Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
06 February 2024 | Story Valentino Ndaba | Photo SUPPLIED
Moot Court 2023
UFS Law Clinic Team (from behind) Ayant Jaggan, Christopher Rawson, Lesenyego Makone, Lesley-Ann Terblanche, Palesa Dingiswayo and Paul Antohnie (Director).

The University of the Free State's (UFS) Faculty of Law recently hosted the 19th annual Kovsie First-Year Moot Court Competition, in collaboration with the UFS Law Clinic and South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal.

The event, which took place late last year, marked a significant milestone in experiential legal education, showcasing the dedication and expertise of the university's budding legal minds.

According to Moot Court Coordinator Palesa Dingiswayo, “The competition aimed to empower aspiring legal minds by giving them an opportunity to showcase their skills and knowledge in a simulated courtroom setting. The participants had to research, write, and present their arguments on a challenging case involving customary law, constitutional law, and the law of succession. The case was designed to test their understanding of the law, their ability to apply it to complex facts, and their persuasive power in oral advocacy.”

Recognising excellence

The competition presented awards acknowledging outstanding accomplishments, including the Best Heads of Arguments Award (awarded to Larieschka King and Saurav Maharaj from the University of Johannesburg (UJ), bestowed upon the team that crafted the most lucid, succinct, and persuasive written submissions. This accolade honours proficiency in law and the skill to present arguments logically and cohesively. The Best Speaker Award (awarded to Sechaba Mkhaya from the University of Pretoria) recognises the individual who captivated the judges with their eloquent presentation. This distinction celebrates confidence, charisma, and creativity in delivering arguments with flair and finesse. Lastly, the Best Overall Team Award (awarded to Larieschka King and Saurav Maharaj from UJ) went to the team that excelled in both written and oral aspects. This award acknowledges passion, dedication, and commitment to the cause of justice.

Dingiswayo shared insights into what set the finalists apart in terms of their approach, legal acumen, or presentation skills, stating, "According to the feedback from the judges, the overall team demonstrated an extensive understanding of the law relevant to the competition, enhancing their capacity to address related issues based on the given facts. They showcased excellent research skills. The winning team submitted articulate, concise, and well-crafted heads of arguments that meticulously addressed the legal issues at hand. Moreover, they exhibited strong oral advocacy skills in effectively responding to questions."

Preparation is key

Itumeleng Molelengoane, Former Junior Moot Officer and incoming Chairperson of the UFS’s Moot Court organising group Legal Behemoth, provided insight into the competition's success, emphasising the importance of training sessions.

“I provided training and guidance to the junior law students who participated in the competition,” Molelengoane said. “I hosted three training sessions per semester, where they were taught the basics of research and writing skills, oral advocacy, and court etiquette. I also provided them with feedback and tips on how to improve their performance in the weeks leading up to the competition.” 

The finalist team

First-year student Omphemetse Sothomela, a member of the UFS team that advanced to the finals, highlighted the difficulties in formulating a strong argument for a party facing unfavourable case law and legislation: “This was challenging because we had to tread carefully on the facts in trying to understand how we could give her case some legal and factual substance. We also had to do all of this while sticking to the facts before us and not fabricating anything – and I think that was quite a challenging task.”

Sothomela expressed gratitude for the real-life experience gained and highlighted the importance of teamwork in moot court competitions.

Siyanda Fojile, another finalist from the UFS Team, discussed the challenge of making sense of vague facts in the case. Fojile highlighted the opportunity to learn about court procedure, the importance of respect in and out of the courtroom, and the value of clear and precise writing. “Appearing in the Supreme Court of Appeal was an opportunity I didn't take for granted. It gave me an opportunity to learn more about how one should carry themselves both inside and outside of the courtroom,” Fojile said.

Participants in the Moot Court Competition also learned about ethics and professional conduct during a talk by the Honourable Judge Lani Opperman of the High Court.

According to the organisers, “The 19th Annual Kovsies First-Year Moot Court Competition not only showcased legal acumen but also exemplified the commitment of the University of the Free State's Faculty of Law to providing transformative experiential learning opportunities for its students.” 

Honourable Judge Lani Opperman at the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Honourable Judge Lani Opperman at the Supreme Court of Appeal.

News Archive

Protection of Information bill- opinions from our experts
2011-11-28

Prof. Hussein Solomon
Senior Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Free State. 

In recent years, given their failure to effectively govern, the ANC has become increasingly defensive. These defensive traits have become particularly acute in light of the various corruption scandals that members of the ruling party involve themselves in.
 
Given the fact that for now they are assured of an electoral majority (largely on account of their anti-apartheid credentials), coupled with the fact that they have managed to make parliament a rubber stamp of the executive as opposed to holding the executive accountable, it is the media which has increasingly held the ruling party to account by exposing such corruption and incompetence in government.
 
The passing of the information bill, therefore, is not merely an attack on the media, but an attack on the pivotal issue of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy.
 
By defining national interest broadly, by refusing to accept a public interest clause in the bill, the ANC increasingly shows its disdain to South Africa's constitution and its citizens.
 
More importantly, as former Minister of Intelligence and ANC stalwart Ronnie Kasrils pointedly makes clear, the ANC is also betraying its own noble struggle against the odious apartheid regime. It was the media which played a key role in exposing apartheid's excesses, it is the same media which is coming under attack by the heirs of PW Botha's State Security Council - Minister of State Security Siyabong Cwele and his security apparatchiks whose mindsets reflect more Stalin's Gulag's than the values of the Freedom Charter.
 
The passing of this bill is also taking place at a time when journalists have had their phones attacked, where the judiciary has been deliberately undermined and parliament silenced.
 
Democrats beware!

 
Prof. Johann de Wet
Chairperson: Department of Communication Science 
 
The ANC’s insistence on passing the Protection of State Information Bill in its current form and enforcing it by law, means that the essence of our democratic state and the quality of life of every citizen is at stake.
 
Yes, our freedom as academics, researchers, mass media practitioners and citizens comes into play. Freedom implies the right to choose and is, along with equality, an underlying principle which helps make democracy happen. While the South African state needs to protect (classify) information which could threaten its security and/or survival, the omission of a public interest clause in the Bill at this stage effectively denies a citizen the right to freedom of information.
 
 Freedom of information, along with press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and religious freedom, are essential to democracy. These freedoms are granted because they conform to basic liberal ideas associated with (Western) democracy and which resonate with South Africa’s liberal constitution, such as (1) belief in the supreme value of the individual (and thus not of the state); (2) belief that the individual has natural rights (rights which belong to all human beings by nature – such as the right to life and to control government)) which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government; and (3) recognition of the supreme value of the individual. 
 
One wonders how many cases of South African government corruption and mismanagement would have been uncovered by investigative journalists over the past number of years if this Bill in its current form was on the statute books. This Bill represents a backward step from the promise of democracy of having an informed public. The former National Party government had similar laws in place and one does not want to go there again. The infamous Information Scandal in South Africa of some thirty years ago, or Muldergate as it has come to be known, reminds one of what governments can do when it works clandestinely.
 
What South Africans need, is more information on what government structures are doing and how they are doing it with taxpayers’ money, not less information. While information in itself does not equal communication or dialogue, it is an indispensable part thereof, and the need for dialogue based on verifiable information is urgent for meeting vexed challenges facing South African communities. Academics in all fields of specialisation are constantly in need of untainted information to pursue answers and/or offer solutions to where South Africa should be moving in all spheres of life.

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