Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 May 2019 | Story Rulanzen Martin | Photo Rulanzen Martin
Judge Musi
Judge President Cagney Musi from the Free State Division of the High Court.

If you live in a rural town the chances of getting equal access to the court system as your urban counterparts is very slim and therefore the trust in the judiciary has taken a nosedive. This is the “urban bias” of the judiciary, according to Judge President Cagney Musi of the Free State Division of the High Court.

Afrobarometer conducted a countrywide survey on, Trust in Judiciary and access to justice in South Africa. Judge Musi, Matthias Krönke from the Department of Political Studies at the University of Cape Town and Chris Oxtoby from Democratic Governance and Rights Unit at UCT, engaged in a panel discussion on the findings of the report.

The data of the survey was released at an event which was hosted by the Department of Political Transformation and Governance at the University of the Free State (UFS) on Tuesday 16 May 2019. 

“The fact that we in South Africa and can say ‘I will take you to court’ is evidence of the trust there is in the judiciary,” said Judge President Musi. However, this trust in the courts ultimately lies in the operations of the court system. Cases that get postponed just becomes part of the backlog. The trust can be maintained through constant communication from the courts. Judge Musi asked whether social media could be used to maintain the trust in the judiciary by sharing court rulings on social media. 

“It is also time the courts moved along with the changing times.” Judge Musi was referencing the Fourth Industrial Revolution and how courts can move away from conventional paper-based systems to a process whereby a claimant can submit summonses online.

The data findings of the Afrobarometer survey focused on three broad themes namely; trust in the judiciary and access to justice and judicial autonomy. It aims to contextualise South Africa on the continent and see to what extent people trust the judiciary in South Africa and how that compares to other parts of Africa. South Africa’s performance is very average compared to other countries.

News Archive

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept