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)
17 March 2007

With friends like these….

In response to my post on Ranjeni Munusamy and Mr Jacob Zuma, a reader of this Blog writes:

That’s bull shit!!!! You are only looking at your own angle, what do you thing of what you read on Business Day???? You are one of those people who hate JZ without a reason but full of yourself. Get lost man…

Which just goes to show, in an ethically free zone facts do not matter. But the Zuma supporters like the one quoted above would do well to have a peek at the SCA judgment in the Shaik trial. It really does make for interesting reading when your hero is Jacob Zuma. A bit like reading about the Widows and Orphans Trust when you thought R Arthur W Brown or whatever his name is, was a champion of the poor.
SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest