He states that “it is a non-sequitur for our constitutional democracy to be blamed for the malfeasance and misconduct of senior public officials.” Yes, that should be the case, but by adhering to the premise that persons previously disadvantaged should enjoy priority, the constitution downplays merit as a necessary credential.

Consider the following sections of the Constitution. While 174(1) specifies the appointment of “appropriately qualified” persons to the judiciary, section 174 (2) requires that those appointments “broadly reflect racial and gender composition.” The same criteria apply in the appointment of commissions – section 193 (1 & 2). Section 195 (1) (i), concerning public administration, has the added proviso “to redress the imbalances of the past.”

Where merit goes right out of the window is in section 217, which concerns contracts for the procurement of goods and services. Subsections (2a & b) openly provide for “preference” and “protection” for the “advancement of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.”

Those references have proved the gateway for the installation of cadres whose loyalty is to a political entity. As a result, faith and hope in the system of governance have suffered because malfeasance has flourished. It’s all very well for Professor Govender to state that “merit needs to play an appropriate role in appointments,” but that simply is not what is occurring because after 30 years, merit has come to mean obeisance to ideology and political loyalty.

Sections 195 and 217 have actually served to fast-track skills out of public administration, taking with them institutional memory and resulting in the elevation of mediocrity,  maladministration and dysfunctionalism at all levels of government.

Given his perspicacious outlook on the constitution, it is disappointing that Professor Govender does not see fit to call for a revision of those sections which refer to the “previously disadvantaged.” After all, those words should not apply to persons born since the constitution came into being in 1996. But now they apply to those born since 1996 who belong to the race regarded as previously advantaged, who are now disadvantaged based on historical circumstances they had nothing to do with. Where is the non-racialism in that treatment?

While there is merit in the Professor’s praise for the way the judiciary has discharged its responsibilities, in one respect, its “measured jurisprudence” is controversial if not outright lacking. That concerns its finding that Julius Malema’s exhortation to “kill the boers” and his intention to “slaughter whites” at some future time does not constitute hate speech.

That finding defies logic and is totally unworthy of respect. Yet eight years ago, for hate speech, Vicky Momberg was subjected to two years’ imprisonment for using the ‘k’ word in an emotional outburst.

A significant aspect which would have been refreshing for Professor Govender to consider is the Judicial Services Commission. How does he feel about Julius Malema being one of the six parliamentary representatives who are part of the Commission’s membership of 23?

Moreover, looking ahead at the survival of the impartiality of the judiciary, how does Professor Govender relate to Malema’s blatant disregard of his conviction by Magistrate Twanet Olivier and his vitriolic intimidation of her?  Surely, he should be removed from the Judicial Services Commission? Where is the will of the judiciary to express firm, outspoken support for Magistrate Olivier for discharging her responsibility?

In considering the challenges of constitutional democracy, Professor Govender ought to have warned law graduates of the peril that political intimidation poses to the future impartiality of the judiciary.

The post Challenges to Judicial Impartiality appeared first on Alt News Network.

Hand-wringing expressions of grief and anger may provide cathartic relief, but the narrative that the death penalty does not deter murder begs a very basic question. Is life imprisonment the solution to deterring murder, seeing as the murder rate keeps increasing, now between 71 and 80 killings per day?

All social situations need boundaries to regulate behaviour. Actions must have consequences. Terms and conditions must apply. Yet, as a boundary, the risk of life imprisonment clearly had no deterrent effect on the Newark murderers.

Despite the horror of what they perpetrated, convergent legal arguments hold that the death penalty violates the constitutional right to equality, dignity and life and therefore is at odds with moral order. The glaring shortcoming of this liberal tolerance is that it fails to apply terms and conditions to the right to life.

In committing murder, the perpetrator shows absolute disregard for their victim’s right to life and dignity. Yet despite his heinous crime, constitutionally, he does not forfeit his right to life. How does that accord with what is called moral order?  Why should society owe a murderer the right to be treated with dignity and respect for his life? How then is the death penalty for murderers a “moral regression?”

Where is the morality in abortion? How is the denial of the right to a birthday for a developing human being who has a beating heart not a moral regression? Where is section 11 of the Constitution on that score?

Constitutions are not cast in stone. They are subject to amendment at the behest of the people. Democracy, after all, is premised on the will of the people. The argument that capital punishment is vengeance and retribution was debunked by Professor Robert Blecker of the New York Law School in 2014. He pointed out that retribution governed by what is proportionate and appropriate is not vengeful.

Dr David Malhausen of the US Heritage Foundation has countered the case made by those who cite wrongful executions as a reason to oppose capital punishment. He notes that the majority of studies in the US recognise the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

The most pathetic argument against capital punishment is that it is cruel and that violent crime is the result of poverty and inequality. What utter claptrap! Periods of economic depression and destitution have not recorded spikes in the murder rate. Deprivation and squalor may give rise to petty thievery, whereas the likes of the Newark butchers emanate from all classes of society.

Grand-standing expressions of “zero tolerance,” “unyielding justice”, and “standing together” are just vacuous bluster in the face of those with murderous intent. The key solution to reducing the murder rate is the political will to initiate amendments to sections 10 and 11 of the Constitution.

The post Life Imprisonment Is Not Deterring Murder appeared first on Alt News Network.

While he is entitled to dislike Afrikaans and Afrikaners and what he calls their “harsh” language, his condemnation of it as “the language of the oppressor” needs to be contextualised. Having stated that he is “really proud to be an Indian,” how does his use of the English language square with the oppression the British inflicted on India and on Indians in Natal, starting with indenture?

It was under British rule and recorded in English that the basis of apartheid was laid by Shepstone with his native locations in Natal – a mini forerunner of the bantustans. It was Lord Alfred Milner whose 1905 Native Commission endorsed residential segregation of Africans from whites, a policy the National Party fine-tuned as the Group Areas Act from 1950.

Successive British colonial administrations progressively oppressed Indians in Natal.  The £3 tax was one of the most onerously oppressive policies imposed on Indians despite their entitlement as British subjects to equal treatment with white colonists.

The Preamble also asks for respect for those who have worked to build and develop South Africa. Next time he puts a pot on the stove and uses electricity, Mr. Markandan might want to consider the role of Dr. Hendrik van der Bijl, an Afrikaner, who was instrumental in establishing Iscor and Eskom.

Much of what is taken for granted today was established by the initiative and enterprise of people who spoke Afrikaans. Yet Afrikaners do not disparage English-speaking South Africans despite the oppression the British inflicted on their forebears in the Anglo-Boer War.

The post English Is Also the ‘Language of the Oppressor’ appeared first on Alt News Network.

The proposed amendments threaten to severely restrict the ability of private security to carry and use firearms. Though framed under the guise of regulation, the amendments are vague, burdensome, and introduced without public or industry consultation. Critics argue that these changes not only infringe on the operational capacity of security firms but also threaten the public’s safety by creating a power vacuum.

The Constitutional Right to Self-Defence South Africa’s Constitution guarantees every person the right to life (Section 11) and freedom and security of the person (Section 12), including the right to be free from violence. While these rights seem absolute, they are bounded by Section 36, the limitations clause, which allows rights to be limited if justified in an open and democratic society.

Yet, when it comes to self-defence, South Africa relies largely on common law. You have the legal right to defend yourself when:

1. You are under an unlawful attack.
2. The attack is imminent or already happening.
3. Your defensive action is proportional to the threat.
4. No reasonable alternative (like escape) exists.

In short, you don’t need to wait until you are injured to defend yourself. You need only act reasonably and proportionally. This legal principle is rooted in both our common law tradition and constitutional protections.

The Pattern of Disarmament Before Tyranny. History is a mirror. Consider three chilling precedents:

• Nazi Germany (1930s): The regime disarmed Jews before the Holocaust.
• Soviet Union (1920s): Civilian gun ownership was restricted before Stalin’s purges.
• Cambodia (1975): The Khmer Rouge confiscated weapons, then slaughtered millions.

These weren’t isolated events; they were calculated moves to prevent resistance.

Expropriation Without Defence? Now, look closer to home. The Expropriation Bill, tied to amendments in Section 25 of the Constitution, seeks to allow the state to seize private property without compensation. Section 25 originally protected South Africans’ right to own property. But proposed changes weaken this safeguard.

Imagine a future where your land can be taken without compensation and your right to defend yourself is legally undermined. Removing firearms from private security is a stepping stone—a trial run. Next? Private citizens.

The 2021 Amendment and the Slippery Slope. In 2021, the government tried to amend the Firearms Control Act to remove “self-defence” as a valid reason for firearm ownership. Public backlash halted it. Temporarily.

Make no mistake: the intent to disarm the public hasn’t disappeared. It’s simply being reintroduced in incremental steps. Today, it’s private security. Tomorrow it’s you.

From Law to Real Life: Enter John Wick. The point isn’t to glorify violence but to highlight preparedness. The fictional John Wick defended himself with a pencil. The message? Tools don’t matter as much as readiness does. But while we still have the legal right to own firearms for hunting, sport shooting, and collection, we should exercise that right. The legal landscape is shifting fast.

We are witnessing a coordinated erosion of rights: the right to own property, the right to defend ourselves, and the right to security. All under the guise of regulation. Now is the time to:

• Learn self-defence.
• Acquire legal weapons for sport or hunting.
• Get involved in public discourse.

Have your say before 25 April: Protecting Public Safety Through Private Security

The post Disarming the Defenders: A Legal Shift That Could Leave South Africans Defenceless appeared first on Alt News Network.

In terms of section 104 of the Agoa agreement,  the property rights of a country participating in the agreement must be ring-fenced.
In terms of the EWC Act that is not the case because it violates section 25 of the constitution.

Given the strenuous opposition to the Act which the DA and others have been presenting, it is disturbing to note that suddenly John Steenhuizen seems to be trying to walk back his stance just because what Trump criticised is not actually occurring  – just yet. Yet in a press conference last month, DA Minister of Public Works, Dean MacPherson was emphatic that the Act contains two entirely contradictory sections and is therefore unconstitutional.

However, what is evident amongst many of the talking heads on this subject is their ignorance of the Freedom Charter to which the ANC is firmly wedded.
Devised by communists, its contents and aims represent the objectives of communism. Incrementally the ANC has already fulfilled the Charter’s intentions regarding water and mineral rights. Seeking complete control over education as the Bela Bill prescribes is another box of the Charter that has been ticked. Welfare is also well in hand with 18 million now depending on Sassa grants. Housing for all has not come up to scratch yet despite Joe Slovo’s 1995 pledge to build a million houses a year, but then maybe that has been scaled down to informal settlements.

Land is a thorny issue because of the problem of food security, the production of which is largely in the hands of opponents of the ANC. Nonetheless, the EWC legislation contains mechanisms which advance the Charter’s objective of state control over all the land. Like all the other provisions in the Charter, justification of control, ownership and benefit is based on “the will of the people.” As any student of communism knows, that is a code expression meaning state custody and control. In a communist dispensation, everything is owned by the state. Individuals own nothing.

The criticism of Trump is being exploited to downplay the real dangers of the ANC’s expropriation of property legislation. Instead, the situation should seized as an opportunity to further expose what the true objectives of the ANC are, remembering the sober advice of British philanthropist, Sir John Templeton: You cannot have human rights without property rights.

The post Trump’s Negative Attention Of EWC Is Warranted appeared first on Alt News Network.