Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
24 March 2022 | Story Portia Arodi | Photo Supplied
Portia Arodi
Portia Arodi, Interdisciplinary Master’s in Human Rights, Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law

Opinion article by Portia Arodi, Interdisciplinary Master’s in Human Rights, Class of 2022 Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State.
Human Rights Day means different things to different people. For some people, Human Rights Day means commemorating the day of the 1960 massacre when 69 people were shot and killed by police in Sharpeville.   In my opinion, Human Rights Day not only symbolises the historical events that occurred in 1960, but it also provides evidence of the inequalities that currently exist in South Africa.   The labour market in South Africa is still racialised and gender biased. The black majority in the labour market earns way less than their white counterparts, even though both are immersed in the same working conditions. According to Statistics South Africa (2015), the differences in the income of South Africans remain heavily racialised. Furthermore, since 1994, bridging the gap between gender and race continues to be a struggle. On the other hand, black women experience the same inequalities as their male counterparts. The difference is that black females are subject to double discrimination, based not only on their race, but on their gender as well. Despite occupying the same positions as males and assuming similar duties and workload, their salaries remain low. 
  
Human rights in an unequal society

On the other hand, for some categories of people – namely the elite and those in power – Human Rights Day amounts to a democratic South Africa, a country where the constitution is the supreme law of the land and where everyone (without exception) enjoys freedom and human rights. For this particular section of the ruling class and elite, Human Rights Day attests to the effective transition from the apartheid era to a democratic society characterised by freedom, equality, and dignity for all.

For those who lack access to basic needs such as water, food, shelter, health care, electricity, and sanitation, their perception of Human Rights Day may be very different, as they live in poverty with no promising future prospects.  In fact, for the larger section of the population, democratic South Africa is nothing but a burden that does not have much to offer.  Indeed, how to explain that in 2022, the black majority still relies on the bucket system for sanitation; how to understand that to date, they still survive in squatter camps and go through days and nights on an empty stomach? 

It is my contention that the celebration of Human Rights Day has failed to consider a holistic approach to highlighting and raising awareness on critical issues, including poverty and inequality. The realisation of socio-economic rights by authorities exists only on paper but is yet to be done effectively. The provision of service delivery, health-care services, infrastructure, the right to food, education, and other basic needs remains characteristic of modern South African society. From this perspective, it means that we are celebrating one part while neglecting the other.

Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are still children studying under trees?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are children going to school without food?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are children who are not able to go to school or receive basic education?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when racism is still occurring in our schools and workplaces?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when children are being raped by their teachers at school?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when some universities are still using Afrikaans as their primary language?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when our students are being deprived of education due to the mandatory vaccination policy?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when white privilege still exists among university students?

Is Human Rights Day still worth commemorating?

What are we celebrating on Human Rights Day?  Are we celebrating the achievements of the minority population? Are we celebrating the few changes that have occurred since the advent of a democratic South Africa? Are we celebrating the Fees Must Fall movement that occurred in a contest where some students who were fighting for free education were arrested, shot, and even killed? Are we simply referring to what occurred in 1960? Why are we not celebrating the Fees Must Fall movement? Why are we not celebrating the Rhodes Must Fall movement? Why are we not celebrating the Steyn Must Fall movement? 

On 21 March 2022:

We need to celebrate the Fees Must Fall movement.  
We need to celebrate the Rhodes Must Fall movement.
We need to celebrate the Steyn Must Fall movement.
We need to fight for the voiceless. 
We need to get commitment from government to abolish the use of the bucket system.
We need to get a commitment from government to build more schools, hospitals, shelters, roads, and other infrastructure.
We need to get commitment from government to hire more teachers. 
We need to get commitment from government on protection against racism that occurs in schools and universities. 

We need to get commitment from government regarding the abolition of the mandatory vaccination policies at universities.

On Human Rights Day, let us evaluate whether the Constitution of South Africa is protecting and safeguarding the rights of all human beings, irrespective of their gender, race, ethnic group, socio-economic status … etc.  Is this the democratic South Africa we would want our children and great-grandchildren to have in 50 years? If not, then we have a responsibility to find better ways in which the Constitution of South Africa functions as intended. 

News Archive

UFS law experts publish unique translation
2006-06-21

Attending the launch of the publication were from the left:  Prof Boelie Wessels (senior lecturer at the UFS Faculty of Law), Prof Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS), Prof Johan Henning (Dean: UFS Faculty of Law) and Adv Jaco de Bruin (senior lecturer at the UFS Faculty of Law). Prof Wessels translated the treatise from corrupted medieval lawyer Latin into English, Prof Henning is the leading author and initiator of the publication and Adv de Bruin assisted with the proofreading and editing. Photo: Stephen Collett

UFS law experts publish unique translation of neglected source of partnership law

The Centre for Business Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) has translated a unique long neglected Roman-Dutch source of the law of partnership law from Latin into English.  This source dates back to 1666. 

The book, called Tractatus de Societate (A Treatise on the Law of Partnership), by Felicius and Boxelius is published as Volume 40 in the research series Mededelings van die Sentrum vir Ondernemingsreg/Transactions of the Centre for Business Law.  It is the first translation of this Roman-Dutch source into English and comprises of a comprehensive discussion of the South African common law of partnerships.  

“Apart from various brief provisions dealing on a peace meal and an ad hoc basis with diverse matters such as insolvency, there is no comprehensive Partnership Act in South Africa.  The law of partnership in South Africa consists of South African common-law, which is mainly derived from Roman-Dutch law,” said Prof Johan Henning, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the UFS.  Prof Henning is also the leading author and initiator of this comprehensive publication.

“Countries such as America, England, Ireland and The Netherlands have drafted or are in the process of establishing new modern partnership laws in line with new international guidelines, practices and commercial usages,” said Prof Henning.

“However, in South Africa the most recent policy document released by the Department of Trade and Industry explicitly excludes partnership law from its present company law reform programme and clearly regards this as an issue for another day,” said Prof Henning.

“Unless there is a political will to allocate the necessary resources to a comprehensive partnership law revision program, it is a practical reality that South Africa will not have a modern Partnership Act in the foreseeable future,” said Prof Henning. 

According to Prof Henning South African courts have been using the Roman-Dutch partnership law sources as authority.  “The English Partnership Act of 1890 is not binding and the English text books should therefore be approached with caution,” said Prof Henning.

“A treatise on the law of partnership that has been regarded by South African courts as an important common law authority is that of  a Frenchman by the name of Pothier.  This treatise was translated into English and was regarded as an au­thority of significance in The Netherlands towards the end of the eighteenth century,” said Prof Henning. 

“Pothier’s opinions are however not valid throughout in the Roman-Dutch partnership law as it did not apply to the Dutch province of The Netherlands and it sometimes also rely on local French customs for authority,” said Prof Henning.

For this reason the Centre for Business Law at the UFS decided to focus its attention again on the significance of the comprehensive treatise of Felicius and Boxelius on the Roman-Dutch partnership law.  Felicius was an Italian lawyer and Boxelius a Dutch lawyer.

This long neglected source of partnership law was published in 1666 in Gorkum in The Netherlands.  "A significant amount of Roman-Dutch sources of authoritive writers trusted this treatise and referred to it,” said Prof Henning.

The translation of the treatise from corrupted medieval lawyer Latin into English  was done by Prof Boelie Wessels, a very well-known expert on Roman Law and senior lecturer at the UFS Faculty of Law.  Prof Wessels, who  has 15 degrees, spent almost ten years translating the treatise.  The proofreading and editing of the translation was done by Prof Henning and Adv Jaco de Bruin, a senior lecturer at the UFS Faculty of Law.

“We want the South African courts to use Volume 40 in the research series Mededelings van die Sentrum vir Ondernemingsreg/Transactions of the Centre for Business Law as the primary source of reference when cases where Roman-Dutch Law partnership law principles are involved, are ruled on,” said Prof Henning.

The first part of the publication comprises of selected perspectives on the historical significance of the work as well as a translation of selected passages. “The intention is to follow this up expeditiously with the publication of a very limited edition of a complete translation of the work,” said Prof Henning.

A total of 400 copies of the publication will be distributed to all courts, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.

Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel:   (051) 401-2584
Cell:  083 645 2454
E-mail:  loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za
21 June 2006

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