The dude is spot on. The Constitution Court by granting direct access to Zuma was the author of the script that denied Zuma the right to appeal. As the Apex Court, they ipso facto brought finality to the matter.
I like this argument too and I understand both of them unfortunately for justice Theron in the Zuma contept of court case she descended and that did not have an impact on the precedent and the constitutional court now is bound by that emotional judgment they gave and that is what adv gcukaitobi is holding them to and he is correct 😂😂😂
Judge T is standing up for every South African. The majority made a judgement greatly influenced by political expediency. The law cannot be static or arbitrary, certain issues or judgments must be rehashed at every opportunity. Judge T may not have the legal majority on her side but she has the moral high ground. She is able to see the danger in the previous judgement for future litigants. Her question on whether there is any other case Adv T and team can hang their case on is very telling of the atmosphere prevailing in the Zondo/ Zuma proceedings.
What I am getting from Justice T a that the constitutional court should not have entertained Zondos application in the first place as they did not have penal rights. They simply shouldn’t have handed unappealable sentences.
@@theonlynapeYes, the matter was addressed. This being the apex court with the authority of finality. She is undermining original constitutional jurisdiction of their court thus intending to undermine the body of jurisprudence which they are part of.
@@theonlynape he should just maintain calmness and persistantly batress his point. If you've observed, judges don't behave like magistrates, except a few like Ratha.
@@ossborn100 She is not stating this in a law Journal, this is a court of law, she needs to continue her argument outside court, it will not serve any purpose now
Those who drew up the constitution had to consider the applicable law at the time of compilation. As she said, no individual rights have been denied. Exactly what he is stating, zuma's rights have not been denied.
that provision is self defeating and begs for further interrogation. If one provision says to forfeit a right to appeal and one confirms the right appeal, they cant both be given full effect on the very basis of contradiction
This is awesome. Justice T wrote minority judgment previously. She cannot now sit and keep quiet. This is pure difference in opinion in the viewpoint and interpretation of the individual justice/s. . Adv T could have toned down without having to have been told by the DCJ. But this is gr8 stuff. 🤟
I give my sister Justice Theron flowers and non-alcoholic red 🍷. Justice Theron my school Sisi Kampempe, Zondo and Umakoti WaseStellenbosch. Thembeka is a hired attorney for IEC but he has found his match in Justice Theron. I know for the fact that Adv Mpofu is trashing all the legal platform and assernal thrown to uBaba.
My very first time to listen to both great minds Ngcukaithobi and Mpofu, i painfully say that Ngcukaitobi isn't substituting enough his arguments. It seems his defense arguments are driven by emotions.
Still made it to the ICJ to represent South Africa. He is the only Advocate to get Senior counsel (SC) after being an advocate for 8 years (Record breaker) Dali Mpofu, I think he is the one emotional check his cases
Was Justice Theron trying to get the Adv. to ignore the ruling the Con-court had made re Zuma as though it doesnʼt hold any significance?? Strange indeed and excellent work by Adv. Ngcukaitobi
Apply the law equally to everyone it does not matter if is the majority judgement . How come the majority judgement is not tested to see if its within the law...this majority rule is not good when not tested against the law,even in the parliament its being misused we have seen this many times.
But when another judge and court has decided, and we refer to that judgement, we did our job and we are right, and we have a court judgement to back it up. So what are we going to do about that judgement? Act as if it is not there? Don't we refer to judgements in the South African law? If it was wrong, who is to blame? The advocate?
It is interesting that the court's imposition or this contempt of court only applies to Mr Zuma not Mr Koos Bekker when he refused to come to the commission. Sebasabani abelungu? Or they gave the judges something as well that they impose the same sanctions that are imposed on us blacks if that's the case then this law thing is unconstitutional
Koos Bekker was not summoned by the State capture Commission if he had then you will have a valid argument, Botha was found guilty by Magistrate Court & won on appeal at the High Court on on technical grounds.
Good debate by both jurists but the decision of the Constitutional Court is binding. Unfortunately the Constitutional court was not supposed to entertain Justice Zondo's application for contempt as a court of first instance . They were supposed to approach the high court so as to give effect to the appeal procedure.
She's driving at exposing the JUSTICE FLAWED law provision's, applicable discretionary (through majority rule) instead of argument’s merits and demerits, something that leaves us with different rules for different people before our courts. Differing rules that premise our faith as citizens before the courts on "majority" discretion than on probabilities beyond reasonability of doubt. This bothers on whether anyone else will ever be allowed to take a “contempt” (not an interpretation ambiguity) case straight to constitutional court in this land, except for Zondo. This might be besides the point on the current case, given the previous judgement; But, that previous judgement is riddled with contradictions that are going to haunt the CC for decades and centuries to come. As a stupid precedence was effected because of PERSONAL SCORES TO SETTLE AGAINST A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL BY THOSE WHO REGARD THEMSELVES AS THE GUARDIANS OF THE “SYSTEM”.
Ncukaitobi is deliberately dodging and steering clear from a direct response .He keeps referring to the Ccurts ruling, and he dithers and dives and neglects to answer a basic pointed questions as he knows very well the Ccourts ruling was malicious and neglected fundamental law prescripts
Judge Theron is not disputing a sentence was passed by the CC and that its binding. She is merely interrogating the fact given so the judgement was passed certain aspects of it was overlooked and will alway come back to bite the law and its interpreters. Rights engraved in the constitution were overlooked/violated and this needs to be corrected 😂 there is no escaping it
My biggest worry is that Zuma is 1 foot in the grave and out of expediency the CC Judges forgot their judgements are binding on future judgements where Zuma wont be present. The Zuma conviction elevated the CC Judges above the Constitution and their hate, pride and myopia is not allowing them to right their wrongs to cure future constitutional crises.
Then the Constitutional Court shouldn't have passed a sentence in this regard, but should have instead referred their contempt ruling to the High Court (which has sentencing powers)to decide on the sentence for the contempt of the Constitutional Court.
In a profound ruling that resonates deeply with the complex interplay between faith and law, a High Court judge was summoned at midnight to make a pivotal decision. A father, guided by his religious convictions, had asserted his right to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion for his dying daughter. The judge, weighing the principles of legal ethics against personal beliefs, overturned this religious assertion, thereby safeguarding the young girl's right to life. This case underscores the critical importance of allowing legal professionals to operate within their realm of expertise, free from the sway of personal emotions. Things armchair critics knows nothing about.
Where does the concourt get the power of penal jurisdiction to impose an original sentence? That is the crux. It must not be so. Concourt may do nothing but interpret and refer back to lower court.
You guys are so obsessed with English as if it puts food on your table. In this case how does mastering his English benefit him,cos am sure that even the most uneducated person in that room can speak a bad English but make a valid point of communication.
Bravo adv Ngcukatoibi, student of law, no howling n threaning judges but sterm firm in principle of law, period, so ppl must not be irritable with facts of the law
Hcçcvcchcchçcvjviç chocoholics čhhçcvvhçcčuihfgfhioccihugigufgcccghhggu chic hc hi gghfuuiciihfhu C Bhv ouchhhhuhhhiohhuchhhuugcugc u hhuicchuhfh ihvcchucoufhfhihufuhhgghfugfhifhfuufiffghhhfhfhfh high chin ouuhuuccohvcchuhuhuochhucvhhuhuhhcuhcohchuhuhgufgfhvughfifhhf good yhuychh I bounce hugs ihufucuiuhhchucihhhgcgcuigicicg ugogo h h hug cucuucughghufufuhgguggfhuhhf h h hchuhuggfihgfug C C hhhufhfiviggvh iughfhuhhugiuuugghugghfuhuuhufofuhfuufuhuhhuhugiuh Uff fhgvughhhufhhghhhfhucg G hhhhuffufuhogh h ihvhfivhguufiffhuhfugfgfiufihgifg UFS uhoghigicug UFSuhhhfuuhugghuhuhhgfcuhi Higgs hi ouu hi chi vcuguufuhgohoufuvvcihichuh g h chçu c g cuicJayhawks G h icing ugh icuchugigicuhgihuhc gibi CBC C h chi
Adv Thembeka is fighting a loosing battle but his hopes are pinned in J Theron making a small error in enterpreting the constitutional laws which is highly unlikely though.
Some judges are sober minded..... Justice Theron is doing a great job...... Whether a person is an alleged delinquent or not , his or her constitutional rights should be respected and protected. Everyone is equal before the law, there should be no Zuma law
This debate is clear, the constitutional Court erred in Zumas judgement and if not rectified legislatively the highest court in the land is setting or has set a bad precedent.
Zondo was quick to sentence Zuma but he didn't give him a chance to appeal,.,..why didn't they sentence those who refused to go give evidence in the T.R.C what has changed are there Zuma laws in this country.now i believe that Zuma is dieing for all blacks in this country trying to protect it against the puppet controlling the state.... God is on hour side rise Africa rise it's now or never.we love you baba uzama
The constitution provides the denial of appeal! Yet there is a right to direct access - in other words mr zuma could access the concourt directly! Zuma is appealing which has been denied. Which God is on your side? Maybe you should read the bible if you truely believe in the Lord God Almighty, it is repeatedly said God abhors sin which includes lies, deceit, corruption, etc. Why do u think God repeatedly turned away from israel since coming out of egypt, because of sin, idol worship and serving other gods, pagan gods
The Constitution was never Set Up for the Government to control the Behaviour of the citizens of South Africa. The Constitution was solely set up Ultimately to control the Behaviour of the Government of South Africa...😮. What use is a government to unconscious to pass laws. So as to once again pass laws again without being conscious or aware of what they are doing or trying to achieve. 😢😮😢.
Sometimes the questioning doesn't necessarily imply that the person didn't know. It may be to just see if the other party has the same understanding or not, or whether they are other underlying views.
If I was Ngcukaitobi I was going to be irritated by Judge Theron trying to re argue the same case where she and judge Madlanga had a minority judgement. Zuma was asked to do submissions to the Constitutional Court and he refused.
