South Africa is a judicial dictatorship!

[Thread]
Many of us are under the impression that The Law is made by the legislature (i.e "parliament"), we believe that the people we vote for are the ones making The Law of the Republic and thus have the final say as long as it's all "constitutional"
"The Law" in this instance refers to jurisprudence, the entire law of the republic, not just individuals laws. However, in as much as the cabinet, provincial legislatures and ministries may promulgate and bring individual laws into effect, "The Law" is made differently...
This is because South Africa follows the British common law system, a system in which The Law is derived from judicial decisions as opposed to being made by the legislative branch of the state. This is called Case Law, which is in contrast to Statutory (Civil) Law...
(Of course, South African law has aspects of Civil Law, but this is chiefly concerned with private, non-criminal disputes between persons, mainly to do with property matters)
This brings in the role of the judiciary. Firstly the judiciary has the final say in any legal issue in the Republic, it deliberates on all issues concerning the Constitution and has the final say on the constitutionality of any law. ConCourt decisions cannot be challenged
The judiciary can, and frequently overrules any decision made by the Executive (the cabinet) or Legislature (parliament). This is essentially why it is safe to say the judiciary makes The Law. You may be thinking so what, judges are experts in the field of law, they know best...
OK, let's take an example: a majority of voters elect a party or parties which promise to change a section of the Constitution to better reflect the needs and desires of the majority in the country. Say, they want to amend the property clause in Section 25 of the Constitution
The elected political parties manage to make up 2/3 of the members in the Legislature and agree to make amendments to the Constitution. This is accepted by the majority of members and all processes are followed to ensure the will of the people is done.
However, another section of the public that stands to lose from said amendment decides to take this matter to court arguing that the amendments to the Constitution are unconstitutional.
According to the powers conferred upon the judiciary, it can and may decide to agree with this. Yes, the Constitutional Court, "the apex court" of the land may conceivably decide that the amendments are not happening, and that would be the end of it. What a funny democracy.
The fact that the ConCourt can overturn the decisions of the Legislature by declaring its processes unlawful and "unconstitutional" should worry us, but it doesn't. Why? Because the media and its "analysts" & "experts" have conditioned us that this is the only way to do things
We have normalised a situation in this country where it is blasphemous to even think about holding a different opinion to the ConCourt. Phrases like "a dangerous attack on the judiciary", and "constitutional crisis" are drilled into our consciousness daily
You now have a situation where one section of the public has zero interest in seriously contesting and winning elections, because who needs that when you have pockets deep enough to influence the people who make The Law?
Again, we are continually indoctrinated that only politicians (especially the African ones) are susceptible to being unlawfully influenced through bribery, for instance. That our holy judges and justices would never do such things, that such behaviour is reserved for the "cadres"
This kind of thinking is absurd in the extreme, yet we have internalised and accepted it as canonical truth. Just the thought of Constitutional Court justices being corrupt and/or biased immediately fills one with pangs of guilt. This is not normal, yet it somehow is
'Case Law' has given us the impression that courts are compelled to be consistent. You often hear "this decision was taken trying to spite one person but will negatively affect someone else in the future, because of 'precedence'". The judiciary doesn't care about such things...
A case in point: in 2017, the North Gauteng High Court issued a judgement in favour of the Public Protector, giving her the right to instruct other organs of state to perform certain actions as necessary. This is what Judge President Mlambo had to say:
"There is nothing in neither the Public Protector Act nor the Ethics Act that prohibits the Public Protector from instructing another organ of state to conduct a further investigation. The Public Protector Act expressly empowers the Public Protector to obtain assistance..."
In early 2020, the same judge, leading a full bench of the North Gauteng High Court had this to say:
"The Public Protector Act and the NPA act are clear that she has no power to direct the NDPP to investigate any criminal offence and how to go about doing this..."
So, when there was a Public Protector who was favoured by the media and establishment, the judiciary gave her unfettered powers (remember when they allowed her to usurp the powers of the President?). Then when a new PP they don't like comes in, the judiciary withdraws the powers
As expected, the coats and briefcases will tie themselves in knots trying to explain away this blatant instance of sheer inconsistency by browbeating everyone into submission with jargon ("the two matters are qui tamsine qua non jurisprudae") until we give up and let them be
Whatever one's views are on the judiciary and its role in the country, oksalayo there is no denying that our political "leaders" are just mascots, that the real power lies in the hands of 11 untouchable, unelected individuals who hold all the keys. It's a judicial dictatorship

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sizwe sikaMusi

Sizwe sikaMusi Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SizweLo

19 Feb
Whenever concerns are voiced over privacy issues, you start hearing questions like "who are you for billionaires to care about you and your information"? Well, the answer to that lies in how the Nazis used people's private information. This still applies today...
From the 1930s, the Nazis started using punch card technology to categorise individuals. By the end of the decade, the cards could hold different types of biometric information, including gender, age, and religion. All this information was lifted directly from census records
Now, instead of the census data being stored in a central government database for planning purposes, it was now put into a punch card which every individual was then mandated to carry, making it easy to identify who or what they are
Read 15 tweets
17 Feb
What’s the difference between vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, and what do vaccine makers mean when they say their therapies are “95% effective”?

[Thread]
Vaccine efficacy refers to the percentage change in having a disease in people who received a vaccine in a clinical trial, compared to people who did not receive the vaccine, i.e by what percentage does the vaccine lower the chance of getting a disease
On the other hand, vaccine effectiveness is a measure of how well a vaccine works in the community outside of clinical trials, i.e. in real life
Read 16 tweets
16 Feb
In July 2020, the US government & Yale University held "clinical trials" on how to "persuade" people to take COVID-19 vaccines. This was to see which type of messaging would best trick the public into taking vaccines

A quick thread...
Some of the approaches studied and subsequently employed included shame and anger techniques. That is, they were studying how to shame, scare and anger people into agreeing to take vaccines. A brief summary of how it works:
Participants were randomly divided into groups, and then their willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at 3 and 6 months of it becoming available was tracked after they were fed 1 of the persuasion messages.
Read 10 tweets
15 Feb
A Kangaroo Court is a bogus legal proceeding which disregards due process, the law and fairness in pursuit of expediency and desired outcomes, it is usually convened after orders from another similar Kangaroo proceeding

[Thread]
A Kangaroo Court has one purpose: to punish a particular individual regardless of whether he actually broke the law or not. It is conducted in such a way as to make it clear who's in charge (She State), but at the same time impossible to prove that they're abusing their powers
Even before a Kangaroo Court delivers its inevitable guilty verdict, the proceedings are designed to deliver maximum humiliation & misery to its victim. The KC only follows common legal principles when it suits it, but will not hesitate to disregard such if and when necessary
Read 10 tweets
14 Feb
What exactly was the purpose of Desmond Tutu's Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

[Thread]
The Promotion of National Unity & Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995 was signed into law and gave rise to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The aim was to investigate Apartheid, make recommendations on reparations to victims & to grant amnesty to perpetrators
The task to grant amnesty to apartheid criminals was given to the Committee on Amnesty which had the powers to grant amnesty to a person who had killed, tortured, abducted or severely harmed another person between 1 March 1960 and 10 May 1994
Read 25 tweets
12 Feb
For 200 years the wealthy have been telling us the planet is overpopulated and something needs to be done. It wasn't true in the 1800s, it's still not true today. Somehow, even though their doomsday prophecies never go anywhere, they keep going decade after decade...
When people started questioning obscene levels of wealth around a sea of poverty and deprivation, an Englishman named Thomas Malthus came up with a theory that basically said poverty was caused by population growth. Ever since then, the rich have clung onto this justification
To put this into perspective, Malthus wrote his "Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798―223 years ago―when the world's population was under 1 billion.

These people were advocating for depopulation when there was virtually no one on the planet
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!