Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
13 August 2025 | Story Tshepo Tsotetsi | Photo Stephen Collett
Moot Court
The Law Clinic in the Faculty of Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) hosted the 20th annual Kovsie Moot Court Competition from 4 to 6 August 2025.

The Law Clinic in the Faculty of Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) recently hosted the 20th annual Kovsie Moot Court Competition, which brings together first-year law students from across Southern Africa. The competition took place from 4 to 6 August 2025 at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein, offering students the rare opportunity to present arguments in one of the country’s highest courts.

Participating institutions included Eduvos (Bloemfontein Campus), the University of Johannesburg, Rhodes University, and the National University of Lesotho, among others. 

 

Moot Court as a culture and a foundation

Pinky Mokemane, Moot Court Coordinator at UFS, described the competition as far more than an event. “Moot Court is a culture. It brings to life everything students have been studying. They are not just reading theory – they are applying it, speaking it, and defending it,” she said.

Over 200 first-year LLB students signed up to participate in this year’s internal selection process, and three – Niniwe Rens, Kabelo Mokhotla, and Sfiso Mbasela – were ultimately selected to represent UFS. Mokemane said being able to argue legal points in the SCA is a privilege no other university currently offers, and students should not take this opportunity for granted.

Legal Behemoth, a UFS student association that works closely with the Law Clinic to promote a strong moot culture at the university, was a critical force behind the success of this year’s Moot Court programme. The group plays a central role in planning the competition – training students, liaising with legal professionals, and teaching foundational advocacy skills from scratch.

Lethabo Lekhuleng, Chairperson of Legal Behemoth, explained that the group’s support starts long before the competition itself. “We begin by training the students from the ground up. Most of them don’t know anything about oral advocacy or courtroom procedure. So we guide them, give direction, and help them build confidence step by step,” she said.

Describing the students’ growth over the course of the competition, she added, “It was definitely the confidence [that grew]. From the first round to the final round, they became far surer of themselves in how they spoke, how they presented arguments, and how they carried themselves in court.”

Herman du Randt, a senior associate at PH Attorneys and a UFS alumnus, was one of the judges presiding over the competition. “We were looking for confidence. A student must show that they trust themselves and know their arguments. It is not only what you say, but why you say it, and the legal authority behind it,” he explained. 

Du Randt was deeply impressed, describing the students’ overall performance as “breathtaking”. “The amount of effort they put in, the depth of their research, and the clarity of their arguments was exceptional,” he said.

He also emphasised the importance of such competitions in shaping the future of legal professionals. Drawing from his experience of representing UFS internationally through Moot Court, he said, “There are thousands of students graduating with LLBs every year. You need something that makes you stand out. Moot Court is one of the most exposure-rich things you can do as a student. If you don’t take part, you miss a huge opportunity.”

 

Growth through experience: voices from the court floor

Rens and Mokhotla spoke candidly about their experience. “It was hectic. There were sleepless nights, a lot of preparation. But it was all worth it,” Rens said. Both students want to become advocates, and for them, presenting arguments in the SCA was a glimpse into their future.

Mokhotla reflected on what the experience taught her about herself: “I am not defined by failure. The fact that I stood in that court and saw my name there already meant so much. It was nerve-wracking, but I pushed myself to the limit – and that’s what I’ll take with me.”

Christopher Rawson, Acting Director of the UFS Legal Clinic, placed this year’s Moot Court effort within a broader educational vision. “The UFS Law Clinic plays a unique role in integrating practical legal education into the formal curriculum. The clinic hosts the competition and facilitates access to real-world and professionally relevant experiences in a court that is steeped in constitutional history, intellectual rigour, and the pursuit of justice. By doing so, the competition also supports the UFS’s Vision 130 commitments to producing graduates who are socially engaged, ethically grounded, and professionally competent,” he said.

Rawson also noted that early exposure to legal reasoning and oral argument builds the analytical and ethical foundation that students need. “From their initial submissions to their final oral arguments, the growth shown by our students reflects the strength of our approach – combining academic knowledge with skills-based learning and mentorship.”

Through its 20th edition, the Kovsie Moot Court Competition once again demonstrated that legal education at UFS is not confined to lecture halls. 

News Archive

Academic delivers inaugural lecture on South African foreign policy
2007-08-06

 

In her inaugural lecture Prof. Heidi Hudson from the Department of Political Sciences, focused on the impact that Pan-Africanist sentiments have had on South Africa’s foreign policy. She also put the resulting contradictions and ambiguities into context. At her inaugural lecture were, from the left: Proff. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS), Heidi Hudson, Engela Pretorius (Vice-Dean: Faculty of The Humanities) and Daan Wessels (Research Associate in the Department of Political Science).
Photo: Stephen Collett

Academic delivers inaugural lecture on South African foreign policy

“We are committed to full participation as an equal partner … opposed to any efforts which might seek to project South Africa as some kind of superpower on our continent. … the people of Africa share a common destiny and must therefore … address their challenges … as a united force...” (Mbeki 1998:198-199).

Prof. Heidi Hudson from the Department of Political Science referred to this statement made by president Mbeki (made at the opening of the OAU Conference of Ministers of Information in 1995) when she delivered her inaugural lecture on the topic: South African foreign policy: The politics of Pan-Africanism and pragmatism.

One of the questions she asked is: “Can the South African state deliver democracy and welfare at home while simultaneously creating a stable, rules-based African community?”

She answers: “South Africa needs to reflect more critically and honestly on the dualism inherent in its ideological assumptions regarding relations with Africa. South Africa will always be expected by some to play a leadership role in Africa. At the moment, South Africa’s desire to be liked is hampering its role as leader of the continent.”

In her lecture she highlighted the ideological underpinnings and manifestations of South Africa’s foreign policy. Throughout she alluded to the risks associated with single-mindedly following an ideologically driven foreign policy. She emphasised that domestic or national interests are the victims in this process.

Prof. Hudson offers three broad options for South Africa to consider:

  • The Predator – the selfish bully promoting South African economic interest.
  • Mr Nice Guy – the non-hegemonic partner of the African boys club, multilaterally pursuing a pivotal but not dominant role.
  • The Hegemon - South Africa driving regional integration according to its values and favouring some African countries over others, and with checks and balances by civil society.

She chooses option three of hegemony. “Politically correct research views hegemony as bad and partnership as good. This is a romanticised notion – the two are not mutually exclusive,” she said.

However, she states that there have to be prerequisites to control the exercise of power. “The promotion of a counter-hegemon, such as Nigeria, is necessary. Nigeria has been more effective in some respects than South Africa in establishing its leadership, particularly in West Africa. Also needed is that government should be checked by civil society to avoid it sinking into authoritarianism. The case of business and labour coming to an agreement over the HIV/Aids issue is a positive example which illustrates that government cannot ignore civil society. But much more needs to be done in this regard. South Africa must also be very careful in how it uses its aid and should focus potential aid and development projects more explicitly in terms of promoting political stability,” she said.

Prof. Hudson said: “It is also questionable whether Mbeki’s Afro-centrism has in fact promoted the interests of ordinary citizens across Africa. Instead, elite interests in some countries have benefited. But ultimately, the single most important cost is the damage done to the moral code and ethical principles on which the South African Constitution and democracy is founded.

“In the end we all lose out. More pragmatism and less ideology in our relations within Africa may just be what are needed,” she said.

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