Sign in
Download Opera News App

 

 

"If there is No Records on before Arthur Fraser, the Decision Was Bound to be unlawful" - Tweep

Sources:


https://twitter.com/zsimayi/status/1559137550677196800?t=4-SRhI0zsyQhDH9bMLWt5w&s=19


https://t.co/C1dZO2FNOl

"The decision was bound to be illegal if there were no records on Arthur Fraser before it was made," – Zolani

In other words, Zuma's last straw was the query. If there are no complete records prior to Arthur Fraser, the judgment was undoubtedly irrational and illegal.

With costs, this appeal is rejected.

Arther Fraser doesn't have any right to hold onto his privilege. This privilege doesn't exist by itself. He cannot just ignore the recommendations of the Medical Parole Advisory Board, no matter how strong he is. A constitutional democracy requires that power be exercised responsibly. Cyril Ramaphosa was counseled against appointing Zondo as chief justice, but he nonetheless did so.

He was unable to choose to ignore it. Let's consider it collectively. You have the SCA President, who is an exceptionally qualified candidate. This other individual, however, is not only qualified but also has prior relevant work experience. This option meets the "logical" requirements even though it contradicts what the JSC recommended. You claim he didn't simply ignore it. Maya would be the chief justice right now if he had listened to the JSC. At this point, it doesn't matter what else is said to justify Cyril's actions. The main point is that it's best to ignore advice. The SCA is an advisory body, and its recommendations are not binding on the law; in contrast, the parole board is obligated to uphold the law. So are you saying that the parole board's decisions have to be abided by? If so, a reference to the pertinent statute or clause of the Constitution would be greatly appreciated. Cyril didn't even need to have them speak with any of the judges. There is no legal requirement for it. He could have simply given them one name, as he did with Mogoeng.

The Correctional Services Act of 1976 stipulates that H has full discretion regarding parole for sentences of less than 24 months. In such a case, the recommendation of a parole board would be beneficial but not required. You all need to stop picking and choosing which laws apply to you. The decision-actions maker's are being examined, not the record. The record demonstrates that it is all in vain. A court's jurisdiction cannot be suspended due to a lack of evidence. Hawu, but isn't it accurate that Ramaphosa appointed Raymond Zondo against the recommendation of the judicial panel, claiming that he had the "powers" to do so?

Why is the parole board not being respected by anyone when Arthur Fraser has the right to?

If the JSC makes a different recommendation, how is the president's authority to appoint a CJ distinct from the DCS DG's?


They could potentially cause a flood of chaos in terms of the state's ability to make decisions. It's interesting to watch arguments about whether a terminal diagnosis is preferable to a chronic one, but the Medical Parole Board's responsibility is to assess the testimony of medical professionals and offer recommendations to the commissioner.

Content created and supplied by: Sithole24/7 (via Opera News )

Arthur Fraser

COMMENTS

Load app to read more comments