Quote of the week

Although judicial proceedings will generally be bound by the requirements of natural justice to a greater degree than will hearings before administrative tribunals, judicial decision-makers, by virtue of their positions, have nonetheless been granted considerable deference by appellate courts inquiring into the apprehension of bias. This is because judges ‘are assumed to be [people] of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances’: The presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, for as Blackstone opined at p. 361 in Commentaries on the Laws of England III . . . ‘[t]he law will not suppose possibility of bias in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea’. Thus, reviewing courts have been hesitant to make a finding of bias or to perceive a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a judge, in the absence of convincing evidence to that effect.

L'Heureux-Dube and McLachlin JJ
Livesey v The New South Wales Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; (1983) 151 CLR 288
26 July 2011

Exactly 50 years ago Frantz Fanon wrote that the curse of post-colonial Africa were the leaders who took over from the colonialists only to become black colonialists themselves. He warned that such people take power from the whites to serve themselves, not the people, while using the rhetoric of a better life for all. He called such leaders the comprador. You have become a comprador even before you take formal power as an official politician. The comprador, according to Fanon, is engaged in “conspicuous consumption”. Please check the meaning of this concept in the dictionary, sir. – Andile Mngxitama, in an open letter to Julius Malema published in The Sowetan

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