The written submission by a group of legal academics on the amendment of section 25, with concerns about the mandate, the contradictions and restricting land reform to custodianship only.
If one accepts that there is not a natural understanding of how ownership works (and I acknowledge that there might be people that dispute this), then ownership is, as they say, “up for grabs”. What story will win, and why, is part of ownership design.
Nil and not without compensation, removing the courts as the only forum that can determine nil compensation, adding a common heritage provision and custodianship of “certain land”. Some thoughts on the amendment of section 25.
Every now and again, and often most unexpectedly, I have a conversation with a person that changes my perspective on things and alters my ways of doing things. Recently, when I phoned the professor who taught me property law to ask a question about, well, property law, this magical side conversation happened. The legal question … Continue reading Slow down, you move too fast!
With the long Easter weekend looming, many people were anxious to know what the restrictions for the long weekend will entail. The rumours were that interprovincial travel will be halted, as will large gatherings, and of course, the always-looming question of alcohol. I should start with a caveat: I am not invested in transporting alcohol … Continue reading One more for the road: makings laws during a pandemic
Regulations for lockdown 3.1 indicated that the Minister of Health will give an indication on what constitutes "vigorous exercise". This still hasn't happened. This post is sweating the small stuff, by relying on the principle that laws must be clear, for us to follow it.
What happens if the law of the indigenous people are asserted in a country that for so long disregarded it, but now has a Constitution that gives full recognition to it? How does one reconcile laws whose normative basis seem to just not be compatible?
This was part of the issue in the South African Human Rights Commission case, delivered last week. The City of Cape Town argued that the structures the demolished were unoccupied, and as such do not fall under the provisions of PIE. Being unoccupied, there was nobody to evict. The applicants, however, argued that those evicted have been living in the structures (in other words, it was occupied), and therefore they are entitled to the protection of section 26 of the Constitution.
En dis ook waar die dans, soos die wawiel dans, baie simbolies raak. Dit maak die sirkel toe na binne. Dit is eksklusief. Dit is staties bewegend, om en om en om die as van die Afrikaner identiteit en mag.
Does the State of Disaster end by midnight tonight? There seems to be confusion on social media about 15th of August and the end of the State of Disaster. Despite some people stating that today marks the end of the “lockdown", all indications are that the State of Disaster will be extended and that we … Continue reading Why we will probably be in a State of Disaster for a while