Gold Mining as a Means to Disappearing Section 1:
Fourth Respondent Neutral citation: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of the court below are set aside. Save for that, the appeal is dismissed with costs. There can be no gainsaying that the revelations that were made in the articles raised matters of profound public importance if they were true.
When the first article appeared the matter was raised in the National Assembly and a member of that body asked the Public Protector to conduct an investigation. As the story unfolded over the following weeks the leader of the official opposition in parliament asked the Public Protector on two occasions to expand his investigation to include the further revelations.
The Public Protector acceded to the requests and produced a report within a short time. He called a press conference when he released the report, which he said had been necessitated by the importance and enormity of the matter. A spokesman in his office expressed the opinion that it had been the second most important investigation that had been conducted by the Public Protector.
The report was tabled in the National Assembly, where it evoked some debate, and it was adopted by a majority of its members. He was assisted in his investigation by the head of special investigations in his office, Adv C Fourie. Although Adv Fourie undertook much of the work, both say that he did so in close consultation with Adv Mushwana, who properly accepts responsibility for the report.
The promptitude in this case is explained by the paucity of the investigation. A large part of the report was taken up with explaining why much of what had been placed before the Public Protector fell outside his investigatory mandate, and what remained after that had been excised was decidedly narrow.
The approach to the investigation narrowed it even more, and the investigation of the remnants was undertaken as little more than a formality. The Public Protector nonetheless concluded that there had been no impropriety on the part of any of the various functionaries and entities concerned and that is what he reported.
They asked for orders setting aside the report and ordering the Public Protector to investigate and report afresh. The orders were granted by Poswa J and the Public Protector now appeals against them with the leave of the learned judge.
It includes a promise of representative and accountable government functioning within the framework of pockets of independence that are provided by various independent institutions.
One of those independent institutions is the office of the Public Protector. It provides what will often be a last defence against bureaucratic oppression, and against corruption and malfeasance in public office that is capable of insidiously destroying the nation.
If that institution falters, or finds itself undermined, the nation loses an indispensable constitutional guarantee. The words mean what they say.
Fulfilling their demands will call for courage at times, but it will always call for vigilance and conviction of purpose. The Act makes it clear that while the functions of the Public Protector include those that are ordinarily associated with an ombudsman 3 they also go much beyond that.
The Public Protector is not a passive adjudicator between citizens and the state, relying upon evidence that is placed before him or her before acting. His or her mandate is an investigatory one, requiring pro-action in appropriate circumstances.
In broad terms, the Public Protector may investigate, amongst other things, any alleged improper or dishonest conduct with respect to public money, 5 any alleged offence created by specified sections of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of with respect to public money, 6 and any alleged improper or unlawful receipt of improper advantage by a person as a result of conduct by various public entities or functionaries.
The Act confers upon the Public Protector sweeping powers to discover information from any person at all.
He or she may call for explanations, on oath or otherwise, from any person, he or she may require any person to appear for examination, he or she may call for the production of documents by any person, 8 and premises may be searched and material seized upon a warrant issued by a judicial officer.
He or she is expected not to sit back and wait for proof where there are allegations of malfeasance but is enjoined to actively discover the truth. We are concerned only with the extent to which that material casts light upon the adequacy or otherwise of the investigation.
It needs to be borne in mind that organisations and persons to which the material might relate are not parties to these proceedings and we have not heard what they might have to say. There might be ready answers to or explanations for what the material reveals at first sight, there might be other facts not before us that would impact upon inferences that might otherwise be drawn, and it might be that documents are not authentic or that statements in documents or otherwise are untrue.
Those are all matters upon which we are not called upon to pronounce, and I do not purport to do so. So far as I relate what that material shows as if it is fact, I have done so only for convenience of narration.
Courts will generally not rely upon reported statements by persons who do not give evidence hearsay for the truth of their contents. Because that is not acceptable evidence upon which the court will rely for factual findings such statements are not admissible in trial proceedings and are liable to be struck out from affidavits in application proceedings.
But there are cases in which the relevance of the statement lies in the fact that it was made, irrespective of the truth of the statement. In those cases the statement is not hearsay and is admissible to prove the fact that it was made.
In this case many such reported statements, mainly in documents, have been placed before us. What is relevant to this case is that the document exists or that the statement was made and for that purpose those documents and statements are admissible evidence."Brutus" The series of anti-federalist writing which most nearly paralleled and confronted The Federalist was a series of sixteen essays published in the New York Journal from October, , through April, , during the same period The Federalist was appearing in New York newspapers, under the pseudonym "Brutus", in honor of the Roman republican who was one of those who assassinated .
The 13th amendment abolished slavery and the 14th amendment provided that representation would be determined according to the whole number of persons in each state, not by the “three-fifths” of the slaves. The process of selecting and appointing justices to the Supreme Court of the United States has in recent decades become highly contentious.
It is not uncommon for opinion leaders on both sides of the ideological divide between liberals and conservatives to emphasize the importance of judicial nominations when urging their respective audiences to support particular political candidates.3/5(2). On Friday, June 22, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in Carpenter ashio-midori.com States, holding that a warrant is required for police to access cell site location information from a cell phone company—the detailed geolocation information generated by a cellphone’s communication with cell ashio-midori.com predicted, Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, reversing the.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The Supreme Court of India specifically asked the Committee to review three aspects: whether pre-conditions for dismantling have been complied with; whether 80 per cent of the asbestos is reusable; what steps have been taken to control the environmental impacts of asbestos dust generated in the process of dismantling;25 The report was submitted by the CTE on May and accepted by the .