Lockdown regulations declared invalid and unconstitutional by high court

/dev/null

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
766
What has changed since then?
Nothing has changed because an appeal is underway, but that's besides the point. What matters is that a court has declared lockdown regulations invalid and unconstitutional. That's the current situation, so the comments suggesting that courts are not independent doesn't make sense.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
34,558
Nothing has changed because an appeal is underway. But that's besides the point, what matters is that a court has declared lockdown regulations invalid and unconstitutional. That's the current situation, so the comments suggesting that courts are not independent doesn't make sense.
The courts are independent, but are those who preside unbiased?

Just to quote the appeal (in accordance with media),


Davis said the minister now had 10 business days to review and change the specific regulations listed in the judgment.

“Ironically, though, the factual position is that some of these regulations may already have been ‘corrected’, if not in respect of the constitutional approach, then at least to a larger or lesser degree in respect of the rationality requirement,” Davis writes in the conclusion of his judgment.

...

In her application for leave to appeal, Dlamini-Zuma argued that De Beer and Liberty Fighters Network had failed to raise a valid constitutional attack:

• That the court “strayed beyond the pleadings”;

• That the “wholesale” declaration of invalidity was not justified; and

• That the orders granted were “unduly vague”.

Davis found that all of these arguments, except the wholesale declaration of invalidity, would not be successfully appealed and dismissed her application for leave to appeal on those points.

The judge also raised the issue of the “changing factual landscape” and it was relevant to the application for leave to appeal that the regulations had been amended numerous times.

He said no indication had been given by Dlamini-Zuma that these amendments were in response to the initial judgment or whether they were simply made in the course of dealing with the pandemic. Similarly, no indication was given by the minister as to whether the evaluative exercise required by the proportionality test envisaged in section 36 of the constitution had been undertaken this time or not.

Davis said some of the relief or grounds on which it had been claimed had become moot as regulations had been changed. He said Dlamini-Zuma was, however, silent on these issues and the application was dealt with as if no issues were moot.
we are dealing with a interests dispute here.

Then to highlight the above with an opinion,


Serjeant at the Bar | Judge Norman Davis proves he is the exception to the rule
Beyond bounds of reasonable possibility

So how can a court say it is beyond the bounds of reasonable possibility that the current restriction may be held by another court to be rational.

The same applies to the other Level 3 regulations.

For example, to have on-site alcohol sold is surely the height of irrationality in the midst of a growing pandemic when, again it is notorious that bars and on site venues which sell alcohol are the most significant vectors for the transmission of the virus.

This latest judgment is, unfortunately, legally inexplicable and becomes more so when compared to the many judgments that have refused to second guess the government's disaster management strategy. In the interest of balance, some of these judgments have been criticised for being overly deferential to government policy.

But again, to emphasise: the latest judgment of Judge Davis concerned an application for leave to appeal. As such, the question with which a reader is left from this judgment is how can anyone be so sure that another court might not find to the contrary.
and simply said, independent until second-guessed. The wholesale declaration, second-guessed. As I previously said, these are matters best argued in the ConCourt, but you need to get there without exhausting your arguments.

You are correct, nonetheless. In my view, keeping an eye on the procedures there is a hint that there is a state alignment.
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
29,064
A judge that uses such terminology is probably no more than a cadre hire. Who the fk uses "prayer" in their conclusion.

"Mlambo explained that certain prayers submitted by the party could not be attended to without a record of the proceedings which lead to certain decisions. "

More importantly : Appointed by‎: ‎President‎ ‎Jacob Zuma

Just imagine what level of stupidity someone must have to be the primary choice for someone as simple minded as Jacob Zuma so what do we really expect from this judge.

Im starting to see that our court system is just a different kind of Zoomster recruitment, these judges definitely didn't pass any qualified bar exam.
He could either be a cadre or an agent of white monopoly capital, it all depends on how his rulings of the day.
 

Aquila ka Hecate

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
5,496
A judge that uses such terminology is probably no more than a cadre hire. Who the fk uses "prayer" in their conclusion.

"Mlambo explained that certain prayers submitted by the party could not be attended to without a record of the proceedings which lead to certain decisions. "

More importantly : Appointed by‎: ‎President‎ ‎Jacob Zuma

Just imagine what level of stupidity someone must have to be the primary choice for someone as simple minded as Jacob Zuma so what do we really expect from this judge.

Im starting to see that our court system is just a different kind of Zoomster recruitment, these judges definitely didn't pass any qualified bar exam.
I might be wrong but I think that's legalese there. "Prayers" is used for "requests" in the UK - or was, IIRC.
 

smi

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
2,224
Just another day where the people rights dont matter, party and state first, always
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
29,064
Just another day where the people rights dont matter, party and state first, always
Just another day when a court rules in a way that's not preferable to us and we cry foul, aren't we just a bunch of crybabies?
 

Nanfeishen

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
7,941
Well, this thread is about a court that declared lockdown regulations invalid and unconstitutional.
Yep, but why did it take them so long to do so, and why has nothing been done to rectify it since ?

My point is that the courts should have come out and declared this ****-show to be illegal and unconstitutional from the get go.
The power of the NCCC should have been challenged from the start, they should never have been given the decision making powers they have. Not to mention the decisions they have made should never have been supported in any manner or form by the courts either.
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
8,392
I cannot see how the courts will continue to uphold the constitutionality of the DMA + Section 36 allowing the executive to rule by decree indefinitely.

This effectively means that so long as the COGTA minister declares a state of disaster they can use section 36 to declare whatever regulation they want to, including those the remove most our rights as defined in the bill of rights. And unlike a state of emergency, the COGTA minister doesn't have to ask parliament's permission, can unilaterally renew it indefinitely, and doesn't require parliament to ratify the regulations arising from it.

This cannot be constitutional, and based on that secret policy document that leaked it seems very likely that they will segue into declaring the economic collapse another state of disaster in order to establish a "District Management Command Council" (or something similar) in order to rule provinces and municipalities by decree. It is absurd that regulations that affect our rights on an ongoing basis can be made like this with zero parliamentary process and flimsy justifications.
 

John Tempus

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
4,166
Yes, everyone knows that except John Tempus.
Really ? legalise in the UK is the argument but we sit in Africa ?

What is next, will we also not laugh at a judge walking in with a wig because its what they do in the UK.

BS.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
90,590
Really ? legalise in the UK is the argument but we sit in Africa ?

What is next, will we also not laugh at a judge walking in with a wig because its what they do in the UK.

BS.
You are aware of where our legal system came from hey?
 

John Tempus

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
4,166
Just another day when a court rules in a way that's not preferable to us and we cry foul, aren't we just a bunch of crybabies?
We are sick of injustice. I know you love the chaos and want SA to run amok like your amazing Zimbabwe.

Most of us sane people here don't want SA to turn into full blown Zimbabwe but I know based on your past comments here that you simply would love that to happen and cant wait for it to happen sooner rather than later.
 

John Tempus

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
4,166
You are aware of where our legal system came from hey?
Yes but most if not all of our legal system have been rewritten since 94 so you are suggesting that we just so happen to keep the crazy parts ? I don't think so, I think this judge is a complete idiot and he used the term prayer because he just googled it and it seemed "smart".

This judge is a total corrupt idiot, just look at hes apparent "famous" ruling about Oscar trial to see how he clearly takes money under the table for anyone interested in paying him enough.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
90,590
Yes but most if not all of our legal system have been rewritten since 94 so you are suggesting that we just so happen to keep the crazy parts ? I don't think so, I think this judge is a complete idiot and he used the term prayer because he just googled it and it seemed "smart".

This judge is a total corrupt idiot, just look at hes apparent "famous" ruling about Oscar trial to see how he clearly takes money under the table for anyone interested in paying him enough.
Ummm yeah, but no. You don't actually understand the reference to "legal system" do you?

The only person who is painting themselves as an idiot, is you really.
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
29,064
We are sick of injustice. I know you love the chaos and want SA to run amok like your amazing Zimbabwe.

Most of us sane people here don't want SA to turn into full blown Zimbabwe but I know based on your past comments here that you simply would love that to happen and cant wait for it to happen sooner rather than later.
No, you lot are sick of court cases that don't go your way, it has nothing to do with justice, learn the difference.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,823
The courts are independent, but are those who preside unbiased?

Just to quote the appeal (in accordance with media),
Interesting point. No doubt during 10 years of corrupt rule a few Zuma lackeys made their way into the court system as well.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
34,558
Interesting point. No doubt during 10 years of corrupt rule a few Zuma lackeys made their way into the court system as well.
It is more than that, those who preside are still human beings who associate and relate themselves and also connect themselves with the ‘theme’ in dispute. Jury systems, elsewhere, are exactly this, and they are sworn to convene in order to render an impartial verdict.

Impartial... the world is anything but impartial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Chris_the_Brit

High Tory
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
30,886
By my count, the crook in the doek has either 4 or 5 working days (depending on if you count last Tuesday) to amend some of the lockdown regulations relating to beaches, public parks, exercise etc. So early next week then.
 

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
56,630
Yes but most if not all of our legal system have been rewritten since 94 so you are suggesting that we just so happen to keep the crazy parts ? I don't think so, I think this judge is a complete idiot and he used the term prayer because he just googled it and it seemed "smart".

This judge is a total corrupt idiot, just look at hes apparent "famous" ruling about Oscar trial to see how he clearly takes money under the table for anyone interested in paying him enough.
Howdy - No skin in the game, but would you do me a favour and take about 45 seconds to google something along the lines of 'prayer definition courts south africa' and tell us what you find?
 
Top