Quote of the week

Although judicial proceedings will generally be bound by the requirements of natural justice to a greater degree than will hearings before administrative tribunals, judicial decision-makers, by virtue of their positions, have nonetheless been granted considerable deference by appellate courts inquiring into the apprehension of bias. This is because judges ‘are assumed to be [people] of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances’: The presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, for as Blackstone opined at p. 361 in Commentaries on the Laws of England III . . . ‘[t]he law will not suppose possibility of bias in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea’. Thus, reviewing courts have been hesitant to make a finding of bias or to perceive a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a judge, in the absence of convincing evidence to that effect.

L'Heureux-Dube and McLachlin JJ
Livesey v The New South Wales Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; (1983) 151 CLR 288
28 March 2007

Zimbabwe: an explanation…

The reliable news sources report that the Zimbabwean police have entered the main opposition party headquarters and arrested its leader Morgan Tsvangirai. Of course His Masters Voice report that there are conflicting reports on this arrest as they give credence to denials of the arrest issued by that bastion of truth and honesty, the Zimbabwean police.

The question on all our lips is, of course, why South Africa has consistently underplayed the problems in Zimbabwe and at times seems to be rather reluctant to criticise the camp old tyrant north of the border? (By the way, am I the only one harbouring suspicions that Robert Mugabe might be a closet homosexual in the tradition of J Edgar Hoover?)

My theory is that South Africa’s position regarding Zimbabwe has much to do with President Thabo Mbeki’s African ambitions. He wants to be the most important and influential statesman in Africa (and then use this influence for the better of the Continent), but he is the leader of a country that is viewed suspiciously in many other parts of Africa. We are relatively wealthy and our Constitution contains rights that are shockingly “Western”. We also think of ourselves as “special” and sometimes have the cheek to talk of “Africa” as if we are not part of it.

If we criticised Mugabe in the same tones used by that unspeakably obnoxious old codger, John Howard, Mbeki’s enemies on the continent would have some ammunition to claim that he was merely an agent of Blair and Bush. Given the colonial history of Africa, most of the elites in Africa are extremely sensitive about interference from the West. So, although Mugabe is not popular amongst his fellow leaders, his stance against the West provides him with cover. He can dare Mbeki to have a go at him, knowing it will hurt Mbeki more on the Continent than it does him.

As soon as Mbeki would have a go at him, Mugabe would throw a hissy-fit (doing his “Springtime for Hitler” routine) and insecure but ambitious Mbeki would be caught in the middle. So, better keep quiet and try to work the matter behind the scenes. Who said foreign policy had anything to do with principles?

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