Quote of the week

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.

Plasket AJ
Victoria Park Ratepayers' Association v Greyvenouw CC and others (511/03) [2003] ZAECHC 19 (11 April 2003)
16 February 2010

Helen Zille responds

Helen Zille is trying to dig herself out of the hole she got herself into by claiming the Lennit Max sex scandal was a private matter. She responded to my criticism of her and I posted her response here. My short response, pointing out the similarities between the Max case and the Manto Tshabalala-Msimang cases is here. Judge for yourself whether she had dug herself deeper into a ditch or has shown principled and courageous leadership….

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