Latest News Archive
Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
![]()
The special task team met today (23 April 2018) to discuss the feedback received from the Free State Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (FSPHRA) regarding the task team’s submission to obtain a permit for the possible covering of the statue until the formal review process on the position of the statue in front of the Main Building on the Bloemfontein Campus has been concluded.
The special task team submitted a submission to the FSPHRA on 17 April 2018, in which the following three possible options were proposed to make the statue topical in a way that would symbolise the seriousness and urgency of the review process and stimulate engagement on the issue:
1. fencing in the statue;
2. creating an exchange of information around it; and
3. covering the statue.
Options 1 and 2 emanated from the consultation process with the university community on the possible covering of the statue.
The Permit Committee of the FSPHRA approved Option 2 during its meeting on 17 April 2018, as it cultivates opportunity for scholarly engagement. The committee indicated that the statue should still be visible, ‘uncovered’, and accessible and granted the UFS a permit on 20 April 2018 to make the MT Steyn statue topical while the review process is underway.
Permit document
The special task team welcomes the decision of the Permit Committee and supports the conditions stated in the permit, as it protects the credibility of the review process.
According to the National Heritage Resources Act No 25 of 1999, members of the university community and other stakeholders have 14 days from the date of issue of the permit (i.e. 17 April 2018) to appeal directly to the Permit Committee regarding its decision to grant the permit.
The way forward regarding the review process:
- While the decision of the Permit Committee is open for appeal, the special task team is refining the detailed feedback and alternative suggestion/view on Option 2 made by the FSPHRA to ensure the practical execution thereof. This conceptional framework of Option 2 (creating an exchange of information around it) will be shared with the university community once completed.
- The UFS has appointed a heritage consultant to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA).
- Once a preliminary report from the HIA has been submitted by the heritage consultant, it will be made public for a minimum period of 30 days for input from the university community and other stakeholders, during which a public participation process will commence in order for the university community and others to deliberate about the preliminary report. During this time, various opportunities for engagement will be created on all three campuses to afford the university community and other stakeholders an opportunity to engage with the report.
- The heritage consultant will submit a final report to the special task team after the engagement period has been completed.
The specific dates and timelines of the public participation process will be shared when finalised.
Released by:
Lacea Loader (Director: Corporate Communication and Marketing)
Telephone: +27 51 401 2584 | +27 83 645 2454
Email: news@ufs.ac.za | loaderl@ufs.ac.za
Fax: +27 51 444 6393
SA must appoint competent judges
2009-05-08
|
|
| At the inaugural lecture are, from the left: Prof. Teuns Verschoor, Acting Rector of the UFS, Judge Farlam and Prof. Johan Henning, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the UFS. |
Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Ian Farlam has called on the South African government to appoint and continue to appoint competent, fair and experienced judicial officers to sit in the country’s courts.
He also emphasised the need to have an efficient and highly respected appellate division, which rightly enjoys the confidence of all.
Judge Farlam was speaking at the University of the Free State (UFS) where he delivered his inaugural lecture as Extraordinary Professor in Roman Law, Legal History and Comparative Law in the Faculty of Law.
He said there were important lessons that emanated from the study of legal history in the Free State, particularly including the lesson that there were courageous jurists who spoke up for what they believed to be right, and a legislature who listened and did the right thing when required.
“This is part of our South African heritage which is largely forgotten – even by those whose predecessors were directly responsible for it. It is something which they and the rest of us can remember with pride,” Judge Farlam said.
Addressing the topic, Cox and Constitutionalism: Aspects of Free State Legal History, Judge Farlam used the murder trial of Charles Cox, who was accused of killing his wife and both daughters, to illustrate several key points of legal history.
Cox was eventually found guilty and executed, however, the trial caused a deep rift between the Afrikaans and English speaking communities in the Free State.
Judge Farlam also emphasised that the Free State Constitution embodied the principle of constitutionalism, with the result that the Free State was a state where the Constitution and not the legislature was sovereign. He said it was unfortunate that this valuable principle was eliminated in the Free State after the Boer War and said that it took 94 years before it was reinstated.
Judge Farlam added, “Who knows what suffering and tragedy might not have been avoided if, instead of the Westminster system, which was patently unsuited to South African conditions, we had gone into Union in 1910 with what one can describe as the better Trekker tradition, the tradition of constitutionalism that the wise burghers of the Free State chose in 1854 to take over into their Constitution from what we would call today the constitutional best practice of their time?”
Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za
8 May 2009