Suchergebnisse

Judicial independence is fundamental to democracy. It is in that context that this paper considers whether the existing constitutional and legislative mechanisms provide sufficient judicial independence to South African judges. In so doing, the paper focuses on impartiality, judicial appointments and security of tenure. It also discusses the sensitive matter of complaints and disciplinary proceedings against judges and their removal from office. The issue of the remuneration of judges is also explored. In discussing the challenges facing judicial independence some incidents that have appeared to compromise such independence are highlighted. These include the controversial appointments of Advocate Mpshe as an acting judge in the North West Province in 2010 and Judge Heath as the Head of the Special Investigative Unit (SIU) in 2011. The never-ending controversy surrounding the Cape Judge President John Hlophe and his alleged attempts to improperly influence two Constitutional Court judges in a case involving President Jacob Zuma is also highlighted. Another issue that has brought judicial independence into sharp focus is the June 2015 visit to South Africa of Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, who was on a warrant of arrest from the International Criminal Court (ICC) for genocide and war crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan. A decision by the North Gauteng High Court on his presence in South Africa and the attacks on the judiciary made by various government officials as a result are discussed. Several conclusions are drawn but in the main, it is generally concluded that the constitutional and legislative framework adopted by South Africa sufficiently insulates judges from improper influence. However, there have been several notable challenges that particularly relate to judicial appointments and how the JSC has handled certain matters. Irresponsible and uninformed political statements by politicians and unwarranted political attacks on the judiciary by government are also a source of great concern. These challenges could and should be construed as threats to judicial independence, and need to be comprehensively and properly addressed.

Judicial independence is fundamental to democracy. It is in that context that this paper considers whether the existing constitutional and legislative mechanisms provide sufficient judicial independence to South African judges. In so doing, the paper focuses on impartiality, judicial appointments and security of tenure. It also discusses the sensitive matter of complaints and disciplinary proceedings against judges and their removal from office. The issue of the remuneration of judges is also explored. In discussing the challenges facing judicial independence some incidents that have appeared to compromise such independence are highlighted. These include the controversial appointments of Advocate Mpshe as an acting judge in the North West Province in 2010 and Judge Heath as the Head of the Special Investigative Unit (SIU) in 2011. The never-ending controversy surrounding the Cape Judge President John Hlophe and his alleged attempts to improperly influence two Constitutional Court judges in a case involving President Jacob Zuma is also highlighted. Another issue that has brought judicial independence into sharp focus is the June 2015 visit to South Africa of Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, who was on a warrant of arrest from the International Criminal Court (ICC) for genocide and war crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan. A decision by the North Gauteng High Court on his presence in South Africa and the attacks on the judiciary made by various government officials as a result are discussed. Several conclusions are drawn but in the main, it is generally concluded that the constitutional and legislative framework adopted by South Africa sufficiently insulates judges from improper influence. However, there have been several notable challenges that particularly relate to judicial appointments and how the JSC has handled certain matters. Irresponsible and uninformed political statements by politicians and unwarranted political attacks on the judiciary by government are also a source of great concern. These challenges could and should be construed as threats to judicial independence, and need to be comprehensively and properly addressed.

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is widely applied in many countries in evaluating public projects and regulatory instruments. It is employed, for example, as a basis for decisions within the European Union's subsidy policy. CBA enables to express the comprehensive effect of a project or a governmental regulation on social welfare and thereby to introduce expertise to political decision-making. However, its practical applications face many problems. Different methodological choices in performing CBA enable to obtain diametrically opposite conclusions. Moreover, the way how investors apply for EU Fund subsidies encourages CBA performers to adjust CBA results to requirements of subsidy applicants. The unavoidable consequence is frequently mendacious, unreliable and misleading CBA. The paper brings an overview of the flexibility in CBA methodological choices. It further focuses on analysing the CBA performance practice in the area of CBA project appraisal for the purposes of applying for EU funding. We examine the reasons for manipulating results using a theoretical analysis and support our findings by our own empirical survey among CBA performers. As our survey among commercial CBA performers uncovers, many entities performing CBA lack expert background for CBA performance and performed CBA are often biased and misleading. Our theoretical analysis shows its main reason: The person choosing and remunerating the CBA performer for the purposes of a project appraisal for EU funding is at the same time the subsidy applicant and thus with a clear interest in the optimistic result of the CBA. CBA performers are happy to oblige their customers. The remedy to this situation is to get rid of this unintentional alliance among CBA performers and subsidy applicants.

Construction of large onshore oil and gas processing plants brings the promise of significant local economic attributions; however, the injection of a high churning male construction workforce can change and dominate the host community's demographics. This can generate a range of issues which are well documented in the literature on resource 'Boomtowns'. But because most studies are retrospective and focus on small towns, findings may hold limited transitivity to relatively large and economically diverse towns or cities. Consequently research based knowledge for the facilitation of dialogue between governments, the community and industry on the scale and timing of construction impacts is absent. Darwin, a city of around 130,000 residents in the north of Australia, has secured a large liquid natural gas processing plant which is currently under construction. The plant is touted to bring substantial economic benefits with a peak construction workforce of more than 3,500 anticipated. But little meaningful discussion on possible effects on population makeup and social fabric of the city has been forthcoming. This study profiles the INPEX plant construction workforce under several scenarios based on combinations of local worker engagement and total workforce size. Profiles are overlayed onto population projection data to appraise the scale of demographic and social impacts. Findings show that, despite Darwin's size and pre-existing population, labour force and family profiles, the project will contribute significant demographic and social upheaval during construction. Governments, the community and industry are advised to engage in an early and open dialogue focused on mitigating negative and garnering positive long-term outcomes with this research as the basis.