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
SAHRC finding against Moqhaka Municipality on open toilets
SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
File Ref No: FS/2010/0231
In the matter between: Van Onselen, Gareth Complainant
and
Moqhaka Local Municipality Respondent
FINDING
1. Findings
1.1. Based on the investigation conducted by the Commission and the analysis of the constitutional rights, court judgments and applicable legislation, the Commission finds that:
1.1.1. The Respondent failed to adequately conceptualise, plan and implement its project which resulted in the residents being forced to use unenclosed toilets;
1.1.2. The Respondent’s explanation that it lacked adequate resources was not justified and is therefore unacceptable.
1.1.3. The measures provided by the Respondent do not meet the standard of reasonableness in terms of the progressive realisation of the right to water and sanitation services.
1.1.4. The complaint of violations to the rights of human dignity, privacy, and a clean environment are upheld; and
1.1.5. That provincial and national government have not adequately monitored the work of the Respondent or intervened in respect of the legislative and Constitutional obligations.
2. Recommendations
2.1. In terms of the preamble to the Human Rights Commission Act, the Commission is entitled to “make recommendations to organs of state at all levels of government where it considers such action advisable for the adoption of progressive measures for the promotion of fundamental rights within the framework of the law and the Constitution.”
2.2. The Commission recommends accordingly that:
2.2.1. The Respondent must proceed with urgency to enclose all toilets in the area that are required to enable people to have their basic sanitation needs met.
2.2.2. The Commission requires the Respondent to furnish it with a progress report at least every six months in respect of the progressive realisation of the right to water and sanitation services in the Township.
2.2.3. The report to the Commission must demonstrate the following:
2.2.3.1. clear implementation and budgetary plans;
2.2.3.2. the manner in which it has identified and responded to the rights of vulnerable groups like women, children and people with disabilities in the identified community;
2.2.3.3. mechanisms it has put in place to ensure it remains transparent and responsive in its project planning and implementation; and
2.2.3.4. the framework through which meaningful and ongoing consultation with the community will be undertaken.
2.2.4. The provincial and national departments are required to provide a report to the Commission within one month hereof indicating the steps being taken.
2.2.5. The Ministry of Monitoring and Evaluation must provide a report to the Commission on the quality of sanitation services delivered by local government in the country.
