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
28 November 2007

Friend of Jacob Zuma Speak

The Friends of Jacob Zuma website has always been a font of interesting comments – even if some of the comments seem to be posted by slightly unhinged individuals. The post-weekend offerings are particularly interesting and also quite thought-provoking (I am not being sarcastic). For example Philani writes:

CDes, when SABC and the likes, rant about the economy or the Rand if and when our Pres, in waiting Mr J Zuma, becomes the President of the country, I can only draw the words of the wisdom and stalwart of the ANC, HARRY GWALA what he said in my home town Umlazi in the late nineties, when white people said if the ANC rules the Rand and the Economy will suffer, as if the Stronger Rand benefited us anyway. So he said ” ITS VERY STRANGE THAT THE PEOPLE ON TOP OF THE TREE (Rich people) KEEP ON SAYING TO THE PERSON ON THE GROUND(Poor people), HEY DO NOT SHAKE THE TREE YOU WILL FALL, MEANWHILE HE IS BUSY EATING THE FRUITS OF THE TREE YOU(The poor), KEEP WATERING EVERY DAY”
I think I have heard those word before and the SABC and rich people keep on repeating it. 3rd termers want to protect their pockets, not the ANC. If they play hard ball, let also play hard ball.

Harry Gwala made a good point. Remember all the white people complaining about sanctions during the apartheid years. of course, only time will tell whether Mr Zuma and those close to him will not soon see themselves as sitting at the top of the tree. They might then forget those who are watering the tree and rather look out for each other. It has happened before.

Another post, this time from Senzo:

Over the weekend I was glued to the radio news and I kept updating the Micro-Soft Spreadsheet I had prepared as the voting the results were being announced. After six provinces had announced results the SABC kept saying that TM was ahead, just because four provinces (EC, NW, WC & Limpopo) had nominated him while JZ only had two (Mpumalanga & FS). However, my MS Spreadsheet told me different news from the results of these six provinces. The news was good! After these six provinces, excluding the ANCYL, JZ was ALREADY AHEAD by 72 votes! KZN, GP, NC & ANCWL results were just a STAMP that JZ is the next president as he had already won with votes from those six provinces. This should serve as an encouragement to FJZ in the provinces where TM won. The votes we got from TM’s provinces combined to give us victory after just six provinces.

It is quite ironic that the SABC is targeted by so many in the Jacob Zuma camp (and with good reason I might add) because this mirrors the criticism of the SABC of other progressive voices that might not perceive a Jacob Zuma victory as in their interest. Can it be that we will experience a second Prague Spring if Jacob Zuma is elected President of the ANC because there will not be one party line that could be followed?

It all seems to point at the extreme fluidity in our politics at the moment. Who says a one party dominant state cannot have interesting politics!

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