Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

"South Africa belongs to all – not some – who live in it" – Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng

01 September 2019 | Story Lacea Loader | Photo Stephen Collett

Watch the full prestige lecture HERE.

“The government of the day should be based on the will of the people and must be led by people who deserve to lead us.” These were the words of Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, the Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa, during a prestige lecture delivered in the Faculty of Law on the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS) on 30 August 2019.

In addressing the topic of ‘Transformative Constitutionalism’, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said this simply meant that the constitution was used as a tool to change or move a family, society, institution or the nation from an unacceptable to a more desirable position. He added that constitutionalism can be enhanced through ethical, courageous, and visionary leadership.

“There is a belief that judges should have nothing to do with matters of politics. I agree, but only to a certain extent. Judges are supposed to deal with political issues, as they interpret the constitution and the law. It is inescapable in a South African context. Some say that judges should only speak through their judgments. I've always said that our constitution is political in nature.”

“The preamble of our Constitution says this country belongs to all who live in it, but to what extent have we allowed our Constitution to achieve these objectives? A constitution does not implement itself. It takes people with a particular mindset and conviction. Transformation demands from the public to ensure that government is truly based on the will of the people,” he said.

According to the Chief Justice, South Africa needs strong and well-resourced institutions – including a strong judiciary. Institutions must be vigilant for any form of abuse of power and capture. Institutions cannot only be captured by external forces. They can be captured internally as well.

Another crucial element is education and the quality and condition of higher education at every level. “Our school system must allow the youth who are coming from high school to be able to adapt with ease when they get to university.”

“We need people who truly love their country to assume positions of power. Transformative constitutionalism is all about giving expression in a practical way. We should look at solutions for our country based on compromise that can bring us together as South Africans.”

He paid tribute to people such as former President Nelson Mandela, Mama Albertina Sisulu, and Adv Bram Fischer, who opted for the greater good of many, rather than personal satisfaction and gain. “South Africa belongs to all – not some – who live in it, united in our diversity. Are you prepared to serve the state? Do you love this nation? Go out there and pursue social justice. Don't buy things from thieves just because they are cheap. You are encouraging crime.”

“We can't continue this way and expect a different outcome. It is not too late; go out there and contribute towards building the South Africa that we can be proud of,” he concluded.

Hosted by Prof John Mubangizi, Dean of the UFS Faculty of Law, the prestige lecture was attended by approximately 800 guests, comprising senior members of the Supreme Court of Appeal, the Free State Division of the High Court, the university’s executive management, the Faculty of Law, staff members, students, and members of the public.

The Prestige Lecture Series was originally known as the Law Deans’ Prestige Lecture Series and was initiated by the late Prof Johan Henning, former Dean of the UFS Faculty of Law. The series started in 2011 as an initiative to encourage, develop, and expand academic discourse on topical jurisprudential issues and other related matters. Previous lectures were delivered by, among others, Prof Barry Rider from the University of Cambridge in the UK; Justice Richard Goldstone, formerly of the Constitutional Court of South Africa; former Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke; and more recently, Judge President Dennis Davis.

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng with some of the guests who attended the Prestige Lecture

From the left: Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, Prof John Mubangizi, Prof Prakash Naidoo

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points

2004-07-29

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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