For the past few years, it has been my privilege to teach Constitutional Law at Makerere, the nation’s oldest University. As it is a first year course, I am one of the first teachers who meet with the young impressionable minds that are similarly privileged to gain admission to the law programme. In the course of class discussions, it quickly becomes obvious that even these fresh minds are cynical about the state of constitutionalism in our country, an impression that is only made stronger when we begin to delve into the text and the promise of the 1995 constitution and to compare this not only with our Constitutional history but with the present reality of how the country is being governed. I try as much as possible in these discussions to refrain from infusing my own views into these debates, my intention being to demonstrate the method of constitutional argument and to encourage critical thinking and reflection rather than suggest that there is a ‘right’ answer – which indeed, many times, there is not. This is often frustrating for the students whose constant refrain is: ‘But what is your view?’
I do not agree with what [Malema has] to say but I will defend to the death [his] right to say it – VoltairePosted: 19 September, 2012
The rule of law is the overarching concern as regards the events in Marikana- after other issues such as: the arrest and charge of the miners only to be released later (see article by Killander on AfricLaw), human dignity, the right to assemble and the right to life were raised. It was appalling to see a South African turned away from a lawful gathering under dubious legal grounds (Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993) and on the pretence that he ‘might’ incite striking miners to commit a criminal offence. Julius Malema was turned away by police at the Wonderkop stadium, Marikana after he tried to attend a gathering by the striking miners, and possibly to address them.