scholarly journals Ubuntu: An African Equity

Author(s):  
Thomas W Bennett

In this paper the uses of ubuntu in constitutional law, criminal law, administrative law, the law of property, family law, delict and contract are investigated.  Furthermore the theoretical objections to the use of ubuntu are stated and responded to.  It is found that ubuntu provides the South African courts with a metanorm similar to the English notion of equity and that it is being deployed to give voice to something distinctively African.  It promises to lay the foundations for a cohesive, plural, South African legal culture", characterised by notions such as reconciliation, sharing, compassion, civility, responsibility, trust and harmony.

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Maria Zabłocka

Polish Romanistic Research in the Last Two Years (2006/2007 – 2007/2008)SummaryThe article presents publications of Polish romanists published in the last two academic years. They include editions of the sources, their translations accompanied by commentaries, as well studies on Roman private law covering the law of persons, family law, law of property, succession, obligations and procedure. An important part of the recent studies is devoted to public law: above all criminal law and broadly understood administrative law. Several authors addressed the problem of the influence of Roman law on the legal culture of Europe. Research was done as well on the history of law faculties and the romanists who lectured there. All these studies indicate a slight change in the scientific interest of the Polish romanists. We welcome the fact that more interest was paid to various problems of public law, in this way the romanistic research may be able to show the roots of the later and modern jurisprudence. One could postulate further studies not on the classical period of Roman law but also on its later developments. Scholars should never limit themselves to study of subjects reflecting contemporary legal science, as we never know if the one day the ‘dated’ institutions should not revive in a slightly changed form: such is the case of the modern construction of transfer of ownership as a security for debt functionally reflecting the Roman fiducia cum creditore contracta. In this manner the analysis of the ancient legal structures may provide for better understanding of the presently binding norms.


Author(s):  
Serena Kalbskopf

In this essay I explore Karl Klare’s notion of transformative constitutionalism explored in light of the case of Shilubana.1 Firstly, I define transformative constitutionalism and the circumstances present in the South African Constitution (Constitution) that give its interpretation a post liberal propensity are set out. This is followed by establishing why it is important to dull the distinction between law and politics, and by a consideration of the influence of legal culture when interpreting the law. Thereafter, I give a brief background of Shilubana. I argue that Shilubana was informed by some transformative constitutionalism principles as far as enhancing multiculturalism is concerned although it was limited by the legal culture of Justice Van Der Westhuizen. Lastly, I attempt to show that the final outcome of the case did effect desired social change envisaged through or by the project of transformative constitutionalism.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.


Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1592
Author(s):  
Hanafi Amrani

AbstrakArtikel ini membahas dua permasalahan pokok: pertama, kriteria yang digunakan oleh pembentuk undang-undang di bidang politik dalam menetapkan suatu perbuatan sebagai perbuatan pidana (kriminalisasi); dan kedua, fungsi sanksi pidana dalam undang-undang di bidang politik. Terkait dengan kriminalisasi, undang-undang di bidang politik yang termasuk ke dalam hukum administrasi, maka pertimbangan dari pembuat undang-undang tentu saja tidak sekedar kriminalisasi sebagaimana diatur dalam ketentuan hukum pidana dalam arti sebenarnya. Hal tersebut disebabkan adanya pertimbangan-pertimbangan tertentu. Pertama, perbuatan yang dilarang dalam hukum pidana administrasi lebih berorientasi pada perbuatan yang bersifat mala prohibita, sedangkan dalam ketentuan hukum pidana yang sesungguhnya berorientasi pada perbuatan yang bersifat mala in se. Kedua, sebagai konsekuensi dari adanya penggolongan dua kategori kejahatan tersebut, maka pertimbangan yang dijadikan acuan juga akan berbeda. Untuk yang pertama (mala prohibita), sanksi pidana itu dibutuhkan untuk menjamin ditegakkannya hukum administrasi tersebut. Dalam hal ini sanksi pidana berfungsi sebagai pengendali dan pengontrol tingkah laku individu untuk mencapai suatu keadaan yang diinginkan. Sedangkan untuk yang kedua (mala in se), fungsi hukum pidana dan sanksi pidana lebih berorientasi pada melindungi dan mempertahankan nilai-nilai moral yang tertanam di masyarakat tempat di mana hukum itu diberlakukan atau ditegakkan. Kata Kunci: Kebijakan, Kriminalisasi, Undang-Undang PolitikThis article discusses two main problems: firstly, the criteria used by the legislators in the field of politics in determining an act as a criminal act (criminalization); secondly, the function of criminal sanctions in legislation in the field of politics. Associated with criminalization, legislation in the field of politics that is included in administrative law, the consideration of the legislators of course not just criminalization as stipulated in the provisions of criminal law in the true sense. This is due to certain considerations. Firstly, the act which is forbidden in the administration of criminal law is more oriented to act is malum prohibitum offences, whereas in actual criminal law provisions in the act are mala in se offences. Secondly, as a consequence of the existence of two categories of classification of the crime, then consideration will also vary as a reference. For the first (mala prohibita), criminal sanctions are needed to ensure the enforcement of the administrative law. In this case the criminal sanction serves as controller and controlling the behavior of individuals to achieve a desired state. As for the second (mala in se), the function of criminal law and criminal sanctions is more oriented to protect and maintain the moral values that are embedded in a society where the law was enacted or enforced.


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-120
Author(s):  
’Mampolokeng ’Mathuso Mary-Elizabet Monyakane

AbstractThe Prima facie view regarding the admissibility of admissions, as evidence, in criminal matters is that, to admit admissions as evidence, the court requires a single consideration as to whether the admission was made freely and voluntarily. Without too much ado, the simple view to this understanding presupposes that admission of an admission as evidence against its maker is of a lesser danger compared to the admission of a confession. The admissibility of confessions against their makers does not come as easily as that of admissions. There are many prescribed requirements to satisfy before confessions are admitted as evidence. This comparison has led to a questionable conclusion that requirements for the admissibility of admissions are of a less complexity equated to the requirements for the admission of confessions. This paper answers the question whether an inference that the requirements for the admissibility of admissions are of a less complexity compared to the requirements for the admission of confessions is rational? It equates this approach to the now done away with commonwealth states rigid differentiation perspective. In the 1800s the commonwealth states, especially those vowing on the Wigmorian perspective on the law of evidence, developed from a rigid interpretation of confessions and admissions and adopted a relaxed and wide definitions of the word, “confession.” To this extent there was a relaxed divide between confessions and admissions hence their common classification and application of similar cautionary rules. The article recounts admissibility requirement in section 219A of the South African Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) (Hereinafter CPA). It then analyses Section 219A of the CPA requirement in the light of the rationale encompassing precautions for the admission of confessions in terms of 217(1) of the CPA. It exposes the similarities of potential prejudices where confessions and admissions are admitted as evidence. It reckons that by the adherence to this rigid differentiation perspectives of confessions and admissions which used to be the practice in the commonwealth prior the 1800s developments, South African law of evidence remains prejudicial to accused persons. To do away with these prejudices this article, recommends that section 219A be amended to include additional admissibility requirements in section 217(1). In effect it recommends the merging of sections 217(1) and 219A of the CPA.


Author(s):  
Gürsel Özkan

In terms of administrative sanctions, application of the more favorable law means that when the law in force the time an act was committed and a law subsequently brought into force is different, the law which is more favorable should be applied. EHRC states that applying more stringent punishment to an offender on the grounds that more stringent punishment was in force when the time criminal offence was committed. Misdemeanors have been considered within the scope of criminal law by the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court accepts that the principle of the application of the more favorable law should be applied to misdemeanors. Danıştay (the Turkish Council of State) decides that “it should be take into account in terms of administrative sanctions, when a law which is the ground of punishment is set aside or more favorable law is brought into force”. Since administrative acts are reviewed during annulment cases, a law brought into force after an administrative act cannot affect the act retrospect. A law which is enters into force after an administrative act established, could set up a rule which has retrospective affect only if the rule clearly is an amnesty. After an administrative fine is imposed, applying criminal law principals to administrative law and administrative sanctions, in other words, rendering decision of annulment on the ground of the principle of the more favorable law betrays the trust on judicial bodies and law.


Author(s):  
Max Loubser ◽  
Tamar Gidron

Both the Israeli and the South African legal systems are classified as mixed legal systems, or mixed jurisdictions. In Israel, tort law was originally pure English common law, adopted by legislation and later developed judicially. In South Africa, the law of delict (tort) was originally Roman-Dutch but was later strongly influenced by the English common law. Under both systems, tort law is characterized by open-ended norms allowing extensive judicial development. This paper traces and compares the structural basis, methodology, policy, and trends of the judicial development of state and public-authority liability in the Israeli and South African jurisdictions. Specific factors that have impacted the development of state- and public-authority liability are: (1) constitutional values, (2) the courts’ recognition of the need for expanded protection of fundamental human rights and activism towards achieving such protection, (3) the multicultural nature of the societies, (4) problems of crime and security, and (5) worldwide trends, linked to consumerism, toward the widening of liability of the state and public authorities.Within essentially similar conceptual structures the South African courts have been much more conservative in their approach to state liability for pure economic loss than their Israeli counterparts. This can perhaps be attributed to a sense of priorities. In a developing country with huge disparities in wealth, the courts would naturally be inclined to prioritize safety and security of persons above pure economic loss. The South African courts have been similarly more conservative in cases involving administrative negligence and evidential loss.The development of the law on state and public-authority liability in Israel and South Africa is also the product of factors such as the levels of education, the effectiveness of the public service, and the history and pervasiveness of constitutional ordering. Despite important differences, the law in the two jurisdictions has developed from a broadly similar mixed background; the courts have adopted broadly similar methods and reasoning; and the outcomes show broadly similar trends.


2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-71
Author(s):  
Joan Small ◽  
Evadne Grant

Equality occupies the first place in most written constitutions, but in South Africa, its importance is magnified both in terms of the text of the Constitution and in terms of the context in which that Constitution operates. The Bill of Rights is expected, in South Africa, to help bring about the transformation of the society. These expectations of transformation through the operation of the Bill of Rights are informing the development of the law in relation to equality and non-discrimination by the Constitutional Court. The concept of discrimination is uniquely defined in the South African Bill of Rights. The Courts are struggling to give legal effect to the terminology. The test developed by the Court to interpret the equality clause, it is submitted, is comprehensive and informed. But the application of the test is sometimes problematic. This paper addresses the evolving concepts of equality and discrimination in South Africa and discusses some of the difficulties with certain aspects of the test for discrimination, including the concepts of unfairness and human dignity, which have caused division among the judiciary.


1998 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-109
Author(s):  
Wilfried Bottke

AbstractReligious sects and their practices have become highly topical in the recent past in Germany. The call for criminal sanctions in order to tackle actual or presumed misconduct is becoming louder and louder. The author, a criminal law professor, analyses the present discussion and puts it into a constitutional law perspective. Any civil society that aims to optimise the scope of the personal freedoms of its members must withstand the temptation of creating a special regime of criminal law rules just to combat religious sects and their practices. Criminal law has tobe applied uniformly in the whole society. Therfore, criminal sanctions can only be handed out, when practices infringe intolerably with the individual' s rights protected by the law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document