Have you noticed Mr Zuma offering to testify at the state capture inquiry. It would be most interesting to see if he ever makes good on this promise: it is easy to say that you have not been implicated by any of the evidence, but quite awkward when you are sitting in the hot seat. The mere fact that the presiding judge has asked for an affidavit by Mr Zuma, is an indication that the judge does not necessarily agree that Mr Zuma has not been implicated.
Hit the boer: “There is no principle in our law that requires dismissal to follow automatically in the case of racism. What is required is that the arbitrator should deal with racism firmly yet treat the perpetrator fairly.”
Our newspapers may have run away with this a bit?
The latest version of the Traditional Courts Bill, if adopted, will unconditionally impose customary law jurisdiction on rural communities. Rural communities would be locked into the boundaries of the former Bantustans which are kept alive through the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework act.
One wonders whether, with the waning of Mr Zuma’s influence, this Bill will eventually progress into statute.
I hold a copy of a recent note which, written on rehabilitation, as reflected in the Purdon decision, ponders the fresh start philosophy and our courts’ take on a return for creditors, contrition and punishment.
G Nkosi and Van Niekerk 2018 (81) THRHR. Ask me for a copy.
