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.
All the political shenanigans - particularly Nkandla - have ultimately drawn attention to the value of this office.
The Zuma case tops the billing, followed by decisions about Hlophe and Pistorius
Laws alone are not enough but the Constitution does reveal what it is to be a new South African
The appeal court's murder ruling is not based on a controversial principle, so his options are limited.