DA denied participation in e-toll case

marine1 said:
I do not think this is fair, how come other ANC gvt depts are allowed to be involved? Or am I wrong? Isn't treasury allowed? Just think its double standards
Click to expand...

You are making the same mistake the anc makes at times by blurring the lines between political party (anc) and government. The court could possibly be preventing political parties from using the court as their soapbox instead of being a genuine amicus curiae. Anyway I'm sure we will know the exact reasons once the full judgement is made available but until then it's just speculation.

Edit: The constitutional court is also not really a place where you go rehash stuff from the lower courts and call in more witnesses etc. The government is appealing to the constitutional court to overturn a high court interdict. The gov. will be afforded the opportunity to state why they believe the high court decision to be unconstitutional, the CC will then deliberate/vote on whether there is constitutional merit to the govs objections to the interdict.
 
Last edited:
“We support Outa in this case. We will by there on Wednesday to give them [highlight]moral support[/highlight].”

He said the case was important as it could have “far-reaching consequences” on the court’s independence and its ability to interdict government.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I suspect that OUTA also needs financial support, the DA could offer up at least some of the money the DA planned to spend of being a friend of ConCourt in legal fees, still the DA has been more proactive than the other political parties which seem to be hibernating or completely disinterested.

As for the DA's exclusion, I think the cANCer's spy (Moegoe Moegoe) is to blame for this, I also agree with marine1 in that the cANCer doesn't know the difference between government and ruling party, there should be lines that are not crossed but the cANCer crossed over those lines years ago and has never returned.
 
Mr.CookieMonster said:
How can they exclude DA because its a political party, yet the ANC is all over these e-tolls saga?
Click to expand...

As ponder was explaining a few posts up, this has nothing to do with the ANC but rather a government decision (ANC is the ruling party so they currently responsible for running the government), if the DA gets involved then it would become a political spat rather then OUTA challenging a government decision.
 
The ANCgovernment (yes, one word) is asking CC if they can get the go-ahead for the e-crap.

Not ask the people that they work for (us), but a court they are known to try and manipulate.

How are citizens in a democracy supposed to get the people they elected to listen to them?

Not 1 single, solitary group/organization/person outside of the ANCgovernment has stated support for the e-crap.

At what point can we as citizens say, who the hell are you, ANCgovernment, to not do what we tell you we want?

Has the ANCgovernment become a life-entity of its own, that has absolutely no relationship with ANY person living/breathing in this country?

Did I really just ask such a stoopid question?
 
If there is such a dispute whether there were proper interaction with the people of South Africa, why does the court not just enforce that a referendum be done, then the people of South Africa can decide if we want the E-theft or not.

We all know how that will turn out ;)
 
ISP cash cow said:
If there is such a dispute whether there were proper interaction with the people of South Africa, why does the court not just enforce that a referendum be done, then the people of South Africa can decide if we want the E-theft or not.

We all know how that will turn out ;)
Click to expand...

I'd go so far as to say just GP to vote, seeing as the other provinces aren't really effected by this (and thus easily 'bought' to vote for the anc/governments will)
 
This was to be expected... and I already called it when they made this announcement.
If they denied the Freedom Front, then of course they will deny the DA.

These parties should have applied to become co-applicants, not amicus curiae!
Put your money where your mouth is and support OUTA properly.

The DA and the Freedom Front are against e-tolling... how could they be considered a "friend of the court".
Just get involved with the OUTA legal team and stop ***** footing around.
 
ISP cash cow said:
If there is such a dispute whether there were proper interaction with the people of South Africa, why does the court not just enforce that a referendum be done, then the people of South Africa can decide if we want the E-theft or not.

We all know how that will turn out ;)
Click to expand...

Separation of powers. The CC has no mandate to call a referendum, that power is vested in the Executive only. Well that's my understanding of things anyway so I could be wrong.
 
j4ck455 said:
As for the DA's exclusion, I think the cANCer's spy (Moegoe Moegoe) is to blame for this..
Click to expand...

I don't like Moegoe either but you can't blame him. He might be the chief justice but he does not wield absolute power. The CC has 11 justices on the bench and each case must be heard by a bench of at least 8 although in most cases they all review the case. So Moegoes opinion is just 1-in-8 at best and he does not have the power to over rule the other justices on the bench.
 
Garyvdh said:
This was to be expected... and I already called it when they made this announcement.
If they denied the Freedom Front, then of course they will deny the DA.

These parties should have applied to become co-applicants, not amicus curiae!
Put your money where your mouth is and support OUTA properly.

The DA and the Freedom Front are against e-tolling... how could they be considered a "friend of the court".
Just get involved with the OUTA legal team and stop ***** footing around.
Click to expand...

+1 It's just political posturing on their part. I don't see how any political party could be a "friend of the court" as they will always push their own agendas. If they were so concerned they should have filed as co-applicants or provided funding as you said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae#Presentation
The role of an amicus is often confused with that of an intervener. The role of an amicus is, as stated by Salmon LJ (as Lord Salmon then was) in Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229 at p. 266 F-G:

I had always understood that the role of an amicus curiae was to help the court by expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties were unrepresented, by advancing the legal arguments on his behalf.
Click to expand...
 
Garyvdh said:
This was to be expected... and I already called it when they made this announcement.
If they denied the Freedom Front, then of course they will deny the DA.

These parties should have applied to become co-applicants, not amicus curiae!
Put your money where your mouth is and support OUTA properly.

The DA and the Freedom Front are against e-tolling... how could they be considered a "friend of the court".
Just get involved with the OUTA legal team and stop ***** footing around.
Click to expand...

Agree. Bring in the finance and support their legal team wherever possible.
 
Would have liked the DA in there as they are not disposed to stealing public money like the ANC.

Doesn't change the fact that the people have spoken, we will not support e-tolling and will make the highways of Gauteng ungovernable should government persist with this corruption-tainted abomination of a project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X