CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY AND EVENTS
ARTICLES AND STATEMENTS
PODCASTS
SUBMISSIONS
SPEECHES
EVENTS
ARTICLE: WHEN NO ONE IS WATCHING THE WATCHERS – THE FATE OF STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES
The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) appeared before the North Gauteng High Court early this year in Molefe and Others v Minister of Transport and Others, and the Court ruled that administrative action conducted by the State must be accompanied by a rational nexus. By then, the gravity of the trouble brewing at other State-Owned Entities (SOEs) had been highlighted repeatedly in the press. PRASA had previously made news headlines following reports by the Public Protector and the Auditor-General citing irregular expenditure and corruption within the parastatal. Not too long thereafter, PRASA was again making headlines in relation to the purchase of incompatible locomotives and the corrupt manner in which the tender for the trains was awarded. The impunity with which officials at the SOE continued to operate led to a scathing indictment of corruption of SOEs by the South Gauteng High Court in Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Swifambo Rail Agency.
ARTICLE: THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION EVEN PROTECTS UNINFORMED, BIASED ASSUMPTIONS
On 31 July 2017, the columnist Mr Rams Mabote, wrote an article for News24 in which he shared his view on the future of young white Afrikaans boys attending an Afrikaans private school, Helpmekaar Kollege (Helpmekaar), after watching a rugby match between Helpmekaar and his son’s school. The heading of the article already sets the tone for the article, in which he announces “Helpmekaar not preparing learners for the real world”. He continues to state why he feels “sorry” for these young boys “who are cushioned in a cocoon of Afrikanerdom” and are ill-prepared for the realities of a mixed work environment. He avoids saying directly that the school is a racist school but without checking the facts he announces with “its race-exclusive make-up” it provides opportunities for prejudice. He attempts to provoke a response by stating “They speak the same language, they are all white and they almost look alike” (own emphasis). This article elicited a flood of responses from former students.
CASE DISCUSSION: ORGANISASIE VIR GODSDIENSTE-ONDERRIG EN DEMOKRASIE V LAERSKOOL RANDHART AND OTHERS
In June, the South Gauteng High Court (the High Court) ruled in favour of the Organisasie vir Godsdienste-Onderrig en Demokrasie (OGOD) in a matter concerning the promotion of religion in South African public Schools. The premise of the application was that there is a bias in favour of the Christian faith in public schools, and that this bias is in contravention of the Constitution. The High Court found that public schools, as state institutions, cannot promote a single religion to the exclusion of others.
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
- Equality
- Non-racialism
- Gender Rights
- The Constitution
- The Rule of Law
- Multiparty Democracy
- Personal Rights
- Cultural, Religious and Language Rights
- Freedom of Expression and Political Rights
- Social and Economic Rights
- Property Rights
- Education
- Access To The Courts, Information And Fair Adminstration