This week, the first of the year, I’ve spent hours reading the most recent judgments of the Swazi appeal court only to be sickened by the enormity of the rape problem in that country. But while the drive for tougher rape sentences in South Africa came from the legislature, in Swaziland those rumblings come from the bench.
Rape and the correct sentence to impose on rapists was one of the dominating issues during this most recent appeal court session. But while these decisions may be useful, they were made against a complex background not mentioned by the judges.
A significant week for the judiciary this, with the death of former chief justice Arthur Chaskalson and, a few days later, of Judge Andrew Wilson, who headed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) amnesty committee.
Following widespread coverage of the many tributes to Chaskalson, few people will be unaware of the role he played in South Africa’s legal and political life.
When Deputy Justice Minister Andries Nel spoke in The Hague earlier this month, some people might have wondered why he bothered. Addressing a high-level meeting at the seat of the International Criminal Court (ICC), he assured the rest of the world that South Africa fully supported the ICC and the laws that set it up.
If you are considering a bit of graft and corruption, here’s a little free advice – try it in South Africa rather than Namibia. Some recent decisions by our neighbour’s Supreme Court make it clear that those judges know how to dish it out when dishonesty’s discovered.
Let’s take this month’s most juicy case, one that will have local MPs crossing themselves with relief that, in the Zuma era, our standards of propriety are pretty low.