What does the Judgment writing process in the Constitutional Court of South Africa entail?
What is Justice? Does Law necessarily coincide with Justice?
In this second segment, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga of the Constitutional Court of South Africa talks to us on these and other burning issues.
Meet one of the youngest Judicial Officers, both as a magistrate and as a Judge.
In this first segment, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga of the Constitutional Court of South Africa walks us through his journey to the Constitutional Court Bench, including some brushes with political activism.
This is the Justice who has written some of the seminal judgments of the Constitutional Court, including:
On 4 August 2020, the Western Cape High Court, in Cape Town, South Africa (the Cape High Court), granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the second highest court in the South African hierarchy of courts.
The Cape High Court comprised two Judges. Reading the judgment, one got a sense that there was no appetite to grant leave. Extraordinarily, in a 43-paragraph judgment, it only emerges in paragraph 41 that leave may be granted.
This is an analysis of the judgment by a recent BA(Law) graduate student from the University of Cape Town. He laments the judgment as an opportunity lost to dealing with procedural and substantive rationality from a constitutional perspective, and hopes that the SCA gets to grips with that question.
Read the full paper here Analysis of LTA Esau Judgment – Thabo Nongogo 19 August 2020 Website
In this bonus segment in a series, Vuyani Ngalwana SC is in conversation with the Judge President of the Gauteng High Court of South Africa, Dunstan Mlambo.
We explore more of the Man behind the Judicial Robes and gain some insights on his views on the following issues:
Many people view the JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF STATE CAPTURE, CORRUPTION AND FRAUD IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR INCLUDING ORGANS OF STATE (“the State Capture Commission” or “the Commission”) with suspicion, at best, and as a witch-hunt specifically for President Zuma’s associates, at worst.
But is this justified?
A cursory reading of the Commission’s Terms of Reference and Rules reveals that such suspicion can either be blunted or blown out into the open or completely disproved.
ANYONE, whatever his or her status in life, who believes that any person should be called as a witness on specific issues, and be questioned on those issues by the Commission, can ask the Commission Chair to call that person as a witness. All you need do is send a written request to the Secretary of the Commission in which you
(The Terms of Reference – to which a link is provided below – have been amended since first being promulgated in January 2018, but not in a manner that materially affects the discussion here)
In this regard, Rule 9.1 of the Commission Rules says:
“If any person considers that a particular witness should be called to give oral evidence, a written request to this effect should be made to the Commission and shall include the reasons for the request and the likely value of the evidence of such witness. Such witness may be called at the discretion of the Chairperson.”
If the Commission Chair invites the person concerned, s/he must be questioned in terms of Rule 3.2 of the Commission Rules which says:
“A member of the Commission’s Legal Team may put questions to a witness whose evidence is presented to the Commission by the Commission’s Legal Team including questions aimed at assisting the Commission in assessing the truthfulness of the evidence of a witness. Subject to the directions of the Chairperson, the Commission’s Legal Team may ask leading questions.”
Since the primary purpose of a Commission of Inquiry is the pursuit of the truth, you are free to suggest a line of questioning to the Commission on the issues that trouble you. Ultimately, whether the person you have identified is invited to give evidence and be questioned at the Commission is for the Chair to decide. But the discretion of the Chair must be exercised judiciously, not on a whim.
If the Chair should refuse your request, you are entitled to reasons. If no reasons are given, or you find the reasons inadequate or irrational or unreasonable, you have a right to challenge the decision on review in the high court.
If the nature of the questioning should strike you as “sweetheart” questioning of the sort that is intended simply to go through the motions without any intention of extracting the truth, you have a right to challenge the process on review to the high court.
Now, the purpose of this brief opinion is this: it is unhelpful to stand on the sidelines hurling invective at the Commission when you can participate in making it a success. We live in what should be a participatory Democracy. PARTICIPATE.
Read an example of a Written Request by clicking on the link below:
Request to State Capture Commission – Website
RELATED DOCUMENTS
State Capture Commission DAY 133 TRANSCRIPT DD 2019-07-15 – Zuma Evidence
In this fifth segment in a series, Vuyani Ngalwana SC is in conversation with the Judge President of the Gauteng High Court of South Africa, Dunstan Mlambo.
We explore more of the Man behind the Judicial Robes and gain some insights on his views on the following issues:
In this fourth segment in a series, Vuyani Ngalwana SC is in conversation with the Judge President of the Gauteng High Court of South Africa, Dunstan Mlambo.
We explore more of the Man behind the Judicial Robes and gain some insights on his views on the following issues:
In this third segment in a series, Vuyani Ngalwana SC is in conversation with the Judge President of the Gauteng High Court of South Africa, Dunstan Mlambo.
We explore more of the Man behind the Judicial Robes and gain some insights on his views on the following issues:
In this second segment in a series, Vuyani Ngalwana SC is in conversation with the Judge President of the Gauteng High Court of South Africa, Dunstan Mlambo.
The Gauteng High Court comprises two courts: the South Gauteng High Court with its seat in the Johannesburg Central Business District, and the North Gauteng High Court, situated in South Africa’s Capital City, Pretoria, in the Tshwane Municipality.
The two courts are the busiest among high courts in South Africa, making Judge President Mlambo arguably the busiest Head of Court in the country.
In this second segment we explore more of the Man behind the Judicial Robes – “a New Generation Judge” – and gain some insights on his journey from Acting Judge of the Labour Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal and then as Judge President.
Get some insight on what is special about labour lawyers, human rights lawyers and life in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
In this first segment in a series, Vuyani Ngalwana SC is in conversation with the Judge President of the Gauteng High Court of South Africa, Dunstan Mlambo.
The Gauteng High Court comprises two courts: the South Gauteng High Court with its seat in the Johannesburg Central Business District, and the North Gauteng High Court, situated in South Africa’s Capital City, Pretoria, in the Tshwane Municipality.
The two courts are the busiest among high courts in South Africa, making Judge President Mlambo arguably the busiest Head of Court in the country.
Who is Dunstan Mlambo?
Meet the man behind the judicial robe in this first segment.
