Latest news with #ConstitutionalCourt
Russia Today
an hour ago
- General
- Russia Today
South Africa appoints judges to probe Apartheid-era injustice
President Cyril Ramaphosa has appointed retired Constitutional Court Judge Sisi Khampepe to chair the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Inquiry into prosecutorial and investigation delays into apartheid era crimes. Khampepe will be assisted by retired Judge President Frans Diale Kgomo and Adv Andrea Gabriel SC. The commission will cover the period from 2003 to the present. Ramaphosa has signed a proclamation for the establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to determine whether attempts were made to prevent the investigation and prosecution of apartheid-era crimes. In a statement by the presidency, the establishment of the commission of inquiry is part of an agreement reached in settlement discussions in a court application brought by families of victims of apartheid-era crimes. Ramaphosa said: 'For many years, there have been allegations of interference in these cases. This alleged interference is seen as the cause of an unacceptable delay in the investigation and prosecution of brutal crimes committed under apartheid. This has caused the families of victims great anguish and frustration. 'All affected families – and indeed all South Africans – deserve closure and justice. A commission of inquiry with broad and comprehensive terms of reference is an opportunity to establish the truth and provide guidance on any further action that needs to be taken.' Ramaphosa said the commission will inquire into, make findings, report on and make recommendations on: Were there any efforts to stop SAPS or the NPA from investigating TRC cases? Who made these efforts, and why? Did any SAPS or NPA members improperly cooperate with those trying to influence or pressure them? Should the state take action—like more investigations or prosecutions—against anyone who broke the law? Should any person receive constitutional damages, and if so, how much? Victims and their families with a vested interest in TRC cases, including those involved in the current legal proceedings, are among the key stakeholders. The Commission of Inquiry, established by agreement between the families and the government, has six months to complete its work and must submit its report within 60 days thereafter. While both sides agreed to the commission's formation, unresolved issues remain—the government sees them as commission matters, while families seek court adjudication. As the commission began its work, the government welcomed the NPA and SAPS's commitment to investigating and prosecuting unresolved TRC cases, with dedicated resources already in place for priority matters. Ramaphosa emphasised the importance of holding those who committed apartheid-era crimes without amnesty accountable and expressed hope that the inquiry would help uncover the truth and bring closure to a painful chapter in the nation's published by IOL
The Citizen
a day ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
Khampepe to chair inquiry into interference on apartheid crimes
The commission will report on alleged police and legal collusion from 2003 to present. President Cyril Ramaphosa has appointed retired Constitutional Court Judge Sisi Khampepe to chair a judicial commission of inquiry to determine whether attempts were made to prevent the investigation and prosecution of apartheid-era crimes. Khampepe will be assisted by retired Northern Cape Judge President Frans Diale Kgomo and Advocate Andrea Gabriel. The president signed a proclamation for the establishment of a judicial commission on Thursday. Commission of inquiry Ramaphosa said the establishment of the commission of inquiry is part of an agreement reached in settlement discussions in a court application brought by families of victims of apartheid-era crimes. 'For many years, there have been allegations of interference in these cases. This alleged interference is seen as the cause of an unacceptable delay in the investigation and prosecution of brutal crimes committed under apartheid. This has caused the families of victims great anguish and frustration. ALSO READ: Apartheid-era cops plead not guilty to 1987 murder of Caiphus Nyoka 'All affected families – and indeed all South Africans – deserve closure and justice. A commission of inquiry with broad and comprehensive terms of reference is an opportunity to establish the truth and provide guidance on any further action that needs to be taken,' Ramaphosa said. Terms Ramaphosa said the commission must inquire into, make findings, report on and make recommendations on: Whether, why, to what extent and by whom attempts were made to influence members of the South African Police Service or National Prosecuting Authority not to investigate or prosecute cases identified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; whether any members of the Saps or the NPA improperly colluded with such attempts to influence or pressure them; whether any action should be taken by an Organ of State, including possible further investigations or prosecutions, of persons who may have acted unlawfully; Whether the payment of any amount in constitutional damages to any person is appropriate; The commission will cover the period from 2003 to the present and is expected to complete its work within six months from the date of Ramaphosa's proclamation, submitting its report within 60 days after completing its work. Enquiries Ramaphosa's spokesperson, Vincent Magwenaya, said that while the families of victims and the government have agreed to the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry, they were unable to reach a settlement on other matters in the application. 'The government believes that these matters will be addressed through the commission of inquiry, while the families want the matters to be determined by a court'. Magwenya said Ramaphosa respects the decision of the families to seek a court order to address the violation of their rights and seek constitutional damages through the courts. Stay of application However, the government was seeking a stay of application on these outstanding matters pending the conclusion and outcomes of the commission of inquiry. 'As the commission undertakes this important task, we welcome the firm commitment by the NPA and the South African Police Service to investigate and, where appropriate, to prosecute the outstanding TRC cases. In recent years, the NPA has reopened and pursued priority cases. It has assigned dedicated resources to ensure these cases are dealt with effectively. 'As this government, we are determined that those individuals responsible for apartheid crimes and who were not granted amnesty by the TRC be held to account,' Magwenya said. SA history Ramaphosa added that the commission of inquiry is an opportunity to draw a line under a painful period in the country's history. 'It is an opportunity to establish the truth and take steps, to the extent possible, to put right what may have gone wrong. 'I thank the Commission chairperson and two assistants for agreeing to take on this responsibility and wish them well in their work,' Ramaphosa said. Khampepe This is not the first time that Khampepe has chaired a commission of inquiry. Between 2005 and 2006, she chaired a Commission of Inquiry into the mandate and location of the Directorate of Special Operations (Scorpions), which became known as the Khampepe Commission. In June 2023, Khampepe chaired the commission of inquiry, which aimed to address the issues faced by people living in hijacked buildings in the Johannesburg CBD. The former Constitutional Court justice was also known for sending former president Jacob Zuma to prison after he failed to appear before the Zondo commission. Khampepe's ruling caused unrest in the country, where businesses were looted and malls were vandalised, leaving over 300 people dead. ALSO READ: Conviction of apartheid cop John Marais for killing of Caiphus Nyoka lauded
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Balancing act – South Africa's constitutional court tackles copyright bill and public interest concerns
How deep the irony that as Trump attempted a crass humiliation of South Africa's president over the property rights of white farmers, our highest court was carefully deliberating Ramaphosa's concerns about arbitrary deprivation of property. Last week, as US President Donald Trump was accusing President Cyril Ramaphosa of not respecting white farmers' property rights, South Africa's highest court was — at the president's request — holding a high-level debate on intellectual property rights and the constitutionality of the Copyright Amendment Bill. It was democracy and the rule of law at work, a demonstration of care over rights and property issues. This is one of a handful of times a president of democratic South Africa has exercised the constitutional authority to refer bills passed by Parliament to the Constitutional Court for review. Ramaphosa first referred the bill back to Parliament in 2020, citing its potential conflict with the Constitution and international treaties and its potential for retroactive arbitrary deprivation of property, among other issues. Parliament sent the bill back to the president's desk with significant changes in 2022, but Ramaphosa still referred it in 2024 to the country's highest court because he remained concerned about the bill's constitutionality. The genesis of the bill dates back more than a decade. Implicated are a variety of stakeholders and multiple considerations. What has to be balanced are the interests of authors and creators of copyright work against South Africa's developmental needs, specifically as they relate to education and general access to information and knowledge. Protection and incentives Artists of all stripes — music, literary, performance, etc — deserve protection of their work, incentives to create and to secure revenue streams. Investors in that work also require legal protection of their stakes. But alongside these are public interest purposes too, which might be unjustifiably prejudiced if fair exceptions to South Africa's copyright regime are not allowed. It was no surprise then that the president's referral of the bill to the Constitutional Court attracted a large number of organisations with concerns about the content and interpretation of the bill. Blind SA, the Recording Industry of SA and the Centre for Child Law all submitted arguments to the court as amicus curia (friends of the court). The Campaign for Freedom of Expression and the South African National Editor's Forum (Sanef) presented a joint submission about the interpretation of the bill best suited to protecting the South African media. Within the larger balancing exercise, the court was being asked to undertake, the Campaign for Freedom of Expression and Sanef asked it to weigh the varied, potentially opposing concerns of a free and healthy press. For example, it is essential for the operation of a free press that no copyright exists in 'news of the days that are mere items of press information'. If that were not the case, press reportage, which already faces considerable financial constraints, would be prohibitive. But news reporting that goes beyond 'mere items of press information', generating content that reflects new and considered engagement, is copyrighted and must be copyrighted — not least to protect from predatory treatment by digital platforms. Digital platforms like Google, and social media platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram and TikTok, are becoming the primary means by which people access news. The platforms get the benefit of reproducing news reporting (and generating revenue through advertising), without incurring the costs required to produce news of quality. These digital platforms are also able to avoid liability for the content of news articles that are accessible on their platforms. They are not treated as publishers and are immune from those responsibilities. In this context, copyright protection for news content producers is an important, if by no means the only, route by which these issues need to be addressed. But there are reasons to worry given the open-ended nature of exceptions permitted to copyright by the introduction of the 'fair use' regime in the Copyright Amendment Bill. The bill looks to amend South African law so that lawful use of copyright is permitted in a wider range of circumstances than was previously allowed. Advances in digital technology It has been explicitly promoted in the South African context as better suited to advances in digital technology. While not exactly identical to US 'fair use' provisions, South Africa's provisions are modelled on them. And while certain stakeholders have insisted that they were not sufficiently consulted during the drafting of South Africa's Copyright Amendment Bill, big tech platform and US multinational Google very much were. There have been explicit concerns expressed that the resulting 'fair use' provisions would leave news content published by the South African media free to be guzzled up by Big Tech's search functionality without fair remuneration. Similarly, the 'fair use' regime has been accused of potentially enabling the free extraction of South Africa's creative content for machine learning and application in its generative AI systems. How deep the irony that as the US president sought to engage in the crass humiliation of South Africa's president for his supposed reckless regard for the property rights of white South African farmers, South Africa's highest court was engaging in careful deliberation triggered by Ramaphosa's concerns for the arbitrary deprivation of property. That irony is deeper still when one considers that the gate may have been opened by the emulation of US law, and where the 'property grabs' may be occasioned by US-headquartered Big Tech. But as the Constitutional Court was not conducting itself in the style of some vicious reality TV elimination contest, few were watching. Certainly not Trump. DM Nicole Fritz is the Executive Director of the Campaign for Free Expression (CFE). Ella Morrison is an intern researcher at CFE.
Eyewitness News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
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.
TimesLIVE
2 days ago
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
'Kill the Boer' chant is dehumanising and dangerous: Cilliers Brink
Former Tshwane mayor Cilliers Brink has criticised President Cyril Ramaphosa's stance on the 'Kill the Boer' chant, describing it as 'dehumanising and dangerous'. The controversy surrounding the song resurfaced after US President Donald Trump called for EFF leader Julius Malema's arrest for chanting the song. Ramaphosa dismissed Trump's call early this week, citing the Constitutional Court's decision against considering it hate speech. 'When it comes to the issue of arresting anyone for any slogan, that is a sovereign issue. It's not a matter that we need to be instructed by anyone to arrest anyone,' Ramaphosa said. 'We follow the dictates of our constitution because we are a constitutional state, and we are a country where freedom of expression is the bedrock of our constitutional arrangement.' He said the song is a liberation chant and should not be interpreted as a literal statement of intent. 'The slogan, 'kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' is a liberation chant and slogan. That's not meant to be a message that elicits or calls upon anyone to go and be killed. And that is what our court decided.' Taking to X, Brink argued that Ramaphosa had a constitutional obligation to promote national unity. 'Condemning the singing of that song as fundamentally un-South African is not a matter of sovereignty, but of statesmanship and basic decency,' Brink said. 'That Ramaphosa has failed to do so says a great deal about him and what he stands for.' The Constitutional Court dismissed AfriForum's bid to have the song declared hate speech, upholding the equality court's 2022 ruling that the song is protected under freedom of expression. 'It is appalling that our courts have decided to declare the racist death chant as protected speech,' Brink said. 'To be kind to those judges, their estimation is probably that the state is too weak and politically compromised to enforce hate speech laws against the likes of Malema. So they pretend that the singing of 'Kill the Boer' is not an incitement of violence against a group based on race and ethnicity.'
