The High Court disbars a famous lawyer: Disbarment in South Africa
Posted: 29 September, 2022 Filed under: Sandile Nhlengetwa | Tags: admonishment, Advocate Teffo, assault, Attorneys Act, contemptuous behaviour, Disbarment, disgrace, dishonesty, High Court, intimidation, Jasat v Natal Law Society, lack of integrity, misconduct, scandalising the Court, South Africa, South African Legal Practice Council v Teffo, violating Legal Practice 1 Comment
Author: Sandile Innocent Nhlengetwa
LLB candidate, University of the Western Cape
In an unreported judgement in South African Legal Practice Council v Teffo (10991/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 666, Adv Malesela Teffo was removed as a legal practitioner. A total of 22 complaints from 2019 to 2022 were filed with the Legal Practice Council (LPC), a statutory body responsible for regulating the legal profession, against Adv Teffo. These include intimidation, assault, contemptuous behaviour, bringing disgrace upon the Court’s moral authority, violating the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 (the LPA) on numerous counts and misappropriating of clients’ funds. In this regard, the LPC filed a motion with the High Court to have him disbarred. In its notice of motion, the LPC outlined the basis upon which they seek an order to strike Advocate Teffo off from the roll of legal practitioners. Adv Teffo replied with a bare denial in essence pleading not guilty to all these complaints.
What is next after the graduation of the necessary unified forces?
Posted: 20 September, 2022 Filed under: Garang Yach James | Tags: Agreement on Permanent Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements, Civil Defence, complex geopolitics, Equatoria region, lack of political will, national army, National Police Service, national security, political will, Prison Services, RACRSS, Republic of South Sudan, Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of Conflicts in South Sudan, security implications, South Sudan People’s Defence Forces, SPLA-IO, Transitional Security Arrangement, unified forces, Wildlife Leave a comment
Author: Garang Yach J
South Sudanese Political and security analyst and PhD Student, University of Juba, South Sudan
Summary
The article attempts to answer the question of what is next after the parties have finally graduated the long-awaited necessary unified forces in accordance with the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of Conflicts in South Sudan (RACRSS). It identifies four key issues and their respective security implications at the center of the transitional security arrangements. The author concludes that the graduation of the necessary unified forces is not the surest guarantee of a stabilised security situation although it is a show of political will that has been lacking since the coming to effect of the RARCSS in 2018. Addressing the identified key dilemmas will in turn address their respective security implications thus tranquilise the problematic security situation across the country.
The author ends by giving three pertinent recommendations for policy action if the transitional security arrangements were to set a stage for a democratic South Sudan by the end of the 24-month extended period.
The Jagersfontein tragedy of 11 September 2022: Who must be held accountable for mine tailings dump management failure – the DMRE or De Beer or Superkolong?
Posted: 16 September, 2022 Filed under: Gaopalelwe Mathiba | Tags: collateral damage, De Beers, Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, DMRE, hazard categorisation, infrastructural damage, Jagersfontein tailings dump, Jagersfontein tragedy, mine tailings dump management failure, Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, Precious Stones Act of 1964, Superkolong Consortium Leave a comment
Author: Gaopalelwe Mathiba
Senior Lecturer, Department of Private Law, UCT
Introduction
In the early hours of Sunday 11 September 2022, the Jagersfontein diamond mine tailings dump in the Free State failed by bursting as a result of a sudden collapse of the dump embankment walls. The cause for this collapse remains unknown at this point. The spill of the tailings greyish mud is reported to have stretched widely covering a considerable portion of land surface area of the Jagersfontein farm community. At the time of writing this piece, evacuations were still ongoing in the area and the concrete impact and damage report of the incident was not yet ripe. However, the little that could be ascertained from the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) Minister, Gwede Mantashe’s press briefing, where he presented a preliminary incident report, is that at least 28 people suffered minor injuries; while over 40 people were critically injured and hospitalised, with over 5 confirmed fatalities as of that fateful Sunday. In terms of infrastructural damage, the Minister reported that over 9 houses were completely swept away by the spill while around 20 houses were severely damaged. As it should be, this major crisis gives rise to critical questions of accountability, as to who must be held accountable for it and how exactly that accountable person or entity must respond. But not only that, more action is yet to be witnessed on the side of the DMRE in ensuring that this incident is not left unaccounted for and that similar incidents do not recur in the future. This might not be an easy task for the DMRE given the wrestling history it has with De Beers over the Jagersfontein dump, as will be briefly discussed below. What the DMRE actions and the content informing them would entail this time around is yet another fascinating point to observe as the case develops. The aim of this piece is to share some insights into these important issues.
Does the New Media Law of Ethiopia condone keeping accused journalists behind bars for the duration of a trial? A reflection on the recent ruling of the Federal Supreme Court
Posted: 12 September, 2022 Filed under: Zelalem Shiferaw Woldemichael | Tags: continued detention, Criminal Procedure Code, Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, federal judicial structure, Federal Supreme Court of Ethiopia, journalists, New Media Law, pre-trial detention, right to liberty of journalists, Temesgen Desalegn, unlawful Leave a comment
Author: Zelalem Shiferaw Woldemichael
PhD candidate, Melbourne Law School
The decision of the Federal Supreme Court of Ethiopia, rendered on July 28, 2022, to deny bail to Temesgen Desalegn, an editor of Feteh, a privately owned magazine, has put the potential of the New Media Law to end the repressive environment of the prior regime of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, which subjected journalists and media personnel to multiple forms of human rights violations, including torture, arrest, and detention, into question. Perhaps, the case does not represent the only instance of the upholding of the continued detention of journalists by the judiciary after the expulsion of the previous regime and the coming into force of the New Media Law. On several occasions, courts have considered issues of bail of journalists and ordered the continuation of pre-trial detention. Apparently, the present case attracted huge public concern as the journalist was made to remain in custody by the decision of a judicial organ placed at the apex of the federal judicial structure, which renders final decisions on federal matters. The Supreme Court denied bail, accepting the objection of the public prosecutor, who argued that “keeping the accused behind bars was necessary so he could not continue spreading false rumours and leaking secrets through his writing.”
The Shell seismic survey judgment: A further endorsement of meaningful consultation
Posted: 6 September, 2022 Filed under: Gaopalelwe Mathiba | Tags: biodiversity, decision-making process, DMRE, environmental impact assessment, High Court, marine life, ocal communities, petroleum companies, seismic survey, seismic survey judgment, Shell seismic survey, Southeast Coast 1 CommentAuthor: Gaopalelwe Mathiba
Senior Lecturer, Department of Private Law, UCT
On 1 September 2022, a full bench of the Division of the High Court, sitting in Makhanda and presided over by Mbenenge JP, handed down a significant judgment in respect of a review petition that sought to challenge the lawfulness of the granting of an exploration right for the exploration of oil and gas in the Southeast Coast by the DMRE to the multinational petroleum company – Shell South Africa (Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC & Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy & Others Case No.: 3491/2021). The relevant facts of the case can be summarised as follows: The petroleum company was awarded an exploration right on April 2014. The right was renewed two times, in December 2017 and again in July 2021. Further, the right was supposedly awarded in terms of the applicable laws i.e. the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA) which requires, inter alia, environmental impact assessment and authorisation. It would appear that the only way Shell could exercise its exploration right was by conducting a seismic survey off the Southeast coast that was planned to commence in December 2021. Loosely described, the offshore seismic survey mechanism involve using explosive sound-waves using air-guns directed downwards as part of a mapping technique to determine whether oil or gas deposits may be present deep below the seabed of a surveyed area. It is exactly at this point where the contention arose between, on the one hand, the local customary communities and public interest entities and, on the other, the DMRE and petroleum companies.
AfricLaw 