Lockdown regulations declared invalid and unconstitutional by high court

daelm

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
505
The Taxi industry will be the least of their worries... another hard lockdown won't be taken easily in this country... People need to work and earn money...
another hard lockdown will essentially put an end to any economy. it's not feasible in any way. big worry is that the ANC may be willing to accept that, on grounds that they want to start a centrally driven economic rebuild anyway.
 

daelm

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
505
Yeah, but it seems like the rest of the country is all hot air and keyboard warriors. Only the taxi industry does a real world fu to government.
the taxi industry is essentially an informal sector industry, mostly unregulated and uncontrolled. they're used to cowboying their way through the day, and there's little or nothing that the government can do about it. formal sector industries have different problems. if they buck the government, they stand to lose a great deal more, specifically because they subscribe to a whole lot of legal governance and conventions and would find themselves cut off at the knees.
 

pinball wizard

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
20,418
the taxi industry is essentially an informal sector industry, mostly unregulated and uncontrolled. they're used to cowboying their way through the day, and there's little or nothing that the government can do about it. formal sector industries have different problems. if they buck the government, they stand to lose a great deal more, specifically because they subscribe to a whole lot of legal governance and conventions and would find themselves cut off at the knees.
Yeah. All discussed in the 100% taxi thread. Difficult, I'm sure. The fact remains, that collectively, only the taxi industry has stood together and effected change to any of the crackdown regulations. (I of course discount the few minor court battles that were won unchallenged, and exclude the current court battles that are under review/awaiting judgement/on appeal)
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
90,518
another hard lockdown will essentially put an end to any economy. it's not feasible in any way. big worry is that the ANC may be willing to accept that, on grounds that they want to start a centrally driven economic rebuild anyway.
That is partly my concern... even though we all know if they kill the economy now, there is zero chance of them restarting anything that will resemble a functioning economy ever again.
 

daelm

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
505
I think the government will get a shock when many of the Unions and Industry councils tell the government to get bent if they tried another hard lockdown
agreed. but it has potentially disastrous consequences, as we've seen before. stalemate and chaos ensue and the actual rollout of aid and meaningful measures gets lost in the noise.

edit: basically, I think we're headed for a cluster****.
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,775
NZD must throw this appeal judgement in the bin and make a petition to the SCA.
And waste more of our money? Why not just accept that the government was wrong and the judge's ruling right?
 

daelm

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
505
And waste more of our money? Why not just accept that the government was wrong and the judge's ruling right?
because the government has always seen the judiciary as something to work around, rather than as a constraint. which is a really dangerous precedent.
 

/dev/null

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
766
And waste more of our money? Why not just accept that the government was wrong and the judge's ruling right?
I blame the judge. It would have been easier and cheaper if he had just allowed the appeal without conditions.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,775
I blame the judge. It would have been easier and cheaper if he had just allowed the appeal without conditions.
Two judges now (or is it 4?) have made the same basic judgement. So much for all those legal experts you rely on that the judge's ruling was flawed. Oh wait there weren't this big legal fraternity, it was mainly twitter "experts" that they went with.
 

/dev/null

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
766
Two judges now (or is it 4?) have made the same basic judgement. So much for all those legal experts you rely on that the judge's ruling was flawed. Oh wait there weren't this big legal fraternity, it was mainly twitter "experts" that they went with.
Only one judge so far. Norman Davis is the one who heard this leave to appeal, he still thinks he is right despite widespread consensus that he blundered.
 

daelm

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
505
Two judges now (or is it 4?) have made the same basic judgement. So much for all those legal experts you rely on that the judge's ruling was flawed. Oh wait there weren't this big legal fraternity, it was mainly twitter "experts" that they went with.
I don't think the general legal consensus was that the ruling was flawed. the general consensus that I saw was that the ruling was weak, largely because without access to the audit trail, he could not rule that the regulations were grounded or not, and so was forced to rule that they were prima facie irrational when compared to each other. this was held to be a weaker argument in the discussions i saw. (basically, they wouldn't necessarily compare to each other because different rulings rest on different evidence and needs). the government's appeal has, in part, tried to get the ruling set aside on similar grounds.

there are other stronger challenges that could be lodged (and seem to be gathering momentum), mainly around the procedure and governance prescribed by the DMA, and whether that was effected. if it turns out - as I think it will - that the act wasn't followed, then it throws the whole response into question, because it highlights that there may be no legal grounds for it, irrespective of whether the specific regulations are provably rational or not. Thuli Madonsela has been raising this recently.

tl;dr: (1) think that a competent lawyer could have argued successfully to have the ruling set aside. (2) i think that there is a huge can of worms going unnoticed in respect of the actual requirements the DMA stipulates and the procedures that the government was obliged to follow. (3) i think that the government is frantically busy assembling an audit trail to try and make it look like those were met. (4) i think that the specific collaborative and decentralised nature of the DMA was pretty much abandoned in favour of a central regime (the DCCC) and that this is operating as a parallel executive.

edit: any of the above are what I would rather see go to court, instead of attacking specific regulations as being founded or unfounded because, if correct, they show a government that is blatantly in contempt of the law. even if you win a reversion of this or that regulation, you've by default accepted the authority of the NCCC, and the other shadow government bodies, to make regulation.
 
Last edited:

daelm

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
505
Only one judge so far. Norman Davis is the one who heard this leave to appeal, he still thinks he is right despite widespread consensus that he blundered.
yes, but he might turn out to be the thin end of the wedge, because he's requiring them to open the books.
 

/dev/null

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
766
yes, but he might turn out to be the thin end of the wedge, because he's requiring them to open the books.
He's contributing to wasteful and fruitless expenditure. Now the state has to jump through extra hoops to overturn his judgement.
 

daelm

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
505
He's contributing to wasteful and fruitless expenditure. Now the state has to jump through extra hoops to overturn his judgement.
personally, I'm massively in favour of the state jumping through hoops as often as we want them to. that's how we hold them accountable. and if some incriminating evidence happens to fall out of their pockets mid-jump, all the better for us as a society.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,775
Only one judge so far. Norman Davis is the one who heard this leave to appeal, he still thinks he is right despite widespread consensus that he blundered.
Hmm thought appeals are heard in front of a full bench. Unless I'm confusing this with the actual appeal and it's only the pre-hearing to decide if they may appeal.
 

/dev/null

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
766
Hmm thought appeals are heard in front of a full bench. Unless I'm confusing this with the actual appeal and it's only the pre-hearing to decide if they may appeal.
Yeah, pre-appeal stuff. They have to ask the judge who ruled against them for permission to challenge his judgement. When the judge refuses to give permission, or gives half permission, they can still petition the SCA for full permission.

Happened in the Oscar Pistorius case, Judge Masipa dismissed the state application for leave to appeal Oscar's sentence, but they appealed anyway.
 
Top