The judge who wrenched open justice from journalists
“Top media counsel Ben Winks late last month argued for permission to film, in the Johannesburg High Court, the criminal trial of those accused of the murder of Orlando Pirates footballer Senzo Meyiwa.
Winks stated that it is not for those trying to assert constitutional rights to be put to the expense of a substantive (read R50 000) court application on every occasion, as Naidu would have it. It is for those seeking to limit these rights who should be launching an application, and take the risk of a costs order being awarded should they lose with costs on what is settled law. Winks told Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela that this was “the price of living in a constitutional democracy”.
His argument was crisp and to the point. It prevailed.”
Carte blanche scores another open justice victory
“The applicant [through its journalist, Mr. Beamish] has submitted a plan to Court on how the proceeding shall be televised and unfold. The state’s concern can be addressed in the following manner:
The applicant indicated that it does not intend to televise the testimony of the state witnesses. The public prosecutor indicated that she would apply for the witnesses to testify in camera in terms of the provision of Section 153 of the Act and once this application is granted, the testimony of such witnesses shall not be televised.”
Judicial Candidacy and the Judas Goat
A critique of the April 2021 Judicial Service Commission hearings The Council for the Advancement of the Constitution (CASAC) lifted the lid in June this year on a small part of what uSpiked suspected was wrong with how judges of the High Court are selected....
Darren Bobroff aka Doron Bobrow v Department of Fair Trading
Bobroff v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATOD 122 (14 August 2019) Last Updated: 14 August 2019 Civil and Administrative TribunalNew South Wales Case Name: Bobroff v Department of Fair TradingMedium Neutral Citation: [2019] NSWCATOD 122Hearing...
When the Constitutional Court blows it
The Constitutional Court of this fair Republic is undoubtedly the most significant post-1994 institution. It is the one court whose judgments are anxiously awaited and are afforded weight by the general populace. What it says matters to South Africans. This is the way it should be. And yet…