Automatic Succession: A plethora of errors

Once again the 10 year cyclical debate over "Automatic Succession" has arisen. This time triggered by my friend Tshiamo Rantao.

I think from the onset it should be said that this is not a political debate, it is purely about the interpretation of the Constitution. It is my personal opinion and supported by my views on constitutional interpretation. I have no doubt some will disagree, I trust those that hold a different view will express such views in a civil manner. 

The starting point is of course Section 35 of the Constitution and what it means. In seeking to interpret the Constitution one must first look at the ordinary meaning of the words and the extent of the rights or limitations of rights that the provision seeks to achieve (I am unable to go into a full explanation of Constitutional interpretation, so I will just set out the basic principles). Effectively then, what does the provision say and what does it seek to achieve, or as Kirby recently held, "what is the harm" that the provision seeks to prevent? 

Editor's Comment
Mob justice isn't just

A young man suspected of breaking into a car was seized by residents, severely assaulted, and died in the hospital within an hour. We unreservedly condemn this mob justice. It is not a solution to crime, but a criminal offence that turns citizens into murderers.Residents are understandably angry about theft. The person who raised the alarm at 4am acted lawfully, and the neighbours who rushed to help showed community spirit. But what followed was...

Have a Story? Send Us a tip
arrow up