Includes bibliographical references.

Includes bibliographical references. / This dissertation seeks to answer the following research questions: Whether there exist legal and institutional gaps that need to be filled by the establishment of a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) in Botswana? How will the establishment of a NHRI fill gaps in Botswana’s existing legal and institutional framework? What are the minimum standards, guidelines and principles which must be adhered to in order to establish an effective NHRI ? What lessons can Botswana learn from South Africa and Zimbabwe in order to establish a NHRI Botswana’s which complies with the Paris Principles?

This paper attempts to expand the knowledge on these issues and therefore seeks to get a deeper understanding on the legal regulation of internal party democracy, which is widely considered as one of the most controversial topics concerning party regulation. This will be done by carrying out a case study of two constitutional democracies that handle party regulation differently. Germany, known as 'heart land of party law', constitutes the example of a state in which the internal organisation and functioning of political parties is regulated by both the Basic Law (the German Constitution) and federal laws. South Africa will be provided as the contrast example of a state that lacks express provisions that regulate the internal organisation and functioning of political parties. This paper does therefore not seek to conduct a 'classical' comparative study as the legal framework of two countries will be examined which deal in different ways with internal party democracy. However, this research approach promises to create a more holistic - even though certainly not complete - image of the challenges of the legal regulation of internal party democracy.

This paper discusses reasons why democratic governance cannot be attained by the Zambian government without deliberate commitment to the maintenance of values and principles of democracy, good governance and the rule of law. Zambia prides itself to be a democratic and peaceful country. However, accountability, openness and responsiveness to the needs of citizens has been a challenge despite this great record, which has come as a result of free, fair and peaceful elections recorded consecutively since Zambia became a multi-party democracy. The partial fusion of the Executive and Legislative organs of government ably qualified by provisions of the current Constitution, makes it difficult to hold government accountable by the governed. Consequently, presidential appointment of Cabinet Ministers from Parliament equally weakens legislative ability of checking and balancing powers of the Executive. Moreover, appointment of judges by the President is another factor that punches holes in judicial independence and injures the last line of defence. It is as such imperative that the colossal presidential powers are reduced to allow a flourishing democratic society. In the view that the current Constitution does not have adequate provisions to prevent abuse of power by the Executive; this thesis has made recommendations for the Constitution to be amended to provide effective ways of balancing power between the three arms of government. This will inevitably create an environment of mutual accountability in government and construct a platform where the electorate could question irregular administrative actions.

This thesis presents an analysis of three recent judgments of our apex courts which collectively illustrate a maximising of the 'minimum threshold requirement' of rationality through the seemingly inexhaustible constitutional principle of legality. The question sought to be addressed is whether, in extending this baseline requirement to cover procedural fairness, reason-giving and something akin to proportionality, in the context of non-administrative action and in the absence of any meaningful engagement with the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts are going too far.

The main intention of this paper is to ascertain whether the Speakership and Parliament are involved in a symbiotic relationship. This paper will assess whether a weak incumbent will have an adverse effect on the NA thereby weakening the capacity of the NA itself.

This paper argues that, in light of the prevalence of administrative policies, the normative force they carry and the reliance placed upon them by the public, there is a need for the courts to develop the law regulating the way that administrators use policy to structure and guide the exercise of their statutory discretions. It will be argued that such developments would give effect to both the 'controlling' and the 'facilitating' objectives that underpin administrative law, and, would strike an appropriate balance between the competing values at play so as to foster good governance. First, the nature2of administrative policies, their rise as a regulatory tool of government and the growing administrative preference for policy over delegated legislation are explored. It is argued that there is a necessity for the courts to develop the law regulating the administrative use of policy to foster the democratic principle of accountability. The current legal principles regulating the use of administrative policies in a discretionary context, under the broad banner of the 'fettering by rigidity principle' are explored and assessed. It is argued that the fettering by rigidity principle has been applied in a nuanced and variable way, and that it plays an important role in fostering good governance, particularly by promoting flexibility, responsiveness and participation, but does not go far enough in promoting the values of certainty, fairness and consistency. It is argued that a more appropriate balance between these values could be struck by developing a duty for administrators to apply policy consistently and only to depart for good reasons. Finally, it is argued that the principle of legitimate expectations should be developed to allow for substantive protection where an administrator unjustifiably frustrates the trust and reliance which individuals may have placed in an existing policy where that policy is subsequently replaced by a new one.

This research is a doctrinal study into Section 2(2), read with section 23, of the City of Cape Town's Streets Public Places and the Prevention of Nuisances By-law of 2007 and whether it violates the right to human dignity entrenched in section 10 of the Constitution. The provision prohibits begging, sitting, standing and lying in public places in the City of Cape Town. The overall argument made in this dissertation is that this prohibition is unconstitutional for the following three reasons: Firstly, it unlawfully interferes with homeless peoples efforts to maintain and build and decent life. Secondly, it disproportionally discriminates against black people. Lastly, it halts transformation in South Africa. Upon the findings of its analysis, this study aims to make recommendations and suggestions to improve the protection of homeless people in South Africa.

Inaugural-Dissertation--Universität zu Rostock. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [vi]-xii).

Inaugural-Dissertation--Universität zu Rostock. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [vi]-xii).