Latest news with #Constitutionof
IOL News
2 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
Lesufi's government undermines the role of opposition by withholding information
Panyaza Lesufi The Gauteng Premier, Panyaza Lesufi, has refused the request for access to the records requested, says the writer. Image: Oupa Mokoena Independent Newspapers The Democratic Alliance (DA) Gauteng, the official opposition in the province, is committed to safeguarding South Africa's constitutional democracy, the principles and values espoused in the founding document. Nonetheless, our efforts as the opposition to conduct oversight over the elected executive are increasingly thwarted. The growing barriers to effective and meaningful conduct oversight are deliberate withholding and denial of crucial information, procedural delays and protracted legal battles that severely undermine our oversight role. The affected areas are irregular procurement and contract management, unlawful appointments, and the lack of consequence management due to not enforcing recommendations from disciplinary action. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa explicitly highlights the separation of powers among the legislature, executive and judiciary, establishing much-needed mechanisms for effective oversight, a fundamental pillar of good governance. In a healthy democracy, transparency and accountability are important principles. Laws regulating access to information are put in place to ensure that the public has access to the decision-making processes of those in power to hold them accountable for their actions. There has been a growing reluctance or outright refusal by the governing party and those in leadership to provide vital information to enable effective scrutiny. Effective legislative oversight relies heavily on access to accurate, timely and complete information. The legislature's ability to scrutinise government actions, expenditure, and hold public officials accountable centres on this access. When the executive withholds information, be it through vague, sub-par or incomplete responses to questions in the house, dismissing Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) requests, or invoking the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) to shield data, our capacity as opposition to fulfil this oversight mandate diminishes. This casts a shadow on the executive promise of good governance and fulfilling their mandate. This increase in information withholding has profound implications. Without transparency, there is no way to verify whether departments are acting in the best interests of the public or if resources are being misappropriated. This lack of transparency and accountability becomes a breeding ground for corrupt and unethical conduct, financial mismanagement and misconduct, which ultimately leads to poor service delivery. Through the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), the DA has since October last year demanded full access to 177 forensic reports dating from 2016 to the present. The Gauteng Premier, Panyaza Lesufi, refused the request for access to the records requested. However, the refusal did not provide adequate reasons based on the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) that the Office of the Premier relied on. The DA Gauteng appealed the decision to refuse access to the reports internally in November, but the appeal was dismissed the following month. In January, we approached the Information Regulator, where the pre-investigation report found that 'there is a prima facie case that the complainant met the minimum requirements prescribed in PAIA, in that the request form was duly submitted to the public body.' According to the Information Regulator, the alleged refusal by Lesufi's office to grant access and failure to state adequate reasons for the refusal, including the provisions of PAIA relied on, necessitates an investigation of the complaint to ascertain whether the requester (DA) must be given access to the records. The use of legal provisions such as POPIA to justify withholding information raises concerns about the misuse of privacy laws as shields rather than safeguards. While protecting personal data is essential, these laws must not be weaponised to conceal misconduct and prevent public scrutiny. There must be a balanced approach that respects individual rights without compromising the public's right to know when such disclosure is both lawful and justifiable. Furthermore, any reliance on privacy concerns must be weighed against the public interest in disclosure, particularly in cases where the public interest outweighs any purported confidentiality claims. While POPIA is designed to regulate the lawful processing of personal information, it balances the right to privacy with the right to access information. The Act explicitly provides for instances where disclosure is necessary and lawful. The ruling, therefore, emphasises how difficult it is for the public and government to balance between privacy, transparency, and due process. This is not the first time that our PAIA applications have been unsuccessful in what we increasingly view as the shielding of corrupt officials, politicians, and activities within the Gauteng Provincial Government (GPG). The biennial report of the Gauteng Ethics Advisory Council (GEAC) for 2025 has restated what the DA Gauteng has been exposing about corruption, maladministration, non-compliance with relevant legislation and regulations and ethical violations severely affecting the delivery of services to residents of Gauteng.
Iraqi News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Iraqi News
Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court receives British Ambassador
Baghdad-INA Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court, Judge Jassim Mohammed Abboud, affirmed on Wednesday that the Constitution guarantees the rights and freedoms of Iraqis, including voting, elections, and candidacy. A statement from the court, received by the Iraqi News Agency (INA), stated that "Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court, Judge Jassim Mohammed Abboud, received the British Ambassador Irfan Siddiq and his accompanying delegation in his office at the Federal Supreme Court." It pointed out that "during the meeting, the need to strengthen joint cooperation in all fields between the Republic of Iraq and the United Kingdom, particularly in the field of constitutional justice, was addressed." The Chief Justice emphasized that, "Despite the difficulties facing Iraq, the 2005 Constitution of the Republic of Iraq, as a document of the Iraqi people that may not be violated for any reason, has established the fundamental principles of sound democratic construction, with the goal of achieving popular democracy and realizing the principle of the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power, in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution." It added, "Iraq is about to hold general elections for the next parliamentary term, and the measure of the success of the elections depends on the real level of popular participation." It explained that "the Constitution guarantees the public and private rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people, including the right to vote, elect, and run for office, it is prohibited to infringe upon or influence these constitutional rights by any party or for any reason, leading to the building of a strong civil state based on national identity and transcending sectarian, ethnic, and interest-based quotas." He continued, "The Constitution also requires the preservation of public funds and the prevention of encroachment upon them, in accordance with Article (27), given that public funds are sacred and their protection is the duty of every citizen. It is prohibited to use such funds for illegitimate purposes." For his part, the British Ambassador affirmed that "his country is keen to cooperate with the State of Iraq in all areas, including cooperation to achieve the constitutional goals of sound democratic construction, the preservation of public funds, and the rule of law."
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Conservative Legal Icon's Chilling Trump Admission: 'I Don't Know Where This Ends...'
Conservative former federal judge J. Michael Luttig this weekend tore into President Donald Trump and his administration for 'waging war' on the federal judiciary and rule of law. The assault began on Trump's very first day back in office, Luttig told MSNBC's Ali Velshi. And the legal icon worryingly admitted: 'I don't know where this ends.' Luttig, a staunch and vocal critic of Trump's attacks on democracy, took particular issue with Attorney General Pam Bondi's accusation that judges who have ruled against the president's policies and executive orders are 'deranged.' 'No, the judges are not deranged, Pam Bondi,' said Luttig. 'They are simply enforcing their oath to the Constitution of the United States. The same oath that you, Madam Attorney General, took yourself,' he pointed out. Then Luttig confessed: 'I don't know where this ends, Ali, but it appears that, in this moment, the president intends to prosecute this war against the federal judiciary and the rule of law to its catastrophic end.' Watch the full analysis here: Earlier this month, Luttig argued Trump's claim of not knowing if he has to uphold the U.S. Constitution was 'perhaps the most important words ever spoken by a president of the United States.' 'The temptation here is to dismiss the president's words as just another gaffe, of which he makes many. But I don't think that we should do that,' he said. 'I'm quite confident that the president was saying what is on his mind and that is that he, the president of the United States, doesn't necessarily believe that he is obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court,' Luttig added. Phil Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star Who Spread Homophobic Hate, Dead At 79 OUCH! WWE Fans Let Ron DeSantis Know Exactly How They Feel New York Post Warns Trump How He's Burning Out Even His Biggest Fans Biden Speaks Publicly For First Time Since Cancer Announcement
Daily Maverick
6 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
In a polarised world, the South African Secular Society plays a bold role in holding our diversity in mind
As a recovering Catholic suffering from residual guilt, I have been mortified into paralysis for missing the ceremony for the 2024 Secularist of the Year awards. I was one of the recipients, so you understand. My fellow recipient was the award-winning author and activist Zukiswa Wanner. Sharing it with her is beyond cool. Missing the award ceremony is not. The South African Secular Society serves as a unique space for people who seek to live their lives beyond religion in South Africa, a secular state. It is a civil society organisation registered as a nonprofit and defines itself as promoting 'secularism and the naturalistic world view'. Years ago, one of its founding members and now its vice-president, Rudy Nadler-Nir, told the story of registering the organisation with Home Affairs. The clerk who was on duty that day wanted to know if the society was a 'religious organisation', so little is secularism understood. The society was formed in 2014. Two years later, Home Affairs officially allowed it to nominate individuals to become secular officiants. Its chairperson at present is Rick Raubenheimer. The award Announcing the award, the society explained that the nominees 'were such strong contenders that it was decided to award the title jointly for the first time since the awards were introduced in 2017'. Zukiswa's activism includes gender justice, social justice and secularism. 'As a sociopolitico commentator she upholds a humanist approach, providing a positive role model of courage, integrity and the need to bear witness. She was awarded the title of African of the Year for 2024 by The Continent newspaper,' the society said. The award is given annually to an individual or organisation that the judges consider to have made 'a great contribution to the advancement of the just treatment of South African citizens by their government and society'. Previous recipients include Professor Sakkie Spangenberg, academic, theologian and one of the founders of the Nuwe Hervorming Netwerk, Professor Sean Davison, Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng, Dr Suzanne Walter, Dr Patrick Pillay and Hans Pietersen, founder of the Organisasie vir Godsdienste-Onderrig en Demokrasie. I am honoured to have been nominated and to have received this award alongside Zukiswa. It is one of those I will be proud to hang in my workspace for my children to keep and hold on to. Why secularism? The South African Secular Society's basis is the strict separation of religious institutions from the state and the equal recognition of all regardless of belief or lack of such before the law. This is why, when someone in South Africa is 'sworn in' in court or as a member of Parliament, there is an option of choosing how you wish to do this. You can swear an 'oath' or take an 'affirmation', which is an affirmation of faithfulness to the Constitution of South Africa. The society explains that the naturalistic world view 'is a comprehensive world view based in a scientific, empirical understanding of reality. It offers a positive, rational and fulfilling alternative to faith-based religions and non-empirical world views. The naturalistic world view supports atheism, agnosticism, non-theism, free thought and humanism.' Therefore, my agnostic and quantum curious self fits right in. Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights contained in the South African Constitution respects the culture and dignity of all people. It includes race and gender equality (adhering to the spirit of Ubuntu), and this is key always to hold in mind. In an increasingly polarised world, the society plays an important role in holding the diversity of South Africa in mind, including those who hold deep religious beliefs. Just as religion has played a part in calling out atrocities and hatred in its name, so has it had a hand in much of the bloodshed itself. Although Islam and long-established and organised Christian faiths such as the Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Protestants and others have called for peace and espouse the true principles of the faith – caring for the poor and the vulnerable, calling out injustice, viewing the world as an inclusive one – others have weaponised religion. These sects and cults warp and twist religion into a nationalistic weapon of destruction to be used against perceived enemies, replacing the gospel with tongues. Somewhere in all this noise is the secular society we all live in. And somewhere is a society where like-minded secularists can move through the world. DM
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Public Land Sales Proposal Could Advance at 1 A.M. Tomorrow
A congressional budget proposal that requires the federal government to sell or trade over 500,000 acres of public land in Utah and Nevada is moving to its next step: a Rules Committee meeting at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning. The timing of the meeting, in which members will vote on the conformity of the budget with House rules, confirms to critics that Republican lawmakers want to shield their vote from public scrutiny. The last-minute introduction of the land-sales amendment to the House Natural Resources budget mark-up, at about 11 p.m. after 14 hours of meetings on May 6, was lambasted as a 'dark-of-night' procedure by critics who claim the action could create a destabilizing precedent leading to wholesale loss of federal public land. The public-land sale proposal has stoked widespread opposition in the conservation and hunting community, with most organizations calling on their members to contact their congressional delegation to demand a 'no' vote on that portion of the federal budget. 'This isn't about partisanship. This is about principle,' North American board chair for Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Ryan Callaghan said in a press statement. 'Our public lands are not bargaining chips. They are not surplus. And they are not for sale.' The centrist Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation noted that while disposal of federal land to accommodate urban growth in the West is often appropriate, there's already an established process to identify and dispose of those lands. 'But when efforts to sell or dispose of federal lands are unexpectedly added to a piece of legislation that requires a lower degree of Congressional passage than normal legislation, it causes concern,' the CSF wrote in a post. 'In this case, a late night, unexpected amendment to a budget reconciliation bill, which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate compared to the normal threshold of 60, to potentially sell off and dispose of certain federal lands is problematic.' This afternoon the House Rules Committee is expected to start considering the Natural Resources budget mark-up, along with contributions from other House committees, as part of the procedural process that ensures the budget conforms with legal, policy, and procedural guidelines. Several Rules Committee members have suggested that they may not vote in line with Republican leadership and the Trump Administration, making the Rules Committee an important stop for those who would remove some of its objectionable provisions. According to reporting by E&E News Republican and Montana congressman Ryan Zinke, Trump's first Interior Secretary and a vocal opponent of selling or trading public lands, may seek to insert language in the bill before it reaches the Rules Committee. Zinke reportedly plans to include changes and remove the land-disposal amendment. 'The sale of public land is a red line for me,' Zinke told Outdoor Life in an interview earlier this year. 'Along with upholding the Constitution of the United States, fighting attempts to sell or trade wholesale pieces of our public estate is something I will not bend on.' It's unclear how the mechanics of Zinke's amendment would affect the larger Natural Resources budget mark-up, or whether it would have support among Rules Committee members to proceed. The entirety of the 1,116-page budget bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent, reduce tax credits for climate-friendly energy investments, make significant cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, raise the nation's debt limit by $4 trillion, expand funding for the military, and reduce most federal agency personnel and budgets. Provisions of the budget bill affecting natural resource and public-land management were detailed in the House Natural Resources' contribution to the package earlier this month. Because the provisions are part of what's called a budget reconciliation process, the entire package needs only a simple majority to pass the House and the Senate.
