The South African local government elections and the COVID-19 pandemic
Posted: 20 September, 2021 Filed under: Tariro Sekeramayi | Tags: 2021, African Charter, African Court, Constitution of South Africa, COVID-19, democracy, Dikgang Moseneke, elections, electoral process, fairness, free and fair election, IEC, Independent Electoral Commission, Moseneke Report, municipal elections, pandemic, registration, South Africa, South African Local Government Elections, transparency, voting 1 Comment
Author: Tariro Sekeramayi
Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
South Africa’s local government elections, to elect the municipal tier of government, are constitutionally mandated through section 159 of the Constitution of South Africa to take place every five years. These elections were scheduled to take place towards the end of 2021 and have been the subject of great deliberation in the nation. Conducting elections during a pandemic has been the subject of much debate on the continent and worldwide, with certain countries choosing to continue with elections amid the pandemic and others choosing to postpone their elections amid concerns of the risks involved. Nations on the continent that have held elections during the pandemic include Zambia, Malawi, Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda and Côte d’Ivoire. Given the extent of the risks of holding elections during the pandemic and mixed calls on whether to postpone or continue with elections in the nation, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) of South Africa ordered an inquiry commission to determine the nation’s capacity to hold free, fair elections during the initially scheduled period in October.
Double trouble: Consulting for a fair retrenchment
Posted: 3 April, 2017 Filed under: Rochelle le Roux | Tags: bumping, case law, consultation, employee, employer, employment, fairness, labour law, legislation, legislative developments, operation requirements, procedural, retrenchment, retrenchment law, Sputh Africa, substantive, unemployment, unfiar dismissal Leave a comment
Author: Prof Rochelle le Roux
Director of the Institute of Development and Labour Law; Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town (UCT)
Most employers and employees have a broad understanding that the fairness of a dismissal rests on both a substantive and a procedural leg.
On the one hand, substantive unfairness, in broad strokes, suggests that an employee who should not have been dismissed, had been dismissed.
The legislature had chosen to express substantive fairness with reference to the employee’s misconduct or incapacity and the operational requirements of the employer. A dismissal for the latter reason is often referred to as retrenchment.
On the other hand, procedural unfairness implies that the employee had not been given an opportunity to be heard by the employer before the dismissal was affected. There is at least one practical reason for distinguishing between procedural and substantive fairness: when a dismissal is unfair only because the employer did not follow a fair procedure, the competent remedy is generally only payment of compensation and not reinstatement as would be the case when the dismissal is either substantively, or both substantively and procedurally, unfair.
AfricLaw 