who produced these incredible benefits to the world, won the Nobel Peace Prize.
SA should be so blessed to live like Canadians under our SA Constitution, which according to international analysts, trumps even Canada’s Constitution.
What is that song? You don’t know what you’ve got till its gone.
So 120 days away from the dearest…
@Dmwangi
“Raping” government coffers? Sounds amazing. How exactly does that work?
joeslis
March 1, 2012 at 20:28 pm
Hey Joelis,
“’Raping’ government coffers? Sounds amazing. How exactly does that work?”
That’s easy.
Say for example you’re a Kenyan.
You steal government money and run away to South Africa.
Brag about how clever you are.
Don’t go back to Kenya.
Point fingers at everyone else.
Geddit?
p.s. The story above is entirely fictional. Any resemblance to real people or places is purely coincidental.
‘p.p.s. So 120 days the dearest – there’s another 245 (264) this year – I can help out while you’re away.’
If you’re pandering for a job in the garden, I already have excellent help with that. If you’re suggesting something more prurient, I can only laugh at the idea. But I’ll forward your post and OB’s link of your pic to my wife. I’m sure her response will be amusing.
‘Canada established the League of Nations, subsequently evolving into the UN.
Canada established the Peace Keepers, one of the four corner pillars of intended world peace.. All flowed from our Constitution. Lester Pearson who produced these incredible benefits to the world, won the Nobel Peace Prize.’
Funny thing is he actually flouts these as grand achievements. At least SA can boast Mandela, Tutu, Barnard, Luthuli, Biko, etc. And I’ll take Durban beaches and Table Mountain over that prairie glacier any day.
Dmwangi, with respect, I don’t know why you go on and on about “Indians” in particular seeking rent. I leased a small flat in Yeoville (Harley Street), during the Struggle. And I can tell you, around the 5th of each month, my landlord (who, BTW, was not Indian), would be knocking on the door looking for his rent!
Maggs, WDYS?
MDF:
‘Rent-seeking’ is a term used in economics:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
When last did PdV respond to any commentary on his blog? He starting to resemble His Master’s Voice himself.
oi. Not a good week for the professional Black.
“Disciplinary action should be taken against government spokesman Jimmy Manyi for failing to get written approval for being paid as a director of the Black Management Forum’s (BMF) investment arm while he was labour director-general. This is the recommendation of the Public Service Commission (PSC), which investigated a complaint laid by the Freedom Front Plus in March last year. In a five-page report dated February 22, PSC chairman BM Mthembu recommends that the Minister in the Presidency, Collins Chabane, take “appropriate disciplinary steps against Mr Manyi” for failing to comply with section 30 of the Public Service Act, 1994, as amended.”
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/act-against-manyi-over-breaking-law-1.1246377
But the harder they try the more they cry.
Malema plays the race card
“You must never allow a white person, in this case the employer, to divide you. It’s an apartheid strategy. Always be united as workers because whites take money and give it to the other miners and not others who work underground. The ANCYL – we know it is an apartheid strategy. It’s an apartheid tactic,” he said. Malema urged workers not to fight among themselves, adding the battle must be directed at the enemy not fellow brothers. “Even if we are angry, we must not fight amongst us. We must not kill blacks, there must be no black on black violence. We know the enemy and we know where the enemy resides,” he said.”
http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/local-news?oid=262124&sn=Detail&pid=40&Malema-plays-the-race-card
The revolutionary professional Black is also color blind.
http://www.implats.co.za/implats/Board-of-directors.asp
OB
Like a Prez on twitter or facebook
OB
Clink on the Management link and you will see who is incharge. As expected the Black face who is suppose to be responsible for “Employee Relations” is missing in action.
Eish – the whelf it is controlled by the evil White people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bafokeng_Nation
Gwebecimele
March 1, 2012 at 22:15 pm
I knew the professional Black will wiggle and squeal cause cause he knows his time is running out.
And who is this Royal Bafokeng Nation?
@ Dmwangi
“‘Rent-seeking’ is a term used in economics:”
Thanks, Dmwangi. We received no instruction in Public Choice theory at my rather mediocre trade schools.
‘Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
March 1, 2012 at 22:37 pm
@ Dmwangi
“‘Rent-seeking’ is a term used in economics:”
Thanks, Dmwangi. We received no instruction in Public Choice theory at my rather mediocre trade schools.’
As I assumed. Just as well, though. While interesting, most of that type of analysis is based on faulty Humean premises.
If it makes you feel better, I’d hire a CA or quality MBA– trade school credentials– over a D. Phil.
@ Dmwangi
Thanks. Will you hire me? I am fluent in English and Slovenian, and good with my hands. (No, Maggs, not in THAT way!)
Maggs, has Mwangi thanked you yet?
Dmwangi
March 1, 2012 at 20:42 pm
Hey Dm,
“I’m sure her response will be amusing.”
Indeed it will – but sadly you may not be around to see that response.
In India we have an expression – “we aim to amuse”. And we’re pretty good at it x 1.2 billion.
p.s. Maybe your gardener is also good at amusing but even gardeners need time out.
Brett Nortje
March 2, 2012 at 7:38 am
G – thanked for?
@ Dworky – “No, Maggs, not in THAT way” – you’re just being modest.
Dm will appreciate your talents – as you can see from his vivid descriptions of the aftermath, he’s got first hand (p/i) and in depth (ditto on p/i) experience of having an adept ‘handyman’.
Terminal illness with a twist!
My DEAD UNCLE did it.
Controversial liquidator Enver Motala has secretly applied for a presidential pardon for fraud and theft – apparently as part of a bid to overturn the decision by the master of the high court to blacklist him.
http://mg.co.za/article/2012-03-02-motala-seeks-absolution
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
March 2, 2012 at 8:37 am
Driving around on roads paid for by your taxes.
And unperturbed the bloody [British] agent continues to manufacture the propaganda.
“The BBC’s Andrew Harding in Johannesburg says the expulsion means Mr Zuma, who became president in 2009, is now virtually assured of another term.
President Jacob Zuma must be purring with satisfaction at the way his most public enemy has been neutered.”
Andrew Harding BBC News, Johannesburg”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17218172
No surprises there either. Very mush the same spin put on it by the author of this blog. The “whitishness” inadvertently shining through again because in dark Africa all politics are corrupt and motivated by sinister motives and battles between despots for political power.
Brett Nortje
March 2, 2012 at 8:48 am
LOL G,
Our country belongs to all who live in it.
And EVERONE here contributes to the fiscus in some or other way.
Of course Dm has paid the ultimate tribute to our country – even though he is in demand in over 120 countries for his ‘skills and talents’ around the world (and wanted in at least one African country, not LONDON because London is not an African country), he chose to settle here.
On the other hand, a lot of other criminals have settled here too.
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
March 2, 2012 at 9:06 am
So you don’t agree that the bloody agents and the political chameleons are broadcasting mixed messages into the world?
Malema is not fired because he is a corrupt black fascist, ill-disciplined and to be brutally honest a fucking embarrassment to the ANC and South Africa. He was fired because the evil AIDS-defining Zuma has morphed into a Stalin overnight and has “eliminated” all competition inside his “populist” and “marxist” party so that he can get a second term and become prez for life? [...much like is typical in Africa...]
@ OB
“Malema is not fired because he is a corrupt black fascist …”
OB is right.
“The greatest treason:
To do the right thing
For the wrong reason.”
(From ‘A Man for All Seasons’ – which Malema is not)
The women shall receive tampons and pads provided by the state.
In the HANDBOOK.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/our-speaker-s-mouth-watering-shopping-list-1.1247136
ozoneblue
March 2, 2012 at 9:25 am
OB,
“So you don’t agree that the bloody agents and the political chameleons are broadcasting mixed messages into the world?”
Ours is a constitutional democracy in which people can express their views in any which way they choose.
E.g. you can tell me to “fuck off to India to be with 1.2 billion other coolies”.
Some people will think that you’re “stupid or joking” (although most will think that you’re not joking) others will dismiss or ignore it.
Ultimately it’s what our Constitution which will determine which messages are valid and which are not.
Nevertheless the hype around which is not, as pointless and meaningless as those may be, makes for good conversations.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
March 2, 2012 at 9:54 am
You are sending mixed signals again. So is that what you really want for SA – Black fascism?
How are you going to cope – put on the Black face? or will you quietly slip out through the back door and use that second passport to Britain/India/Slovenia to go and live cosily with those bloody white agents?
Testimony from another BBC reporter [not Mr. Andrew Harding]:
“When Mr Fisher began to pack up his belongings, Mr Malema continued: “You don’t come here with that tendency, don’t come here with that white tendency. Not here, you can do it somewhere else, not here. If you’ve got a tendency of undermining blacks even where you work, you are in the wrong place. Here, you’re in the wrong place.”"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/7568892/BBC-reporter-ejected-from-ANC-news-conference.html
ozoneblue
March 2, 2012 at 9:25 am
OB,
“He was fired because …”
His behaviour, as a leader, was inconsistent with that required by the constitution of the ANC.
The lesson that ought to be learned is that nobody is above the ANC.
Even former President Mandela had to retire after only serving one term for the greater good of the movement.
I speculate that Zuma will not serve another term – but let’s see what happens.
A few months is long time in politics!
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
March 2, 2012 at 10:03 am
“Ultimately it’s what our Constitution which will determine which messages are valid and which are not.”
Excellent. So lets practice what we preach then.
“Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.”
Singing “Kill the boer” and spreading hatred for whites strikes me as unconstitutional?
http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/constitution/english-web/preamble.html
ozoneblue
March 2, 2012 at 10:16 am
OB – read this.
Slowly!
Ours is a constitutional democracy in which people can express their views in any which way they choose.
BIGGEST JOKE OF THE DAY.
BOTH GROUPS ARE LED BY BACK FACES MTOBA & MAJOKWENI vs NTSELE & ZUNGU.
Lets hope Zungu’s contribution will be different if not better from his current role as BEE Council chair.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=166407
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
March 2, 2012 at 10:15 am
“I speculate that Zuma will not serve another term – but let’s see what happens.”
You have proven before that you really know fuckall so what do you say to the supporters of the 100% Zulu boy?
“In the wake of Julius Malema’s expulsion from the ANC and its structures, members of the party’s disbanded youth league in KwaZulu-Natal have said it is time for the organisation to reclaim its power from Malema’s destructive grip. KZN MPL Mthandeni Dlungwane, who was also the chairman of the provincial body which was stripped of its powers by Malema and his allies in 2011, said the ANC had taken a “bold move” and used the opportunity to redeem itself. He said during Malema’s time as youth league president the pursuit of “individual interests” had been the key, and it was unacceptable that one individual was allowed to “tear the organisation apart”. ”
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/kzn-youth-league-happy-malema-s-out-1.1247181
I have told you so.
Gwebecimele
March 2, 2012 at 10:01 am
Hey Gwebs,
If there’s any mayonnaise among that shopping, it should be sent to President Zuma.
He needs something to go with all that egg on his face!
Johannesburg – The government’s decision to commission a study on Constitutional Court rulings has “no agenda”, ANC treasurer general Mathews Phosa said on Thursday.
“We have no agenda to interfere with the independence of the judiciary, nor to diminish its powers and authority,” he said in a speech at an ANC centenary event in Delmas, Mpumalanga.
“We believe firmly in the separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and the legislative institutions. We respect the Constitution of South Africa and the rule of law.“
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Independence-of-judiciary-not-at-risk-20120301
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
March 2, 2012 at 10:18 am
It is rather disingenuous of you and the likes of PdV to claim “freedom of speech” when you know that scores of people are murdered daily in South Africa and that there is a psychotic/barbarically cruel element to many of these murders where whites are the victims.
Reminds me what kind of insensitive, politically correct morally ambiguous scumbags you are.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Woman-78-tortured-with-clothes-iron-20120224
We are busy with more important issues such as Malema, this rumour can wait.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/french-company-with-sa-link-bust-for-bribes-1.1247233
ozoneblue
March 2, 2012 at 10:52 am
Hey OB,
God spoke to me on 27 April 1994.
He asked if I will take on the task to protect White people from getting murdered by the murderous, callous, brutal Black people (all 40 million or so at the time).
I said no because I was packing up my things to “fuck off back to India to be with 1.2 billion other coolies”.
But mainly because I don’t like blood.
Whoever took the job is not doing very well – maybe a replacement is needed.
Any suggestions?
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
March 2, 2012 at 11:17 am
“I said no because I was packing up my things to “fuck off back to India to be with 1.2 billion other coolies”.”
That is really unfortunate. You should have fucked-off to Uganda so that you can see how a Black president deals with the Indian problem.
Re Quote of the Week:
The most important thing for a political liberal, not surprisingly, is the preservation of liberty. Liberty is roughly conceived as the ability to live the sort of life that one chooses… There are three essential components to a political liberal perspective: autonomy, equality, and neutrality.
by Elijah Weber
Racist
ozoneblue says:
March 2, 2012 at 11:35 am
OB,
“You should have fucked-off to Uganda so that you can see how a Black president deals with the Indian problem.”
Indeed.
As far as I know Ugandan President Museveni has made concerted effort at getting Indians into Uganda.
Maybe my 9 year old son would have been CAPTAIN of their NATIONAL CRICKET TEAM.
@ Sirjay
“The most important thing for a political liberal, not surprisingly, is the preservation of liberty.”
With respect, Sirjay, this is not so. The most important thing for a LIBERAL is PRIVATE PROPERTY. That is what Cmd. Blade warns about in Pierre’s quote of the week (supra.) And it is why the LIBERAL WHITISTS have collaborated to remove the INCONVENIENT YOUTH from ANC.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
March 2, 2012 at 15:49 pm
“Blade warns about in Pierre’s quote of the week (supra.) And it is why the LIBERAL WHITISTS have collaborated to remove the INCONVENIENT YOUTH from ANC.”
Bullshit. The “inconvenient youth” is all for private property as long as it is held by blacks.
According to Blackstone the right to own property is the cornerstne of individual liberty, O Fatuous One!
Brett Nortje
March 2, 2012 at 16:19 pm
There is of course a vast difference between owning a little house to live in versus being disgustingly rich owning half of South Africa while the vast majority of people live in squatter camps with nothing to eat.
The one I agree is an important aspect of individual liberty – the other is nothing but obnoxious CAPITALIST GREED. And for you to intentionally conflate the two show me just what a dishonest hypocrite you are.
Se my gou: Watter twee conflate ek?
Weet jy wat ‘conflate’ beteken, ouboet?
Brett Nortje
March 2, 2012 at 20:06 pm
“Se my gou: Watter twee conflate ek?”
ek versus ekke. You care conflating both ekke would say, boet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRzFqW4Xh2k
Another ‘split decision’, with Zondo, the CJ and Jafta (the minority) showing their clearly conservative colours:
“Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd
Case CCT 57/11
[2012] ZACC 02
Hearing Date: 03 November 2011
Judgment Date: 13 March 2012
——————————————————————————–
Media Summary
——————————————————————————–
TheThe following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.
The Constitutional Court, today, handed down judgment in a case concerning evictions that arose from a rental dispute between tenants of a Johannesburg apartment building and their landlord.
Ntombizodwa Yvonne Maphango [Mgidlana] and fourteen other residents (tenants) of the Lowliebenhof apartment block in Braamfontein challenged the cancellation of their leases by their landlord, Aengus Lifestyle Properties, a property investment company. Each of the tenants had a lease that ran for a specified period and continued automatically unless either the landlord or the tenant terminated it with written notice.
After purchasing and upgrading the building, the landlord exercised its power to cancel the tenants’ leases, by giving the required written notice. However, the landlord offered each of the tenants an opportunity to enter into a new lease on the same terms, but at much higher rentals. The landlord said these increases were necessary because the building’s costs had long surpassed the tenants’ rentals, which were substantially below market rates.
The tenants, in response, lodged a complaint with the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal (Tribunal), a body established under the Rental Housing Act (Act). Following an unsuccessful mediation, the matter was referred to arbitration, but the tenants withdrew their complaint after the landlord brought eviction proceedings against them in the South Gauteng High Court (High Court).
The majority of the Constitutional Court, per Cameron J, found that the critical question was whether the landlord was entitled to exercise the bare power of termination in the leases for the sole purpose of securing higher rentals. The Court found that the High Court and SCA failed to give adequate weight to the Act and that the landlord’s conduct may have amounted to an “unfair practice”. The Tribunal is empowered to determine whether a landlord committed an “unfair practice”, and it might accordingly have ruled in the tenants’ favour.
The Court reasoned that the Act takes account of market forces as well as the need to protect landlords and tenants. Its most potent provisions are those at the centre of the dispute in this case, namely termination of a lease and rental determinations that are just and equitable.
The tenants, while withdrawing their complaint from the Tribunal, never abandoned their claim that the landlord engaged in an “unfair practice”, and persisted in asserting it before all courts. That complaint, and any the landlord might choose to lodge about the rental rate, should therefore be considered by the Tribunal.
This Court therefore postponed the appeal, and gave both parties until 2 May 2012 to lodge a complaint with the Tribunal. It also allowed the parties to seek leave to apply to this Court following the Tribunal’s decision. If the parties choose not to lodge a complaint with the Tribunal, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
In a dissenting judgment, Zondo AJ (Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J concurring) disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the dispute must be evaluated in the light of the Act. He reasoned that remittance to the Tribunal would be unfair to the landlord because the tenants had not adequately pleaded the “unfair practice” issue. Thus, Zondo AJ concluded, that the matter should be dismissed with no order as to costs.
Froneman J (Yacoob J concurring) wrote a concurring judgement. He found that the Act must apply because courts are obliged to consider relevant statutes when deciding whether a lease may be cancelled. Thus, he stated that the correct interpretation of the Act is essential to addressing the dispute between the parties.”
saying it like it is:
Said Ntsebeza: “The Grootboom judgment asserted her right to adequate housing, but Irene Grootboom was never provided with a house by the government. So it cannot be the court that failed Grootboom, unless you are saying that the courts are delivering impractical judgments. In evaluating Constitutional Court judgments, we also have to evaluate the transformative role of government when it comes to implementing these judgments.”
(http://mg.co.za/article/2012-03-09-grootboom-win-a-house-of-cards)
now, se just need some consistency