Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
25 May 2020 | Story Dr Ralph Clark | Photo Charl Devenish
Afromontane research area in the Eastern Free State.

Africa could be called ‘the continent of mountain archipelagos’ for the unusual fact that most of Africa's mountains are isolated ‘islands’ rather than linear, continuous mountain systems such as those in Asia (e.g. the Himalayas), Europe (e.g. the Alps), and the Americas (e.g. Rockies and Andes). Even in Southern Africa, where we have the linear Great Escarpment (5 000 km long), this system is so old that it has been breached in innumerable places by erosion into a series of independent mountain blocks.

The result of this mountain disconnection is that Africa's mountains display biodiversity patterns more akin to islands than to mountains: rich, exciting, and unique, and full of very localised and interesting species. Likewise, mountain communities have established and evolved unique cultural ways of life and traditions in their particular mountains – isolated from other groups on other mountains. But in some mountains, internecine warfare and tribal conflict caused mountains to become boundaries rather than welcoming places. This was certainly the case during the Mfecane in Southern Africa, ultimately leading to the birth of Lesotho as the ‘Mountain Kingdom’. Colonialism took this to a new level, and – for most of Africa – mountains became international borders between empires, splitting ethnic groups into several nationalities and marginalising large segments of the population in these new countries. This same geopolitical situation continues today, with major implications for the sustainable management of mountain ecosystem services, natural capital, and socio-cultural sustainability in multinational contexts.

The Afromontane Research Unit (ARU) – a continental leader in African mountain research – seeks to explore these socio-ecological complexities in terms of sustainable development, providing research that can help to secure a positive future for the people, biodiversity, and goods and services provided by Africa's mountains. As part of its mission, the ARU is leading the way in encouraging a multidisciplinary community of practice that will drive a science-policy-action interface for Southern African mountains in decades to come. As virtually all of Africa's water comes from its mountains, this is a critical service to a region increasingly at risk from drought and the socio-political implications of rivers and taps running dry. 

Although the Qwaqwa Campus is the home of the ARU, the ARU is welcoming affiliations from across the UFS and beyond. Should you wish to become affiliated to the ARU, please contact the Director, Dr Ralph Clark at ClarkVR@ufs.ac.za. Visit the new ARU's website 

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