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

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.

 

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