An ‘important purpose of section 34 [of the Constitution] is to guarantee the protection of the judicial process to persons who have disputes that can be resolved by law’ and that the right of access to court is ‘foundational to the stability of an orderly society. It ensures the peaceful, regulated and institutionalised mechanisms to resolve disputes, without resorting to self-help. The right of access to court is a bulwark against vigilantism, and the chaos and anarchy which it causes. Construed in this context of the rule of law and the principle against self-help in particular, access to court is indeed of cardinal importance’.The right guaranteed s34 would be rendered meaningless if court orders could be ignored with impunity:the underlying purposes of the right — and particularly that of avoidance of self-help — would be undermined if litigants could decide which orders they wished to obey and which they wished to ignore.
On Tuesday Dr Allan Boesak gave a rousing speech at the rally that concluded the COPE congress. Boesak, who was one of the founders of the United Democratic Front and was later convicted and sent to jail for mismanaging donor funds, was pardoned by the President a few years ago.
If I was a COPE leader I would have felt uncomfortable to give Boesak such a prominent spot at the rally. What does this say about the new party’s commitment to honest and corrupt-free governance? There might be those who argue that Boesak had served his time in jail and that because he was pardoned by the President, we should not hold it against him.
I am torn on this question. If Dr Boesak had applied for the job and if he had shown that he had turned over a new leave, I might have given him a second chance and might have employed him. But should politicians not be held to a slightly higher standard?
The mayor of Washington DC was re-elected a mayor after erving a prion entence for possion and ue of crack cocaine and at the time the chattering classes in the USA were up in arms that the voters could have re-elected this man of dubious moral probity. I was less upset about his comeback as the use of drugs is a “victimless” crime and does not involve stealing money from the poor.
Boesak on the other hand ued funds earmarked for community development projects and in a awy took the food out of the mouths of the hungry. He has also never shown any remorse for what he has done.
It just goes to show, when it comes to politics, public morality in South Africa is rather of a dismal standard.
BACK TO TOP