State accuses LSB of being partisan
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday May 24, 2016 11:27
During last week’s application, prosecutor Oaitse Rammidi accused LSB of wanting to join the proceedings to support the applicants of the campaign rather than help the court on matters.
He said that LSB in their submissions failed to raise new contentions, which may be useful to the court, but have only raised what was already given by the applicants.
“The underlying principles governing the admission of a friend of the court is that apart from the fact that it must have an interest in the proceedings, are whether the submissions advanced are relevant to the proceedings and raise new contentions useful to the court,” he said.
Rammidi argued that the LSB does not have a proper understanding of the issues in the case since it does not call for any constitutional interpretation, nor deal in respect with the practice of law.
He maintained once joined all the LSB intends to do was to present legal arguments, yet they do not explain why it was that they believed the present parties to the litigation would not be able to comprehensively deal in their arguments in the matter.
“They do not claim to have particular/specific knowledge of the subject matter in question over and above the parties, who in fact are both legally represented.
Moreover there are no allegations that the parties are in any way disadvantaged in the matter, be it by way of available resources or in any other way, which would make it difficult for them to advance their interest,” he said.
LSB attorney, Kgotso Botlhole countered allegations by the state saying that they have no interest in supporting any party as alleged.
Botlhole maintained that their primary objective was to ensure the protection and enhancement of the rule of law and human rights in its jurisdictional area.
“Our intention is to draw the attention of the court to relevant matters of law and fact to which attention would not otherwise be drawn,” he said.
He argued that their intention was to help the court with the interpretation of the constitution as it often confers rights in a broad manner leaving the finer details to be added by the statutes promulgated by the legislature.
He said in the main case of the campaign after being denied the permit to march against sexual abuse of children, the Public Order Act provided a framework which infused the finer details on the enjoyment of the entrenched rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association.
“The public by wanting to hold a public procession or peaceful demonstrations, they were seeking to enjoy their right to freedom of assembly in order to express themselves or as nearly put in terms of section 12 (1) of the constitution,” he argued.
He noted that the main reasons advanced by the state to justify rejecting the applicants a permit are more premised on circumstances that are covered by section 3 of the act, which provides for issuance of directions to persons organising the public procession such as appear to be necessary for the preservation of public order.