Here is the letter:
Dear Sir
Yesterday, the newly sworn in members of the national
assembly (of which I am privileged to be one) listened to Chief Justice Mogoeng
Mogoeng brush aside a point of order from Corne Mulder MP on the procedure for
the election of the Speaker. Mulder pointed out the rules of the election,
drawn up by the Chief Justice himself, state that MPs “must” exercise their
vote. During the vote it became clear that a significant minority of MPs were
abstaining, hence Mulder’s point of order. The Chief Justice responded by
saying that in our democratic system, voters were not compelled to vote but
could exercise their choice to do so, and the same applied here, so where it was
written “must” we were to interpret it as “may.” To which Mulder, raising a
laugh from the House, suggested we apply the same interpretation when
asked to pay our taxes.
To those who dismiss this as mere semantics, I refer them to
the Free Market Foundation’s court action challenging the constitutionality of
Section 32 of the Labour Relations Act, concerning the rules governing
bargaining council agreements. The FMF is requesting the Minister of Labour to
replace the word “must” with “may”, thus freeing her from being compelled to
extend these agreements to all parties.
Can the Chief Justice’s interpretation of his own rules
yesterday be regarded as setting a precedent in law, and if so may the FMF
withdraw its action, or must it still go ahead?
Yours sincerely
Toby Chance
Cape Town
No comments:
Post a Comment