Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
11 February 2020 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Leonie Bolleurs
Prof Liesl van As
Prof Liesl van As, Academic Head of the Department of Zoology and Entomology, is passionate about equal rights for parasites.

As a research-led institution, the university has 1 600 female researchers (2019 statistics), with 63 boasting ratings from the National Research Foundation (NRF). Four of the UFS SARChI Research Chairs are also headed by women. 

One of the scientists at the University of the Free State (UFS) who gets excited about research is Prof Liesl van As, Academic Head of the Department of Zoology and Entomology

She was part of the UFS team that established Africa’s largest digital laboratory, equipped with 227 microscopes, to ensure that undergraduate students from Zoology and Entomology, as well as Plant Sciences (Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences), have access to hi-tech equipment for a cutting-edge teaching experience.

The good and the bad 

But she also has a passion for her own research – that of fish parasites. Her most recent research work is about the biodiversity of fish parasites in natural river systems, with a focus on the Orange River and its tributaries, as well as the Okavango River and Delta in Botswana.

A few years ago, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries expanded their mandate for fisheries management by adding inland fisheries and aquaculture to their list of responsibilities. 

Prof Van As believes her research will add value to this process. “If we are going to expand inland fisheries, we need to expand our knowledge of what is happening in natural systems. It is important that we know and understand what potential problems might arise in aquaculture conditions.”

Equal rights for parasites

“We also need to understand that not all so-called parasites are bad, some have co-evolved with their hosts and they are part of our overall biodiversity. If the hosts are going extinct, so does this amazing spectrum of symbionts,” says Prof Van As, who is enthusiastic about promoting ‘equal rights for parasites’ (Wilson, 1995). 

When it comes to the future of women in research, Prof Van As – inspired by life itself, believes the possibilities are endless. “If you can dream it, you can do it. Ex Africa Semper Aliquid Novi (out of Africa there is always something new),” she states. 




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