Quote of the week
Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
Luke warm about legal adviser
I read the report in today’s Business Day about the submissions of the various legal advisers about the Civil Union Bill with ever increasing astonishment. While the Parliamentary law Adviser, Mukesh Vassen, and the State law Adviser, Enver Daniels, advised the Committee of Parliament that Chapter 2 of the Civil Union Bill was clearly unconstitutional, one Lirette Louw, the Adviser for the Department of Justice, argued that it was not unconstitutional. Her reason? Well, she says that because there is a provision in the Bill that allows a marriage officer to refer to the Civil Partnership that would be concluded by the same-sex couple as a “marriage” during the ceremony, that means this is not a separate but equal provision. According to the Business Day report:
She said the most important issue was that the court had called for same-sex partnerships to have the same status as conventional marriages “and the bill caters for that. She pointed to the clause that allowed same-sex partners to call their union a marriage, if they chose.
This is, of course an absurd argument because the law provides explicitly NOT for a marriage but for a civil partnership. The provision she refers to allows the marriage officer to refer to the Civil Partnership as a marriage but only during the ceremony. After the ceremony the pretense is suddenly over and the state will then refer to your union as a civil partnership not a marriage. This is such a dishonest argument that it makes me wonder whether she really believes it. If she does she does not understand the real issue here, namely that to have the same status it cannot be called something else with a lesser status in our society. One would think that this is not a very difficult thing to understand but I suppose if one advises the Minister of Justice (or is it really Johny De Lange?) one may find it difficult to see the humiliation and affront that such a provision visits on all in the LGBTI community. They claim the Bill provides for equal rights when the Bill itself says that the union of same sex will, in law, be called something different. Why is there a need to call it something different if you want to give equal rights. O, I see, its because same sex relationships will somehow defile and besmirch hetero marriage and so we cannot call it marriage. Its a dishonest argument pandering to the homophobes and those who peddle it in my book has something to answer for. Do they believe this drivel or do they merely say what they think their masters want to hear?
See also my article in the Mail and Guardian (subscription needed) making more or less the same point.
