Zuma wants ConCourt powers reviewed

2012-02-13 10:46

Johannesburg - President Jacob Zuma wants to review the Constitutional Court's powers, according to a report on Monday.

"We don't want to review the Constitutional Court, we want to review its powers," Zuma told The Star newspaper during an interview.

"It is after experience that some of the decisions are not decisions that every other judge in the Constitutional Court agrees with."

This was reportedly part of a democratic process to counterbalance the powers of the three arms of the state.

According to the newspaper the issue was raised by a deputy minister and ANC leaders at the party's national executive committee meeting two weeks ago and discussed by Cabinet ministers. Zuma told the newspaper it was a "general societal issue" that was being raised.

He questioned the logic of having split judgments and said judges were influenced by the media.

"How could you say that [the] judgment is absolutely correct when the judges themselves have different views about it?" Zuma told the newspaper.

He said if the decisions by Parliament could be challenged there was nothing wrong with questioning the judiciary.

  • Comrade - 2012-02-13 10:51


      Activity Bookings - 2012-02-13 11:01

      They just want to make it easy. anc cadre = Not Guilty not anc cadre = Court can make the decision

      Comrade - 2012-02-13 11:22

      the last bastion of hope ...... i kill for my constitution!!!!!

      Rudie - 2012-02-13 12:06

      Popcorn anyone?

      Spyker - 2012-02-13 12:18

      The greatest threat to a fascist totalitarian state is the (bona fide) law and a (de facto) independent media. The ANC is failing at every single level of the governance of SA – they simply do not have the cognitive capital to govern a country. As in Zimbabwe, this is simply a desperate attempt, by the grossly corrupt- and utterly incompetent, to hide the fact that they do not possess even an infinitesimal fraction of the minimum aptitude that is required. They think they can hide their obtuse incompetence if they control the “law” and the media – as in the basketcase Zimbabwe. However, totalitarian megalomania, is the first tangible step onto the slippery slope of the abyss. There is NO future for any country governed by the ANC. We have spent our tolerant energy at the voting polls and it has done NOTHING for SA, but to dump it in the depths of violent crime and run-away corruption – NO MORE. If ever there was fundamental justification for war then this is it..! This matter started with the farcical appointment of the Mogoeng Mogoeng moegoe...

      Willie - 2012-02-13 14:03

      "... judges were influenced by the media..." Mr President how do you know this please share this with us

  • Christo - 2012-02-13 10:52

    Idots! That is the nature of democracy

      Jacqui - 2012-02-13 11:42

      There is but one idiot here.

      Garth - 2012-02-13 14:58

      @jacqui - to whom do you refer? Or what is it that you infer?

      Mark - 2012-02-13 15:31

      Sganja. Have you lost your "cognitive capital"? Really good phrase, Spyker!

  • Warren - 2012-02-13 10:52

    Uh oh !!!!!!!!!

      Atholl - 2012-02-13 19:57

      The President swears an oath to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Every Judge swears the same oath. ... this is before taking office .... If you swear an oath on the one day, .... before taking office, then use your position to treat the Constitution as if it is a game, .... then the Constitution has a mechanism to remove you from your 'office' and to find some other person who is happy to operate within a Constitutional framework. ... put differently ..} It is the Constitution that gives you the RIGHT to call yourself a president, to relate to a flag, anthem, province, court, religion etc. It is the Constitution that will remove this RIGHT.

  • Michael - 2012-02-13 10:54

    Applying anc logic to the judicial system. SA is doomed!

  • Gigo - 2012-02-13 10:55

    I agree with Zuma, these courts are misusing their power. Nice move...

      Alfred - 2012-02-13 10:57

      And the ANC aren't?

      PB - 2012-02-13 11:01

      Sqanja, how stupid are you?

      Carl - 2012-02-13 11:15

      For goodness sake ...DONT FEED THE TROLL!

      Jason - 2012-02-13 11:18

      @Sganja The courts are in place to make sure government stays with the boundary's of the law. They must govern with in the law. Its seems the courts fighting the government because its obviously its because some the activities are illegal.

      Trevor - 2012-02-13 11:19

      @Sganja - Looking at your Avatar, would be pointless to address your idiotic statements.

      Comrade - 2012-02-13 11:23

      Sganja you arent a South African....fseek

      Alfred - 2012-02-13 11:27

      Maybe they were, but they weren't elected to spend billions of our rands on cars, parties and hotels, give tenders to buddies and have influence over what are supposed to be independent courts. So nothing wrong there then? No misuse of power at all, ey Sganja? I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you and the ANC are so tired of the media constantly updating us on the ANC's incompetence, criminal tendencies, dishonesty and all round uselessness maybe it's time the government started doing what we pay them to so the media could actually write something positive about them.

      Richard - 2012-02-13 11:30

      So why have a court.

      Bryan - 2012-02-13 11:37

      Sganja.., I struggle to comprehend the lack of intelligence displayed in your comments. Have you always been stupid or do you take tablets for it?

      Jacqui - 2012-02-13 11:44

      You would, give your buddies free reign. Zim. here we come.

      dave.j.colquhoun - 2012-02-13 13:54

      Hey sganja if it's such a good move, then i might suggest you get off the ganja and spend some time in Zim so that you can see for yourself what meddling with the constitution has done. I'm pretty sure that you just post your trollish comments to annoy the more intelligent subscribers to this forum. For you, I say less dope and more hope!!!!

      Gigo - 2012-02-13 13:57

      Carl I'm not a troll @Jason but not the way they are used currently@Trevor Avatar got nothing to do with this@Comrade I was born here and I will die here@Bones I support anything that make sense@Richard we are still gonna have courts but their power must be limited@Bryan I'm not a stupid

      Jeremy - 2012-02-16 21:55

      Sqanja Good luck buddy, you really are going to need it. Go keep voting ANC. You are the only people on the entire planet that has any confidence in them. I promise you that NOTHING GOOD is going to come out of your greedy capitulation into ANC National Socialism. First the Law, Then the judiciary, then the media. These are YOUR safeguards against Dictatorship, Whilst you might also think that Zuma's attack on the UN for Killing is financier Gadaffi, the people of Libya ARE EXTREMRLY PLEASED that he has gone. You are actively encouraging the ANC to subjugate you, AND I BELIEVE THEY WILL. Just remember these words and look in the mirror the day the ANC secrte police are banging down your door to take you away for having an opinion. Zuma was schooled by the old style Russian communists during his exile. They were around long enough to kill at least 30 000 000.00 of their own people before they discovered that the system that Zuma wants did not work. Go try it.

  • larry.bling - 2012-02-13 10:56

    What Mr Zuma does'nt realise is that split judgements is an indication that the judges has applied their minds to the isues with the majority judgement standing as the court's judgement (majority rule principle). I think Mr Zuma fails to understand legal reasoning and it will be interesting to see how he intends to remedy this "problem". Methinks that Mr Zuma (and the rest of the ANC) is just peeved-of that the majority judgements always seems to find against them.

      Ronald - 2012-02-13 13:25

      Larry, you said it in a nutshell.

  • gerry.pelser - 2012-02-13 10:57

    Taking all political aspects out of it - it IS a fair question. the constitution is supposed to be absolute. When learned judges differ, then the sanctity and the authority of the constitution is in danger. an issue is either constitutional or its not - how can the highest legal minds in the country differ on such vital issues. Its a very fair question I think.

      Duncan Thabiso Mphailane - 2012-02-13 11:13

      You're getting thumbs downs simply because you stand for what's right, even though the issue is raised by an African. If this was raised by helen zille and you posted this comment, you were going to feel like a rock star because of the thumbs ups.

      Duncan Thabiso Mphailane - 2012-02-13 11:13

      You're getting thumbs downs simply because you stand for what's right, even though the issue is raised by an African. If this was raised by helen zille and you posted this comment, you were going to feel like a rock star because of the thumbs ups.

      ThatDeadDude - 2012-02-13 11:21

      Anything written is always subject to interpretation. It is the job of the courts to define the interpretation, to act on balance. What would you rather was done, only have a single judge each time? Require a unanimous verdict? Such things are far more open to abuse.

      Trevor - 2012-02-13 11:24

      The ANC like any government in power, has been for many years fiddling with the legal system, it has now reached the ConCourt so what do you cancer, it starts small but in the end, it kills everything. So this "problem" is nothing new, the ANC planned this YEARS ago...they not stupid...people in general adapt to change but you mjst keep it slow to avoid revolt...and that is what they have been doing for 19years and still going strong...

      Alfred - 2012-02-13 11:32

      I see your point but isn't that how it's supposed to be? Otherwise we can expect an ANC appointed judge to make final decisions on all ConCourt matters. That's the thing this government just doesn't seem to be able to grasp, either you're democratic or you're not. You can't be democratic when it favours you and then throw it all out the window when it doesn't.

      John - 2012-02-13 11:59

      @Gerry - You are either trolling or not too smart. If the law was so black and white you wouldn't need to go through lengthy trials for each side to argue their sides. Each case needs to have the Constitution applied to it. It is inevitable that some judges will apply the law differently to each case, that is how the law works. This is why you have a panel of more than one judge, to bring a democratic approach to the process. If more than half find one way or the other it is an accepted ruling. Using your logic there would be no need for the Con Court because every case would be so obvious it would have no need to even go to court. I do however feel there should be an odd number of judges hearing each case.

      gerry.pelser - 2012-02-13 12:03

      In a perfect world, 5 judges - or three, or nine, or 21 - would be unanimous in their decision as to whether a topic is constitutional or not. Yes, things are open for interpretation, which is WHY we have a ConCourt in the first place, but the end result should be narrowly defined, and applied to the letter of the law. Something is either constitutional or its not - in an ideal world. No, I do not want a "single" judge, but a panel, as to eliminate the question of human error (generously) or corruption (cynically). I'm getting thumbs down because I refuse to budge to the "sky is falling" sentiment. I’m also not buying the conspiracy theories that Zuma wants to meddle for his own personal gain / the benefit of the ANC. I'm not ANC apologist, in fact, I am diametrically opposed to them in almost everything, and I doubt if I'd pee on any of our elected officials if they were on fire, but just because someone I don’t respect is asking a question, does not mean its not a valid question. Think about the questions: 1) is the constitution absolute? And if so, why are the highest legal minds in the country differing on this? If you argue the constitution is NOT absolute, then the question is moot and conspiracy theories can begin.

      frans.visserdsb - 2012-02-13 12:23

      Gerry Please understand that the laws are not drafted by legal fundis. (Especially our constitution...) Therefore there are sometimes different interpretations on the language used, which leads to majority decisions with minority opinions. These sets legal precedents which then provides guidance for lesser courts.

      Tuner - 2012-02-13 12:31

      Gerry The court consists of 11 judges. They are obviously human and are fallible and have their own bias concerning matters. But as judges they are trained not to let their bias influence their decisions which should be based on facts, and their integrity must override this bias. However, as I said they are human and bias can win. So obviously, the more judges involved in a judgement, it is hoped the less likely will bias be a deciding factor. They are human and until we have a computer that is intelligent enough to handle this task, it is the best we have got. By the way, when you went to school, did they not teach you to think logically. This also might help Zuma and his ministers.

      gerry.pelser - 2012-02-13 13:20

      Atuner: when I went to school they did not teach me anything woprthwhile at all... I come form an Afrikaans school in the Apartheid era - narrow-minded brainwashing was the agenda - critical thought and individuality was stifled at every opportunity.

      Ronald - 2012-02-13 13:42

      Gerry, you do raise a valid question as all laws, including our Constitution, are open to interpretation. That is why landmark judgements are so important as they narrow the definitions. The reason why judges may differ is because each of us has a different viewpoint, and the reason for the 11 judges, over an above personal bias or corruption, is so that the average viewpoint of what is understood by a law, will prevail. Because we are all individuals living in a dynamic society, including these judges, a ruling regarding a certain subject may be different in 5 years, as the law is also dynamic and what society sees as relevant keeps on changing. That is why we should always challenge outdated laws as well as those that do not reflect present society, for example the laws that changed relating to sexual orientation, race, etc.

      Tuner - 2012-02-13 14:20

      Wow, are you saying that bantu education was better than what you got? At least they could think that being taught exclusively in afrikaans was not practical and did something about it. Sounds like you did nothing until it was too late!

      gerry.pelser - 2012-02-13 15:00

      Turner, I see you are an expert at internet debating. I never said, nor suggested such a thing. But I was forced to stand and salute the flag every morning while singing "die lied van jong Suid Afrika" and was told how the blacks will kill us all, rape our mothers and burn our land. I was indoctrinated and when I finally got enough IQ points to think above the drivel they were spewing down my throat, I was frog-marched to the principal’s office for six of the best for refusing to salute the flag. Critical thinking and logic was NOT on the agenda in my school days. Afrikaner nationalism, groupthink and unrelenting obedience to the patriarch was. We were told by our teachers PW was too liberal. Go figure.

      Bomb - 2012-02-14 07:53

      @Gerry.........."and was told how the blacks will kill us all, rape our mothers and burn our land", and this is not happening????? I agree with you on the whole indoctrination thing, but tell me truthfully that the above is not happening. So what you were told, is not all that wrong is it???

      Tuner - 2012-02-14 11:00

      Gerry, I do sympathize and understand what you were subjected to and I take off my hat to you for making a stand against such hatred indoctrination, yet Bomb above does make a valid point. Perhaps if attitudes were softer then, we wouldn't have such problems now.

      Jeremy - 2012-02-16 22:01

      Mogoeng Mogoeng moegoe.. placed by Zuma to bring about mixed feelings in Con Court so he can use this standard ANC thinking.

  • Hermann - 2012-02-13 10:59

    Still gunning for the one party state and president for life concept. In a democracy even a group of judges are permitted to differ and the majority opinion holds Mr President.

  • Jason - 2012-02-13 11:02

    the constitution is the only thing that protects us from the politicians. It is ours and you can't have it!

  • Larry - 2012-02-13 11:05

    Zuma needs to focus on running South Africa properly and needs to stay away from the Justice system, which he must not be allowed to interfere with…again.

  • Phumi - 2012-02-13 11:05

    The judiciary must answer and account to the executives and that is parliament. The way things are set up now is not working and you have people abusing the courts to try and intervene in the decisions of the executives. Judges are not beyond reproach and must learn to tow the line like everyone else in this country!

      ThatDeadDude - 2012-02-13 11:24

      This is incorrect. The judiciary is not under the executive - it is at least its equal. Its job is to ensure that legislation meets the requirements of our constitution. How is that to happen if the executive can override its decisions?

      Jason - 2012-02-13 11:24

      No the courts are used to intervene when the government acting out side our the law and our constitution. You can only use the courts if that is the case. You can't use the courts to stop DRP housing from been built, but you can use the courts to stop government from giving the contract to a politicians wife's company to build these houses as its a conflict of interest...

      Mark - 2012-02-13 17:27

      When will these so called "advocates" realize that people are fallible, corruptible, or just plain evil. The constitution is there to protect one and all, even the guilty. To answer the argument that if the constitution is perfect, the judges should be unanimous, the framers of the constitution had an idea of what it was siupposed to do and be used. as time marches on, the current or future judges need to interpret what the framers had in mind ( see the US constitution and how the judges have to interpret current rulings. As with our consitution, the terms are not subject to political interpretation only judicial. Political or populist feelings are to have no bearing on the constitution. If some aspects need to be changed, then 67 % of parliament need to agree to changes. That was also put in to protect against political meddling. When are these clowns ever going to get it right. The more they push to restrict our freedoms and rights, the more they will unleash the forces of cvil disobedience or at worst, civil war. Madiba did not spend 27 years in prison, to have South africa ruled by one party. Long live the Republic!!!

      Jeremy - 2012-02-16 22:10

      PHUMI telling how he would like it to be.

  • Vince.York - 2012-02-13 11:09

    SIMPLETONS, seemingly from every angle except Chaskalson at the moment - in this assault to undermine the constitution in a splurge of open TERROR by the 'few'. The ConCourt judges appear to have been inflicted with a code of silence until things are too late INSTEAD OF BEING THE LEADING BEACON OF LIGHT IN ADVANCE for the nation and all it's citizens.

  • nibishaka - 2012-02-13 11:10

    The argument is flawed. The judiciary and the legislature are there to check on executive in the interests of the country as a whole not another way around. Politically speaking, if the executive was to check the judiciary, then it was going to be irrelevant for such institutions to exist; since they will only be implementing the decisions of the executives. It is therefore worthy noting that challenging the ConCourt, you are challenging the constitution that determines its power. I have never heard the concourt challenges the president as he argues; civil societies, individuals do so via the courts and the courts interpret the constitution.

  • Duncan Thabiso Mphailane - 2012-02-13 11:20

    There's no democracy in law... You're either right or wrong, that's it.

      Garth - 2012-02-13 16:49

      Incorrect - there is no democracy in a law. But there most certainly has to be democracy in law. As an aside to an earlier post of yours: Please, for the good of all readers here, define `African'. Then define `American', `Australian', `European', `Asian', `South African', `Italian', `Iranian' and `Racist Porksword'.

  • Warren - 2012-02-13 11:22

    Someone please explain, in laymans terms mind you, how it is meant/designed to work. Do x number (how many sit?) of senior, respected constitutional court judges, presiding over a case brought before them all have to be in agreement yes/no or are they free thinking INDIVIDUALS, learned in the CONSTITUTION of the REPUBLIC,all laws and the interpretation therof, appointed because of their INDIVIDUAL skills and knowledge, expected to come to the same decision after applying their INDIVIDUAL minds. Surely not, majority rules methinks - DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

      Andrew - 2012-02-13 11:53

      To follow through with this thinking of JZ,the same must then apply to our Parliament, if not all parties/parliamenterians agree then no law can be past. Democracy dictates the majority has the final decision.

  • braamc - 2012-02-13 11:23

    They think they above the law, what a filthy politician

  • Tammy - 2012-02-13 11:29

    the s..t is going to hit the fan sooner than we thought!

  • Richard - 2012-02-13 11:29

    Wow is all I can say. The reason there are so many judgment is because judges do not always agree. We have the same in the Appeal Court. So what is the proposal, all judges must agree or only have one judge so they cannot disagree. If all judges do not agree and majority rule is not allowed then pray tell who wins the case as it cannot be decided. Let me guess, if the judges are divided then the State wins. A statement to say the judges are influenced by the media is a rather strange one as the appointed judges come from a very select group of legal minds who do not wake up in the morning to read the newspaper in order to formulate their judgment. I suppose this is then the reason why every attempt is made to shut the media up as well. Maybe we should just go back to the days of the Spanish inquisition where the judge listens while the accused it tortured till the accused confesses.

      Warren - 2012-02-13 12:18

      Next thing we will have the state installing cameras all over the judges homes and chambers to ensure that no newspapers are read to corrupt their judgements.

  • Tammy - 2012-02-13 11:30

    sgnaja the drol, oeps, sorry, the trol

      Gigo - 2012-02-13 14:44

      Poor thing,You can't even spell my name?

  • Graham - 2012-02-13 11:30

    Clearly the ANC want to follow the African trend of dictatorships, and general ruin of a country. It's the African way! An independent judiciary is very inconvenient when all you are interested in is looting!

  • Francis - 2012-02-13 11:38

    Mr. President! One of your buddies has been put in charge of the Concourt!! Now you're worried he is going to do the job properly?

  • Ryan - 2012-02-13 11:39

    A decision is made by a majority. Same as voting. How could you say the government is absolutely correct when the citizens themselves have different views on it?

  • Nyiko Ngobeni - 2012-02-13 11:40

    Duh! Courts decide by majority decision, not unanimously... There's nothing wrong with that. True some judges may be partial, but that's an issue of their independence which should have been seen during their appointment. Now its clear why Mogoeng is the boss..

  • Jacqui - 2012-02-13 11:41

    Everything that has the word COURT in it, Zuma wants to review. He actually wants to do away with it, but think we won't read between the lines.

  • Vegi - 2012-02-13 11:44

    My only problem with the constitutional court is the legal acumen of some of the judges. At times I have been puzzled by their judgements. My understanding is that a court, in dispensing justice should lean more towards preventing the state from encroaching on individual rights, especially when vulnerable groups are concerned. South Africa's constitutional court has ignored this on several occasions and has made some stunningly wishy washy judgements which have far reaching consequenses. However Zuma is not intending to intervene for the good of the country, his only wish is to make the courts answerable to him in the same way that courts in various dictatorships do e.g. Stalinist Russia, the current Iraqi Kangaroo Courts as well as America's rotten justice system that allows people to held without charge for indefinite periods.

      Warren - 2012-02-13 12:14

      Did someone write Vegis second paragraph and press Post Comment while he was not looking or was on a tea break. Not like him to dis dear Prez.

  • Errol - 2012-02-13 11:47

    One banana two banana three banana...four!!!!!Whilst South Africa wallows in voter ignorance,and whilst this voter ignorance prevails,the ANC cadres will,(and are well into the process) break,ruin and decimate this once beautiful land!!

      Mtizozo - 2012-02-13 12:54

      check bananas in your farm,,

  • mozartatplay - 2012-02-13 11:54

    Hands off our constutional court Zuma. Legal decisions are complex. Reviewing the powers of the con court on the basis that the Judges are not unanimous is rediculous. All democratic processes work on the basis of consensus of the majority.

  • Andre - 2012-02-13 12:07

    Leave the Constitution alone! Rather take care of service delivery and corruption, such as what you are involved in!

  • Grant - 2012-02-13 12:10

    I think we should remember why Zuma wants to manipulate the concourt. They could be called to make a decision about whether he should be prosecuted for the 783 charges of fraud.

  • Blip - 2012-02-13 12:10

    Does Zuma always have genuine unanimity on issues debated in his cabinet meetings, or does the cabinet decision which is announced actually only represent a majority view? Of course judges may hold different views on points of law -- but the majority view of an expert panel must prevail.

  • jmccaffs - 2012-02-13 12:16

    The constitutional court is not the responsibility of government,

  • Ditantane - 2012-02-13 12:20

    scorpions, NPA, now constitutional court, and how about the AU and the ICC. showerhead showerhead.

      aardvarkie - 2012-02-13 12:26

      Exactly! Strip away everything that can take power from the governing body so they can have absolute power. This is NOT democracy - it's dictatorship! The constitution is South Africa's only solid foundation at the moment, if we jeopardize that we're all screwed.

  • clive.s.khumalo - 2012-02-13 12:21

    good decision, long overdue!!

      Bomb - 2012-02-14 07:56

      Back to the banana tree.....

  • Lesley - 2012-02-13 12:36

    please get rid of this idiot quickly

  • Dennis - 2012-02-13 12:38

    Total domination is all he ever wanted !! FUANC !!

  • Lavida Koekemoer - 2012-02-13 12:46

    Mr President can you for once have your own genuine ideas that you want to challenge instead of having people to think for you and you taking on from there really not far on how Malema thinks....we as a nation we are interested on how you perceive this country not now well your ministers discuss issues in closed door....get real pls

  • Shirley - 2012-02-13 12:47

    Once you open that door its the beginnong of the end! Sneaky,sneaky-give us juju and win some favour-then sneak in the back door and come with this!

      Garth - 2012-02-13 16:43

      You are Surely demented if you believe that the opposition has been `given' malema. Smokescreens, double-bluffs and `wool-over-your-eyes' mean anything to you. The useless, worthless anc do not `give up' their own no matter how corrupt or criminal or useless. This move to make the constitutional court less democratic is merely one of the proofs of this fact.

  • Mtizozo - 2012-02-13 12:47

    This is one of the main reasons why I will always take my heart off for President Zuma. His dignity, hi ability to identify something wrong, hi braveness to face and challange the systems if it does not work for the citizen of the country. Viva Msholozie.

      Bomb - 2012-02-14 07:56


  • maseratifittipaldi - 2012-02-13 12:54

    I have sympathy for Mr. Zuma. His represenatives in the Concourt are not yet strong enough to successfully execute the ANC agenda. There are still too many principled people around. He must find a way to get people to do what he wants. He is even battling with the prosecuting authority and the public protector. Nobody seems to be obedient anymore.

      Mtizozo - 2012-02-13 12:56

      it prooves democracy in this country.

  • rory.short1 - 2012-02-13 13:08

    Poor reasoning by JZ and the ANC. So the Concourt judges did not all agree on certain judgements. That is to be expected especially when judges are appointed by government. Appointment of Concourt Judges should be done by popular election from a short list of candidates prepared by the Judiciary.

  • OhbiZz - 2012-02-13 13:41

    With all due respect to the dancing machine gun...these mutters can only really appreciated by those who have stayed longer than 3 years in school. For that reason I will not bother to try break it down for you

  • dave.j.colquhoun - 2012-02-13 13:50


  • Grant - 2012-02-13 14:01

    Throughout the civilised world the highest court decides on a majority decision not a unanimous one. If a law or court decision depended on there being no dissenters, nothing would ever be decided. To the few commentators here who agree with Zuma, consider this : imagine an ideal world where the DA became the government. Would you be happy if they had the dictatorial powers that the ANC are pushing for? A curbed media, a ban on exposing corruption, tenders to family etc.

  • Dhavandran - 2012-02-13 14:16

    oink,oink animal farm in reality.

  • Terri - 2012-02-13 14:47

    I don't think judges having different opinions is a bad thing - In fact I think it promotes democracy, judicial independence and a constant review of our perspective of justice.

  • johan.lotz1 - 2012-02-13 14:57

    The diffirence between parlament adn trhe Judiciary is: In Parlement Polititions say things to impress their voters...The Judiciary on the otherhand haas to uphold the Law So I agree with Comrade it is Hands off you .........

  • clarie.attwell - 2012-02-13 15:22

    Not to sure what game the ANC/ zuma is playing. Attacking the freedom of speech with the secrecy bill last year and now attaching the constitutional courts power, seems they want to take all the power from the people…. Not democratic at all.

  • Marc - 2012-02-13 16:51

    The law basically tends to evaluate facts against precedent. Facts provide evidence of whether or not a particular rule should be applied to reach a just and equitable resolve of a dispute that may have arisen as a result of those facts. The rules to be applied has been tested over the ages in various jurisdictions. In this fallible world they create certainty of just and equitable redress. Differences between judges usually creep in when the facts are vague, not the law. Or questions of fact remain unanswered by the facts themselves. The Constitutional Court simply interprets the contract (Constitution) as against the facts for the individual which alleges that that contracts has been breached.In other words Government says in terms of the Constitution we will do the following when governing your legitimate interest and party X says government did not do that based on his or her set of facts. The court, always trying to avoid constitutional issues, will then ask itself if there is no other reprieve in law between the parties that can answer to the facts in dispute. Mr. Zuma clearly does not understand what a magnificent creature the Con Court is! Always trying to balance government interest against individual interest - that's where the difference in opinion lies as between judges.

  • Marc - 2012-02-13 17:02

    The Constitutional Court does not tend to pay any attention to public or media opinion. One of their first Landmark Cases S V Makwanyane in 1995 is a case in point. In this trial they formulated the so- called counter majoritarian rule. In other words public opinion will not extinguish legitimate rights in terms of the constitution. In this matter they decided to abolish the death penalty. The abolishment followed upon government's contract with the people making them all equal before the law, giving the an absolute right to life, human dignity and to be subjected to cruel and inhumane punishment. The Con Court told government in no uncertain terms that buddies you made this contract with the people and you gave them these rights and nothing can extinguish such absolute rights not even public opinion or your ability to govern crime with or without the death penalty. It was much more complex, but it basically boiled down to that. I think, Mr. Zuma, wants to unilaterally amend the contract with the people, because the terms make it difficult to govern any which way you want to.

  • Mboneni - 2012-02-13 22:19

    Jacob Zuma should familiarise Himself with the constitution.He made an oath that he will maintain and protect the constitution of south africa and now he is a threat to the constitution he should be protecting.He is spending most of his time arranging weddings and making pikininis than uniting the ruling party which is disintegrating.The presidency must lecture him the constiutution of our country