The Constitutional Court judgment has revealed a keen appreciation of the limits of state institutions.
The National Prosecuting Authority head’s move can be seen as a ‘Stalingrad defence’; he should have gone directly to the Constitutional Court.
Parliament’s inability to differentiate between itself, the state and the ruling party is shutting down free speech.
Nuanced debates are needed to have meaningful conversations about South Africa, 20 years into our democracy.
Commissions of inquiry rarely live up to the expectations of those who have demanded their establishment.
Surely the two judges cannot expect their very own judicial colleagues at the Constitutional Court to change an obviously correct precedent?
Concourt stated that Zuma might have been following wrong legal advice but that did not detract from the illegality of his conduct.
Our robust civil society seems to be one of two other buffers against the risk of 'state capture'.
South Africa's “judicial image cannot afford to be further tarnished in this manner”.
The Hawks, the police, the prosecuting authority and the judiciary all have to be beyond reproach.