The Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa

Justice

Criticism of the judiciary.

In its December 2008 issue "Without Prejudice" carried a health risk warning for those who may be inclined to criticize the judiciary. (Criticism of the Judiciary pg 5) This has been followed by a public appeal from the Chief Justice that critics should not impugn the integrity of the Bench. This is a salutary general rule and fits the constitutional admonition that: "No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the courts." S 165(3).

RE: THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
("the SAPSA Act") and THE NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT ("the NPAA Act").

Click to download >Microsoft Word Document

Of Winnie, Allan and Tony's Criminal Records

A lot of misinformation has been generated in recent days around the eligibility of Winnie Madikizela Mandela, Allan Boesak, and, to a lesser extent, Tony Yengeni to stand for public office. It is perhaps time to inject a little rational analysis of the facts and the law into the debate raging in the media and wherever politically aware people meet.

International Affairs, Corruption and a culture of Human Rights

Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain". It is the captains of commerce and industry to whom economic power is entrusted by corporate entities and shareholders in them, and it is political leaders and public administrators to whom society entrusts political power. In practice bribery and corruption are complex transactions that involve those offering a benefit of some kind and those who accept it. Usually a variety of intermediaries are at hand to facilitate the transactions involved.

Guardian of the Constitution

The authority, dignity and independence of the Constitutional Court are dependent on the Constitution. If the Constitution is weak or is not respected by the institutions of state and the government, the Constitutional Court will be the immediate victim. South Africa has a strong Constitution that has weathered many political storms, even those of the dominant alliance with a more than 70% majority in parliament, a majority that could have easily allowed that alliance to amend the Constitution in a drastic manner.

download >

Debating the Transformation of the Judiciary

It is clear that the ANC is pursuing an agenda intended to "transform" the judiciary.

Why the resolution to promote the "transformation of the judiciary" taken at Polokwane? This is best answered by examining the language of the resolution itself. The "transformation" is apparently aimed at making the judiciary "more responsive to the aspirations of the people".
Responsiveness to either "the masses" or to "the people" is clearly at odds with the Constitution, which requires simply that the judiciary be subject to the law and the Constitution. The judiciary is not a pro-active entity, it exists to manage conflict between state and subject and between the people themselves.

Constitutionally compliant transformation of the Judiciary

In South Africa, we now have a system in which the Constitution is the supreme law. Ours is a non-racist, non-sexist democracy under the rule of law. Our judges are the final arbiters of what is allowed and not allowed under the Constitution; they are subject only to the law and the Constitution.

Recognizing that the legitimacy of the Bench is best served by a diverse judiciary, the Constitution also stipulates that "the need for the judiciary to reflect broadly the racial and gender composition of South Africa must be considered when judicial officers are appointed."

When the JSC met in October 2007, one of the candidates for appointment as a judge of appeal, Judge Cachalia, who now graces the Supreme Court of Appeal bench, warned the JSC that its affirmative action chickens were coming home to roost. By this he meant that too many inadequately qualified and insufficiently experienced judges had been appointed in the interests of transforming the demographics of the judiciary, at the expense of quality in the work done by some appointees.

The regular meeting of the JSC in June 2009 was postponed, after a majority vote, at the request of the new Minister of Justice, who with eight parliamentarians, were all newly appointed and may not have had sufficient time to acquaint themselves with the task at hand. The postponement has drawn criticism from certain quarters where suspicion of the transformation agenda of the ANC dwells.

Transformation of the Judiciary - WHAT THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS

There can be no rational South African of any political persuasion who does not regard it appropriate to have a court system which is accessible, efficient and legitimate.

Last year, during the parliamentary debate concerning the demise of the Scorpions, the then Deputy Minister of Justice, Johnny de Lange, conceded that the criminal justice system in South Africa is "dysfunctional":

Awaiting trial prisoners are detained for up to ten years
Prosecutions fail for want of proper investigation
Police dockets or court files disappear with monotonous regularity
Valuable court time is lost because prisoners are not brought to court on time
Interpreters are not available
Counsel are not properly prepared to proceed for want of instructions from prisoners to whom they have had inadequate access

Postponements occasioned by circumstances such as these are wasteful of time and resources in the criminal justice system.

The Department of Justice is in the process of preparing a policy document on what it calls "the transformation of the judiciary"

The Judicial Service Commission must be reformed

There is a need for those in authority to take a close look at the functioning of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in order to determine whether it is capable, as constituted at present, of properly and accountably fulfilling its constitutional mandate.

It has long been known and understood that there is an ANC lobby within the JSC, consisting of its politicians and others. This lobby seems willing to do whatever is politically correct. The election of Jacob Zuma, who has the power to appoint four members and did so in his capacity as President, tipped the balance of power in the JSC away from those willing to get on with properly ventilating the claims involving Hlophe.

The country needs a legitimate judiciary. It obviously can not remain "pale and male", nor has it. However, if cosmetic changes are wrought to it without due regard to the ability, fitness for office and experience of candidates simply for the sake of demographic "transformation" above all else - by appointing black and female judges who are not in possession of appropriate skills, and are therefore not proper candidates - then the legitimacy of the judiciary is undermined rather than served.

The 10 person JSC disciplinary committee, by a majority (whose size and composition are inexplicably not disclosed despite the requirements of openness, transparency and accountability which ought to inform the JSC's public activities) has once again found a way to keep Hlophe safe from cross-examination.

Protecting the Dignity of the Courts.

An onerous responsibility of the organs of state in post 1994 South Africa is to "assist and protect" the dignity and effectiveness as well as the impartiality and independence of the Courts. The Courts themselves, and judicial officers, are expressly excluded from the definition of the term "organ of state". Clearly though, departments of state, such as the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and its political head, Minister Enver Surtee, have the obligation to protect the Courts. The relevant provision in the Constitution, section 165(4), goes further by requiring that measures be taken to assist the Courts.

Ministers don't order Judges around.

The new developments in the perennial saga of Cape Judge President John Hlophe ought not to be over-dramatized. When newspaper headlines scream "Hlophe told to stay home" and "Minister orders judge to go back on leave" and the reportage is to the same effect with an opening paragraph that reads: "...Hlophe has been ordered by Justice Minister Enver Surty to remain on leave - just days after Hlophe returned to work" then it is necessary to explain accurately the import of developments.

Agenda item for next JSC meeting.

Letter addressed to Ms Masangwana

Cape judge president has a duty to stay away while under cloud.

The Cape judge president is in the news again. On January 26, after an absence of many months on specially arranged leave while a charge of gross misconduct was pending against him, he simply appeared in his office and instructed his deputy to step aside.

Cape judge president has a duty to stay away while under cloud

Article in Business Report 10th February 2009

Click to download >Microsoft Word Document

Effective service delivery requires radical change

We cannot expect loyalty, work ethic or extra miles from departments as long as the people in charge are despised for their incompetence, which is often associated with unbearable arrogance. Watch any newspaper and count the number of officials at all levels who are suspiciously on special leave, or who've been found guilty of fraud, or (occasionally) been dismissed, or (read between the lines) "redeployed". Article in Business Report 16th February 2009

Click to download >Microsoft Word Document

Defending the Indefencible

The brouhaha around the appointment of Menzi Simelane - Director of Public Prosecutions, is unlikely to die down any time soon.

The office of National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) is a powerful one.

Menzi Simelane has never actually practised in any of the courts in the Republic. His experience, until this year, has not been in the National Prosecuting Authority at all. After stints on tourism boards he was made Competition Board Commissioner. In that capacity he did not cover himself in glory, coming into conflict for some strange human resource management practices, including the employment of a foreigner with no work permit.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Advocate Mokotedi Mpshe is certainly a controversial character. When he was acting head of the National Prosecuting Authority he perplexingly decided to drop all charges against Jacob Zuma, thus opening the way for the Zuma presidency.

Mpshe no longer leads the NPA, but, until Thursday, remained as deputy national director of public prosecutions - an office that is an important cog in the criminal justice system. He is now serving, controversially so, as an acting judge, having been appointed until July 2010 as, what judges whisper, is a reward for his role in promoting Zuma.

Repent Radebe

The Minister of Justice, Jeff Radebe, not one to disappoint his friends, proceeded to canvass for a place on the Benches favoured by Molokoti Mpshe with a view to securing him an acting appointment.

Reaction from the legal professions was swift and sharp. Invoking the doctrine of the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and its legitimacy, they called for a rethink. Radebe called a press conference to round on his critics, accusing them of politically motivated chicanery.

Radebe mechanistically invokes what he calls his "prerogative" to appoint acting judges.

Radebe is constitutionally obliged to assist and protect the courts to ensure that these vital characteristics are preserved. He shows, with stark clarity, that he does not have the slightest intention of so doing. This is conduct inconsistent with the Constitution and is invalid; his words in a recent press release are clear evidence of Radebe's intention not to fulfil his obligations towards the protection of the independence and impartiality of the courts.

The legacy of Lategan

In the dark days of Apartheid there was no supreme Constitution and no Judicial Service Commission to recommend the appointment of judges. The task fell to the Minister of Justice alone and nakedly political appointments to the Bench occurred with monotonous regularity.

The appointment of the then Attorney General of the Cape, Braam Lategan, as a judge in the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa was a reward for his role in the Erasmus Commission of Inquiry which, via its final report, effectively ended the career of BJ Vorster and brought PW Botha to the fore as his successor as State President.

The 1979 Cape Times editorial quotes the attitude of the General Council of the Bar back then:
"A person appointed from the public service who has of necessity throughout his career approached matters from the point of view of the state, will not at the outset have, and is unlikely to acquire, the necessary degree of independence and will inevitably be suspected not to be impartial."

The law reports and court records are littered with judgments overturning decisions of Judge Lategan on appeal, suggesting that the dire predictions of the Bar's leadership back then were accurate.

The appointment of Mokotedi Mpshe, the former Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions, by the Minister of Justice, currently Jeff Radebe, as an acting judge in the North West High Court is under question.

It is inappropriate that a public servant, especially one who has devoted his professional life to the task of prosecuting suspected criminals, should become a judge. This is because the independence and impartiality of such a person is questionable. The public servant is answerable to the structures of the public administration while all judges are accountable only to the law and the Constitution. Any public servant who is also an acting judge is in effect wearing two hats at the same time. The one, firmly based in the public administration which is a part of the executive branch of government, and the other in the High Court, which is a part of the judiciary. This makes complete nonsense of the separation of powers and undermines the all important legitimacy of the Bench by populating it with personnel of questionable independence and impartiality.

The Wages of Quiet Diplomacy

The long running campaign by Free State farmer, Crawford von Abo, to obtain redress following the illegal seizure of his farms in Zimbabwe by the Mugabe regime, raises interesting points.

Von Abo approached the South African authorities for diplomatic assistance to help him assert his property rights in Zimbabwe. His entreaties fell on deaf ears. The High Court, in an earlier judgment ruled in his favour, declaring that he is entitled to the diplomatic assistance he seeks and ordering the Government to report back to it within 60 days on assistance rendered.

It is not clear whether the government chose not to understand the import of the order granted against it or genuinely misconstrued it. Von Abo remains without any meaningful diplomatic assistance, without his seized properties and without any compensation for the lot that has befallen him by reason of his ill fated investments in Zimbabwe coupled with the disappearance of the rule of law in that unfortunate country.

Simelane's Start

Since his appointment last November as National Director of Public Prosecutions, Menzi Simelane, former Director General of Justice, has comported himself in a manner that confirms the well founded nature of the concerns of his critics.

Even before he was appointed he ruffled feathers among his new colleagues at the National Prosecuting Authority by announcing to them that he was being deployed among them to implement the vision of the ANC for the NPA. That was hardly an encouraging start in a post in which the incumbent is supposed to function independently - "without fear, favour or prejudice".

After his inauspicious start, Simelane has made headlines for muzzling his colleagues by forbidding them from talking to the press, for giving Fana Hlongwane of arms deal fame a "stay out of jail" card and for orally instructing the senior public prosecutor for the West Rand to withdraw the state's opposition to the granting of bail to well connected musician Jub Jub, who was visited by Julius Malema while in jail pending the bail hearing in which he was granted R10,000 bail by the presiding magistrate.

Is the testing right of the courts in South Africa anti-democratic?

Since 1994 with the new democratic dispensation, as a result of the kind of wise political leadership displayed by President Mandela in the Western Cape, we have avoided a constitutional crisis caused by judicial review and the anti-majoritarian dilemma, although some statements made by ANC politicians have disparaged the independence and legitimacy of the courts.

In the turbulent times that lie ahead when the courts will, inter alia, have to take controversial decisions relating to President Zuma, Menzi Simelani and Judge-President John Hlophe, it remains to be seen whether the wise and magnanimous approach of President Mandela will continue in the future or whether the anti-majoritarian dilemma will cause a constitutional and political crisis.

The Curious Case of Gauntlett SC

The rumour mill that churns furiously whenever the Judicial Service Commission has a sitting to consider recommending candidates for the Bench has been revolving overtime, regarding the choice of candidates for the Cape Bench, who were interviewed in April 2010.

The governing alliance has a policy for the transformation of the judiciary which it is urgently implementing. This policy requires the appointment of judges who are responsive to the "aspirations" of the people and appreciatively supportive of the forms of transformation of society which are the policies of the government of the day.

"The need for the judiciary to reflect broadly the racial and gender composition of South Africa must be considered when judicial officers are appointed."

The unpalatable truth is that just as it is impossible to make bricks without straw, it is impossible to appoint black women candidates if there are no black women who are prepared to apply and are appropriately qualified, fit and proper persons.

By some strange alchemy, the JSC has apparently decided to overlook Jeremy Gauntlett SC, an Oxford educated leading silk, former Chairman of the Cape Bar and of the General Council of the Bar, sometime Judge of Appeal in Lesotho and author of legal texts of authoritative nature. Unusually, an assortment of distinguished retired judges, current judges of appeal and the chief justice of Swaziland have let it be known that they regard Gauntlett worthy of elevation to the Bench.

Who should judge the judges?

The news that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is opposing the review brought by Freedom Under Law (FuL) in the High Court, in which its unfathomably incomprehensible decision to let beleaguered Cape Judge President John Hlophe off the hook is attacked, should come as no surprise to keen observers of the gyrations of the JSC.

The mere fact that heavy weather is made of disciplinary matters in the functioning of the JSC suggests that reform is indicated. Part of the problem is that the disciplinary committee is unwieldy and populated by some political appointees and politicians.

Who should judge the judges has always been a prickly question, one which is not easily answered in the various forms of government that exist in the modern world.

The doctrine of the separation of powers suggests that it is inappropriate for members of the executive, such as Premier Zille and the Minister of Justice, to be involved in adjudicating the propriety of the actions and omissions of those in another branch of government. It can also cogently be argued that it is not best practice to require politicians, who are not necessarily trained lawyers and experienced judges of fact and law, to adjudicate highly charged matters involving the propriety of the conduct of judges. It is surely far better then that those who judge our judges come from a group which is not susceptible of criticism for potential conflict of interests.

Bheki Cele's Misperceptions

The Constitution sets as the object of the police service:

"...to prevent, combat and investigate crime, to maintain public order, to protect and secure the inhabitants of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce the law."

There is no pre-occupation with the use of deadly force, no drive to militarize the public servants who serve in the SAPS and certainly no continuation of the ethos of the old police force which the SAPS replaced when democracy dawned in 1994.

Section 207(2) of the Constitution reads:

"The National Commission must exercise control over and manage the police service in accordance with the national policing policy and the directions of the Cabinet member responsible for policing"

How Cele is able to ignore this provision of our supreme law in favour of re-incarnating as a star spangled "General" is difficult to comprehend, but he has done it, all the while thinking that he has no management functions at all.

This could explain the abysmal showing of Cele's team when it proved incapable of answering the simplest of questions put to it by the parliamentary select committee on policing.

If Cele took the time to understand his role better, which is to manage and control the police service, not command a gung-ho gang of "shooting to kill" militarized operatives, the needs of the country would be better served.

Vigilantism: the last resort of the unprotected

Members of the public are understandably concerned, often frightened, for their life and safety in a society where the incidence of violent crime is high and the rate of apprehension and conviction of the perpetrators low.

The qualities expected of candidates for judicial office

In the interests of openness and transparency, the Judicial Service Commission took an unusual step on 15 September 2010. It published a press release listing the qualities it expects of those it recommends for appointment as judges.

Opacity and Unaccountability at the Judicial Service Commission

Putting judges on the Bench with due consideration of factors of race and gender is a constitutional imperative, but the basic requirements remain duly qualified, fit and proper persons.

Because of the opacity and the lack of accountability, the JSC has become somewhat dysfunctional over the years since 1994. The opaque features of the appointment procedure are troubling. The lack of accountability in the process is cause for greater concern. It is high time both were reconsidered by policy makers, lawyers and the public at large. The independence of the judiciary depends upon the elimination of opacity and lack of accountability in all of the JSC's functions. Without an independent judiciary, democracy will perish.

Serious consideration needs to be given to getting the JSC to clean up its act. At this stage, litigants in the High Courts are more concerned about the quality of the justice dispensed than about the gender or race of the judges who determine their cases.

Simelane not out of the woods yet

Menzi Simelane's fitness and propriety for appointment as National Director of Public Prosecutions under question.

Dewani and the SA criminal justice administration

"Will Shrien Dewani get a fair trial?" is becoming a central issue in the media clamour preceding the extradition proceedings launched by the South African authorities.

Under South Africa's post 1994 constitutional dispensation every accused person is entitled to a fair trial. The state is obliged to respect, protect, promote and fulfil this right, along with all of the other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. For Mr Dewani this means that if the system is functioning properly he will get a fair trial. But can it be reasonably anticipated that the system is and will be functioning properly in his case?

Submissions by IFAISA to the parliamentary committee on the Code of Conduct and Regulations concerning disclosure of interests by Judges

Comments by IFAISA regarding the draft code and regulations concerning disclosure of interests by Judges.

The Hlophe Inquiry Papers

{An annex to the above submissions}

The various complaints of gross misconduct and judicial incompetence laid against Judge John Hlophe, the Judge President of the Cape High Court, have so far come to almost nought.

First, a small but principled political party, the ACDP, complained in April 2006 about the receipt of money by Judge Hlophe from the Oasis Group, a purveyor of financial services and frequent litigant in his Court. Then Adv Peter Hazell SC joined in the complaints during August 2006, considerably broadening the grounds upon which they are based.

Hlophe What Next?

The Supreme Court of Appeal, has spoken out clearly.
It has decided by a margin of 10 Judges of Appeal to nil in favour of those questioning the way in which the Judicial Service Commission tackled the dispute between all of the Justices of the Constitutional Court who graced its bench back in 2008, and Cape Judge President John Hlophe.

It is therefore more than worrisome that the Minister of Justice, Jeff Radebe, had the following to say:

"Each time the issue of the Cape Judge President John Hlophe is resuscitated in Courts, there is a numbing feeling that there may be forces that are working against the imperatives of transformation".

This is prima facie defamatory of all 10 Judges of Appeal, Freedom under Law, the Premier of the Western Cape, who were the litigants, and Professor Kader Asmal, who entered the fray as a friend of the court.

The Judicial Service Commission has lost its way

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has once again signally failed to fulfil its primary function. This occurred in its processes designed to find suitable candidates to fill three vacancies on the Cape Bench.

The JSC is required by the Constitution to find 'appropriately qualified' persons who are 'fit and proper' to fill the vacancies. The Constitution further stipulates that 'the need for the judiciary to reflect broadly the racial and gender composition of South Africa must be considered when judicial officers are appointed'. Racial and gender factors, however, is not an absolute requirement of the fundamental types that come into play when 'appropriate qualification' and the 'fit and proper' status of candidates are considered in the deliberations of the JSC. The JSC has apparently failed (although it disputes this) to get the required procedures right, and has been challenged by the Cape Bar Council to do so.

The Vaulting Ambition of Mogoeng Mogoeng

A tragedy of Shakespearian proportions played itself out when the Judicial Service Commission met over the weekend of 3rd to 4th September 2011 to interview the "preferred candidate" of Jacob Zuma for the post of Chief Justice of South Africa.

Open letter to Judge Mogoeng dated 7th September 2011

Dear Justice Mogoeng,

Your dissatisfaction with the process to which you have been subjected by the President and the Judicial Service Commission after you accepted the former's nomination as his "preferred candidate" for the currently vacant position of Chief Justice refers.

download >

Judge Mogoeng's response to the open letter from IFAISA

Correspondence to Judge Mogoeng, his response, and the response of IFAISA to Judge Mogoeng's reply.

Nomination of Mogoeng Mogoeng J for position of CJ

A request to the President, by IFAISA, to terminate the services of a nominated member of the Judicial Service Commission in the light of the sentiments he apparently expressed to a fellow member.

The meaning and application of section 174(3) of the Constitution

Dear Mr President,

Your constitutional responsibility to appoint a new Chief Justice ought to be exercised "after consulting the Judicial Service Commission and the leader of parties represented in the National Assembly". These words are quoted from section 174(3) of the Constitution and are binding on you.

Review of the JSC's resolution re. appointment of new Chief Justice

Click to download >Word Document

Hendricks Judgement

In the matter between:

The State vs Clifford Joseph Hendricks relating to the reliability of the Dräger Alcotest 7110 MK 111 device used in South Africa to test the breath alcohol concentration of a person in an endeavour to combat the increasing number of drivers under the influence of alcohol.

download >

Kill the Boer, indeed

The ANC, the followers of Julius Malema, and also the ANC Youth League leader himself, ought to acquaint themselves with the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act and the Intimidation Act before they embark on civil court appeals and even consider singing or chanting "Kill the Boer" again.

In a society in which reconciliation and unity in diversity are national goals, it is criminal to sing songs that intimidate others and that incite those participating in their chanting to kill an easily identifiable section of the nation, the "Boere" who see to it that the nation is fed. Those who feel intimidated can turn to the criminal courts for protection, in the light of the findings in the judgment of Mr Justice Lamont.

The JSC does it again

Business people, especially those who find it necessary to litigate in the High Court on occasion, would do well to have regard to what has emerged in the judgment in the spat between the Cape Bar Council and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) following the decision of the latter to leave open two vacancies on the Cape Bench rather than fill them with available appropriately qualified, fit and proper candidates.

Anonymous Whistle Blowing

Estimates of the scale of corruption in South Africa vary considerably, but it is safe to say that it runs into billions of Rand every year.

The reporting of suspicious incidents or situations by the public is one of the prime components in the process of detecting, preventing and prosecuting corrupt activities. Without such reporting, law enforcement becomes more difficult with the result that many white collar crimes go undetected.

Protecting the identity of the whistle blower can be of paramount importance. To report an incident which exposes another individual can be seriously dangerous to the person doing the reporting and cases are documented where such whistle blowers have lost their lives.

Motala: beware polemics masquerading as analysis

Under the heading "SCA: Beware politics masquerading as law" and the sub-heading "The appeal court's Simelane ruling is a lapse in fairness" Professor Ziyad Motala has unleashed a broadside of criticism against the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Blame neither the Constitution nor the Courts

Presentation of Honorary Doctorate to George Bizos SC

Delivered at Spring Graduation Ceremony
9th December 2011
By Advocate George Bizos SC

To whom is the Chief Justice referring?

Using the occasion of the oration he gave at the state funeral of the late Judge President of the Land Claims Court, Fikile Bam, the new Chief Justice, Moegeng Moegeng, took a swipe at those he called "vicious" critics of the judiciary and sitting judges.

It is important to identify those to whom he refers and to ascertain exactly why these "vicious" critics were lambasted by him in his speech.

Simelane in the soup

Menzi Simelane has let it be known that he disagrees with the unanimous finding against him in which five judges of appeal ruled that his appointment as NDPP is invalid. The basis upon which he so disagrees reveals his woeful lack of understanding of the basic tenets of constitutionalism and is yet another indicator of his unfitness for the office he holds.

The case for lawfare

To the uninitiated, the made up word "lawfare", a composite of " warfare" and "law" that is self-explanatory, describes an offensive activity of little social utility that is counter-majoritarian and downright dangerous. The fear is expressed that by using the law to seek justice, the law itself is exposed to attack by the powerful with consequences that are deleterious to justice, liberty and "all things bright and beautiful".

In essence however, lawfare is a means of making accountability matter. The values of openness, responsiveness to the needs of ordinary people and accountability are foundational to the form of constitutionalism that has been embraced in the new South Africa. The rule of law is supreme.

Without Fear, Favour OR Prejudice: The Courts, The Constitution and Transformation

At the Spring Graduation Ceremony on 8 December 2011, George Bizos was honoured by the University of Pretoria for his extraordinary contribution to law and justice during his long and illustrious career. In responding to the honour, he made important comments about the role of the courts in a democracy. The title which he gave to his comments, Blame Neither the Constitution nor the Courts, was prompted by what he described as unfair and unjust criticisms of the Constitution and the courts by some political leaders.

download >

Judging the Judges

The parliamentary committee tasked with processing the regulations concerning the disclosure of judges financial interests found itself faced with a mighty phalanx of retired and sitting judges when it met recently.

The judges were there to express their misgivings about facets of the regulations that did not meet with their approval.

Bravo, Chief Justice Chaskalson

Chief Justice Chaskalson, the Administrative Justice Association of South Africa, and the clash in values between the Constitution and the values of the National Democratic Revolution.