ConCourt throws out NPO's application to have Mlambo's directive declared unconstitutional
JOHANNESBURG - The Constitutional Court has thrown out an application by the Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers Association (PIPLA) to have a directive by the Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, declared unconstitutional.
Earlier this year, Mlambo introduced the alternative dispute resolution mechanism for all civil trials in an attempt to ease the caseload in the division.
The move was met with legal challenges as PIPLA headed to the Constitutional Court, asking for direct access and to have Mlambo's directive invalidated.
Section 167 subsection 6(a) of the Constitution allows persons, when it is in the interests of justice and with leave of the Constitutional Court, to bring a matter directly to the apex court, making it a court of first and last instance.
In papers, PIPLA argued that granting it direct access was in the interests of justice to ensure that parties' rights to access the courts are safeguarded as enshrined in Section 34 of the Constitution.
The association submitted that the directive, which made mediation compulsory in civil trials, leaves those who cannot afford the alternative dispute resolution mechanism stripped of the fundamental right.
However, in a short order, the Constitutional Court said it had considered the application and concluded that no case had been made out for direct access and refused its application.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Gauteng High Court's mediation directive faces legal action from accident victim
A car accident victim is challenging a directive by the Gauteng high court which makes mediation mandatory before civil trials are heard. She demands her day in court and says she cannot afford mediation. Image: Jacques Naude / Independent Newspapers WHILE the Constitutional Court has declined leave to a law firm to directly approach the apex court in an urgent bid to overturn a directive introducing mandatory mediation in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, a vehicle accident victim who is also objecting to the directives will take her plight to court. The Durban-based woman, who is left a paraplegic following the accident, will turn to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria later in June to ultimately have the directives issued by the head of the court overturned. She said her accident occurred six years ago and she eventually obtained a court date issued in 2023 for her hearing. Her matter is scheduled to be heard in August this year, but her case is now first subject to arbitration in terms of the directive. This follows a directive issued by Judge President Dunstan Mlambo earlier this year that the Johannesburg and Pretoria high courts no longer allocate trial dates for civil cases (cases where evidence is being led, such as damages claims). Litigants, who in these cases want a judge to determine their issues, must first prove that they have tried to resolve their issues via mediation. A trial date will be allocated only if mediation does not resolve the issues, and they can prove via a certificate that they did try it. The Office of the Chief Justice earlier explained that there are no alternatives as the Gauteng Divisions simply cannot cope with the heavy workload. Judge Mlambo also commented in his directive that the bulk of these cases are, in any event, settled on the day of the trial. Thus, the mediation route is the practical solution so that judges can be freed to adjudicate over other matters. The woman will meanwhile bring her application in two parts - the first is that she and others may retain the court dates they have secured before the new directive came into force in April. The second part in which she is contesting the legality of the directive, will be heard at a later stage. The accident victim in this new legal challenge explained that it is expected of her (and others) to first pay the mediation fees before a mediator can adjudicate her case. She explained that before the accident she was a hairdresser. As she is now wheelchair-bound, her only income is a social grant. She is also HIV-positive and struggles with health issues. She said in an affidavit that this application is to ensure that she has her day in court. The applicant stated that the directive differentiates between plaintiff litigants and the RAF regarding the amount payable for mediation and when it's payable. The RAF, she claims, is only liable for R15,000 per mediation, which only becomes payable 30 days after the receipt of the mediation report. A plaintiff, on the other hand, must pay the balance of the mediation fee upfront. 'If a plaintiff litigant does not pay, no mediation can be conducted and no trial date can be obtained,' she stated. According to the plaintiff, she cannot pay for mediation and this will result in her being denied justice. She also questioned the constitutional validity of the directive. Gert Nel Inc Attorneys, through its director Gert Nel, in his now failed bid to the ConCourt, questioned whether this move for mandatory mediation is constitutionally sound. In an affidavit accompanying his urgent application, Nel said there are constitutional limits on judicial power.
IOL News
12 hours ago
- IOL News
The case of Afriforum, Ernst Roets and the Trump era
AfriForum framed its global tour as free speech, but its "white genocide" claims led to U.S. threats against South Africa—and deadly consequences in Pretoria, writes Gillian Schutte. Image: IOL AfriForum insists its trans-Atlantic charm offensive was no more than free speech dressed up in diplomatic attire. Ernst Roets toured Washington and Canberra clutching a dossier of farm-murder horror stories, selling the fable of a 'white genocide' and pleading for punitive action against his own country. He left satisfied; the Trump administration promptly threatened South Africa with sanctions, visa bans and the possible suspension of AGOA trade benefits. On Pretoria's streets the price was paid in bodies. Sanctions rarely arrive with a whistle like a bomb, yet their impact is explosive all the same. Treasury bean-counters scramble to plug the resulting hole in revenue; police salaries are delayed; overtime is cancelled. Officers facing shrinking pay-packets are quick to reach for the baton and the live round when township unrest flares. Land-rights activists—already framed by AfriForum's narrative as agents of genocide—become soft targets for 'pre-emptive' repression. A late-night knock, a shot in the dark, no warrant, no body-cam: the tell-tale pattern of extrajudicial killing the Minnesota Protocol warns about and our Constitution expressly forbids. Roets and his backers cannot pretend surprise. The scholarly record is vast and grim. Rhodesia in the 1960s, Iraq in the 1990s, Venezuela after 2017: starve a state of cash and it feeds on its own citizens. AfriForum was repeatedly warned. DIRCO briefings laid out the social cost of trade penalties; labour federations predicted blood on the shop-floor if jobs evaporated. Roets shrugged and pressed on, proclaiming that 'international force is the only option left'. That shrug is not political bluster—it is dolus eventualis, the legal heartbeat of treason. Under South African criminal law, a person acts with dolus eventualis when they foresee a forbidden outcome and embrace it as an acceptable price for their goal. AfriForum foresaw that foreign coercion would cripple the state and ratchet up violence; it welcomed the risk because the bigger the chaos, the stronger the leverage to freeze land reform. Call it by its common-law name: betraying the Republic. The usual riposte is freedom of expression. Yet the Bill of Rights draws a clear line: speech that incites imminent harm enjoys no sanctuary. Crying 'genocide' where none exists is more than hyperbole; it is a dog-whistle to foreign hawks and local vigilantes alike. One need only glance at the surge in armed 'boer protection' patrols after AfriForum's Washington jaunt to see how the narrative hardens triggers into action. There is also the convenient dodge that Washington's decision was sovereign and thus breaks any causal chain. Our courts are not so easily misled. They ask whether the outcome was a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of the accused's conduct. Sanctions in response to a choreographed moral panic? As foreseeable as sunrise. The United States even spelled out its reasoning in press releases echoing AfriForum's briefing notes almost word for word. Influence need not be decisive; it must merely be material—and the paper trail of meetings, podcasts and FARA-registered lobbying contracts more than meets that standard. Some will mutter that treason is an archaic charge, rolled out only for coup plotters in camouflage. Nonsense. Treason protects constitutional sovereignty, not party flags or presidential motorcades. When a well-funded pressure group enlists a foreign power to twist Pretoria's arm, it strikes at the very nerve centre the crime was designed to defend. The High Court confirmed as much in S v Harris (1952), convicting defendants who funnelled intelligence abroad without firing a shot. The principle is unchanged: you may criticise government, but you may not invite outsiders to batter it into submission. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ If the National Prosecuting Authority baulks at the optics of a treason trial, it still faces the ICC Act's uncompromising reach. Aiding or abetting crimes against humanity carries universal jurisdiction, and the Rome Statute treats systematic extrajudicial killings as just that. Evidence that lobbying paved the road to lethal police raids would drag AfriForum into a courtroom whether or not the charge-sheet carries the T-word. Beyond the legal calculus lies a political imperative. South Africa's bargain of 1994 was fragile to begin with; it cannot withstand a precedent that outsources our policy debates to foreign strongmen. If AfriForum walks unscathed, every aggrieved faction will learn the lesson: skip the ballot box, shop your grievance in Washington, wait for the rands to tumble and the rubber bullets to fly. That path leads to a broken republic and a queue of grieving families outside mortuaries. Ernst Roets likes to ask who will protect his community when the state fails. The honest answer is that the state begins to fail when citizens like him decide its laws and institutions are expendable bargaining chips on Capitol Hill. Accepting foreign sanctions at the cost of South African lives is not patriotism; it is collusion. And collusion, when it endangers the very sovereignty that guarantees all our rights, crosses the line into treason. The NDPP should enrol the indictment. If it lacks the nerve, the families of those shot dead in sanctioned austerity's shadow will eventually force the issue—here or in The Hague. That day cannot come soon enough, for in a constitutional democracy the loudest defence of free expression must never drown out the quieter, irrevocable right to life. * Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker, and critical-race scholar known for her radical critiques of neoliberalism, whiteness, and donor-driven media. Her work centres African liberation, social justice, and revolutionary thought. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL News
12 hours ago
- IOL News
EFF rejects fuel levy as an attack on the poor
EFF treasurer-general Omphile Maotwe has written to Finance Minister Enoch Godogwana rejecting the fuel levy. Image: Nhlanhla Phillips / Independent Newspapers By: Omphile Maotwe On 21 May 2025, the Minister of Finance tabled the third version of the 2025/26 national budget. Instead of solutions to South Africa's deepening fiscal and social crisis, the Minister delivered a cold and calculated betrayal. He proposed an increase to the general fuel levy by 16 cents per litre for petrol and 15 cents for diesel. True to what the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the country has come to expect from the GNU led administration, the proposal was dishonestly framed as a 'regulatory adjustment' instead of a tax increase. This levy aims to recover R1.3 billion in revenue after the courts struck down the unlawful VAT increase that featured in the initial budget proposal. The EFF is clear that the fuel levy is not a regulatory tweak but rather a tax hike that is being unlawfully imposed through the Customs and Excise Act, instead of through the Money Bill Act, as mandated by section 77 of the Constitution. We reject this proposal precisely because it is illegal and anti-poor. Our Constitution empowers only parliament to impose a national tax through the money bill. The Minister should therefore not be using administrative regulation to introduce a tax increase. The levy is a tax, even the government's own Budget Review refers to this fuel levy increase as part of 'fuel taxes on petrol and diesel.' Proceeding with it in this manner will only serve to defy the constitution, undermine Parliament's authority, and rob South Africans of their right to participate in fiscal decisions that directly affect their lives. The judiciary was clear in its handling of the initially proposed VAT increase by the Minister. A 2% VAT increase was proposed which was brought down to 0.5% but ultimately through the work of the EFF, it was recognised as a tax measure implemented outside of the law by the judiciary and subsequently suspended. Yet here we are again with a Minister who is determined to continue to undermine parliament and the courts. As the EFF we recognise this as arrogance, contempt and a blatant disregard of the law. The economic consequences of this illegal fuel levy will be devastating. While R1.3 billion may seem insignificant to Treasury, its impact on the working class and ordinary people of this country will be economically challenging. Fuel costs are a direct driver of inflation in transport, food, and essential services. For a worker commuting daily, a student relying on taxis, or a small trader transporting goods, this increase is not abstract. It is an attack on their survival. Our country is facing an economic crisis. That much is clear but as the EFF we will always be the voice that shields the poor from carrying an economic burden that results from poor governance and mismanagement. The crisis was not created by our unemployed youth in Tembisa or the grandmother in Giyani. It was not created by the street vendor in Umlazi or the taxi driver in Mthatha. The crisis was created by the ANC government through corruption, mismanagement, and a neoliberal austerity agenda that punishes the poor and protects the rich. The EFF has taken decisive action regarding the fuel levy and on 26 May 2025, we wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance, demanding immediate parliamentary intervention. We called for the Minister of Finance to withdraw the proposed levy because it must be introduced through the Money Bill Act. We further urged the Finance Committee to place this matter on its agenda, summon the Minister to account, and reaffirm Parliament's constitutional authority over all revenue measures. This matter deserves urgent attention because if the levy is allowed to proceed in its illegal state, we run the risk of further legal challenges and collapsing the fiscal framework. No legitimate parliament would endorse a budget that is tainted by unlawful taxation. What is most alarming is that if the 2025/26 Budget is not adopted by 31 July as required by the Constitution, the government could face an administrative shutdown under section 21. The EFF however is not opposed to raising revenue legitimately. We support progressive taxation that will fund development, create much-needed jobs, and render services to our people. But taxation must be lawful, fair, and aimed at those with the most. The government needs to urgently impose a wealth tax, close corporate tax loopholes, and end illicit financial flows. Revenue can also be raised by scrapping the bailouts to failing state-owned entities but the EFF is against putting further strain on the poor and working class. Imposing a fuel levy is a political decision and must be recognised as such. The EFF will not be silenced or intimidated by political bullies who continue to disregard the law, due process and undermine parliament and our constitution. We stand ready to fight against the injustices that will emanate from this tax increase that is disguised as an adjustment. We will fight against it in the corridors of parliament, in the confines of the courtrooms, and ultimately on the streets and on the picket lines. We will challenge this decision because we recognise it for exactly what it is, a bid to squeeze the poor and continue to cushion the rich and politically connected. Parliament should not allow the fuel levy to proceed as it threatens to render our institutions irrelevant. The people of South Africa did not vote for a government that will govern without notice, and parliament should be at the forefront of protecting the people who have entrusted us to lead and represent them. We call on all progressive forces to demand accountability, consultation, and for parliament to reclaim its power. The time has come for parliament to decide if it will stand with the people of South Africa or bow down to an unaccountable executive. The EFF stands with the people. * Omphile Maotwe is the Treasurer General of the Economic Freedom Fighters and a Member of Parliament ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media
