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.
The Prevention of Organised Crime Act of 1998 has been a boon for lawyers, as (not surprisingly) many individuals who have had their assets seized in terms of this act have challenged the seizure. In the past year, no less than two such cases have ended up at the
The CC handed down judgment on Monday in the second of these cases in the matter of Mohunram and Another v the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others. As a matter of constitutional law, it is not the most riveting case, most notably because the applicants never challenged the constitutionality of the act but merely challenged the interpretation and application of the act by the NDPP and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
I do think the judgment is fascinating though, mainly because it provides some clues on the politics of
She is obviously being groomed for a place on the court when Sachs, Mokgoro and O’Regan retire in 2009. On all accounts she is an able jurist with a demonic work ethic who holds strong opinions. If she makes it onto the court, she will be one of the more active members and with her formidable intellect she may have a significant influence on the jurisprudence of the Court in the years to come. Surprisingly, in this case she did not vote with the more progressive members of the Court to overturn the seizure of the property, so her politics is not as predictably progressive as that of Sachs or Mokgoro.
Once again Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke (pictured) finds himself on the side of the majority, while Chief Justice Langa signed on to the minority judgment. I have remarked before on how retired Chief Justice Chaskalson almost always found himself on the side of the majority because he had an uncanny way of persuading his colleagues to his point of view. It seems that soft-spoken and humble Chief Justice Langa does not have the same ability because this is not the first time that he has not managed to cobble together a majority for his position.
Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke is definitely emerging as a major player on the Court. He is fiercely intelligent and thoughtful, but also likeable and confident, which seems to help him in persuading other Justices to his point of view.
Lastly, it is interesting to note that this case landed up in the
Reading the case one is struck with the way in which the Court deals with the various SCA judgments on this matter as it would any other judgments of a lower court. More evidence that we now clearly have only one highest court in this country.BACK TO TOP