The social grant saga shows how South African courts are doomed to fail to protect the public from its government.
Entities at the centre of the storm engulfing South Africa's social grants distribution system have claimed to be champions of financial inclusion. The claim in itself is scandalous.
South Africa’s Constitutional Court has repeatedly stepped in to protect vulnerable people and to perform what former deputy chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke calls its "transformative role".
South Africa's social grants fiasco begs the question: was it orchestrated to undermine the judiciary and the constitution and hide sheer incompetence on the part of government?
Besides a reminder of a dark period in South Africa's history, Human Rights Day also celebrates the country's unique, highly acclaimed constitution which guarantees human dignity and equal rights.
South Africa's Constitutional Court is in a fix. The only way to deliver social grants that support millions would be through a process that's without validation, would be unlawful and invalid.
The making of South Africa's Constitution took six long years. Now, 20 years later, the process of drawing up this revered document is being tainted with myth making.
The retirement of Dikgang Moseneke, one of South Africa's eminent judges and the Constitutional Court's deputy chief justice, is a moment to reflect on the court's place in society and his legacy.
A key question ahead of local government elections in South Africa is whether the African National Congress will retain control of seven of the country's eight metropolitan municipalities.
South Africa's Constitution enjoins government to act “reasonably” in ensuring that basic socioeconomic rights are progressively realised. But the government has limited resources.
Were South African banks within their legal rights to close a politically influential family's accounts?
Ironically, the only feasible way of removing President Zuma lies outside the prescribed formal structures of the constitutional processes -- at the head office of the governing ANC.
In the words of US President Obama: Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions. In this light, the South African president's acceptance of a court ruling against him is a good thing.
For the time being at least, South African President Jacob Zuma is not ready to relinquish power. But perhaps sooner rather than later he may have to face the inevitable.
The Constitutional Court judgment in the opposition's case against President Jacob Zuma represents the exercise of judicial authority and expertise at the highest level by international standards.
The electorate and those involved in public governance should focus more on how judges are appointed. This is because they need to make sure that individuals of the highest quality get the job.
The cases of two women who died in childbirth in two different parts of Uganda are being used in a Constitutional Court battle forcing the government to fulfill its healthcare obligations.
One of the remarkable achievements of South Africa's Constitutional Court has been its role in improving the quality of the internal democratic processes within the governing ANC.
Jacob Zuma has backtracked on two major decisions in under two months – first after he fired his finance minister; now he says he’ll pay back public money spent on his lavish Nkandla homestead.
The reasons for the phenomenon of child marriage are complex and include the fact that in customary law, marriageable age was never reckoned as an actual number but depended on puberty.