E-toll judgement reserved by Constitutional Court

It's not looking good. The argument for the state has questioned whether the High Court should have granted the interdict in the first place.

The answer is YES, the situation is exceptional enough that it should have done so.
But I am afraid that the ConCourt will set aside the interdict for political reasons.

:(
 
“There will be some measure of deviance… [but] it is a criminal offence to use a road and not pay for it,” he said.
Click to expand...

Huh? Apart from the fact that the existing roads were paid from our tax money, i.e. paid for by the public wtf is this dude talking about? By his own definition non-taxpayers are not allowed to use the roads?
 
evilstebunny said:
Huh? Apart from the fact that the existing roads were paid from our tax money, i.e. paid for by the public wtf is this dude talking about? By his own definition non-taxpayers are not allowed to use the roads?
Click to expand...

Well if someone can prove that tax money is being spent of the e-toll roads, and those roads are not only paid for by e-tolling then you will have a good court case. For e-tolling to be in place, that means that there must be NO TAX MONEY SPENT ON IT. Otherwise its extortion.
 
Garyvdh said:
But I am afraid that the ConCourt will set aside the interdict for political reasons.

:(
Click to expand...

I see no evidence of that. The ConCourt has often gone against the government. Im guessing they feel that this is not an constitutional issue. I honestly didnt think they would rule in favour of stopping the e-toll. Ive never heard of a ConCourt voting against a toll road. Which right in the constitution does it exactly violate? The right to religion? The right to freedom of expression?
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
I see no evidence of that. The ConCourt has often gone against the government. Im guessing they feel that this is not an constitutional issue. I honestly didnt think they would rule in favour of stopping the e-toll. Ive never heard of a ConCourt voting against a toll road. Which right in the constitution does it exactly violate? The right to religion? The right to freedom of expression?
Click to expand...

Freedom of movement and residence
21 1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement.
 
Garyvdh said:
Freedom of movement and residence
21 1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement.
Click to expand...

Im not sure that qualifies. You still have the right to freedom of movement and residence. Just you need to pay for some places. Its like Freedom of residence does not mean you can move into City Hall and live there either.
 
R13... said:
Why do you think they will make a political decision?
Click to expand...

Because the chief justice was appointed by Zuma, despite being obviously unsuitable for the role, which to me says he is a political puppet.

What it will come down to then is whether The Zuma Faction in the ANC wants the toll roads or not.
 
ghoti said:
Im not sure that qualifies. You still have the right to freedom of movement and residence. Just you need to pay for some places. Its like Freedom of residence does not mean you can move into City Hall and live there either.
Click to expand...

Well, I can prove that I had freedom of movement along those highways for many years, where I will now be denied freedom of movement along those very same highways.
That means a right that I previously had is now being denied me.

These are not new roads. They were open highways before.
 
Sinbad said:
Because the chief justice was appointed by Zuma, despite being obviously unsuitable for the role, which to me says he is a political puppet.

What it will come down to then is whether The Zuma Faction in the ANC wants the toll roads or not.
Click to expand...
How is he unsuitable for the role, he was already a con court judge and any con court judge can apply for the chief justice job?
 
R13... said:
Why do you think they will make a political decision?
Click to expand...

Because they will ignore the fact that there really was a justifiable reason for Judge Prinsloo to grant the interdict, and instead will find that it was not proper for the high court to interfere in policy decisions of the executive. In other words, there are two ways they can go. An interdict can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, they will find that this was not an exceptional instance. They will simply make it a matter of opinion.
 
R13... said:
If he doesn't qualify for chief justice he should not have made it as a judge of the con court to begin with.
Click to expand...

Yup. Political appointee FTL.

The man's views on rape amongst other things are completely unacceptable. And he's expressed these views in court judgements and findings. How can we trust that he will not allow his personal ambitions and prejudices to influence his decisions, when it's already shown that they do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X