No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Durban-Westville, 2001.

Bibliography: leaves 120-126. / The perspective of this dissertation is one grounded in taking an option for the poor and the oppressed in the South African context. Ultimately, this perspective is a theological belief. The perspective is thus that of an explicit choice against apartheid and for social justice. This choice is made on the basis of a social analysis of the South African context. The attempt to write this dissertation from the perspective of the poor and the oppressed is unlikely to succeed completely. As a privileged white, the perspective of the author cannot be fully identified with that of the poor and the oppressed in South Africa. Nonetheless, the attempt is made to write this dissertation from a liberating perspective.

This thesis begins by providing an account of the ancestral grave relocations of the Sekuruwe community in Limpopo province, South Africa. Sekuruwe claims that the manner in which their graves were relocated disrespected their cultural norms, and infringed their constitutional rights. Over three years of investigation, it was proved that the mine which relocated the graves acted negligently by badly damaging human remains, confusing graves and loosing skeletons. The thesis investigates Sekuruwe‟s case within three theoretical frameworks: Systemic oppression, legal claims to culture, and Ethnicity Incorporated. The role of heritage legislation is highlighted throughout the thesis, and the inadequacies of legislation pointed out with reference to the different theoretical approaches. The aim of the thesis is to understand the way in which Sekuruwe‟s claims of cultural insensitivity are in fact claims of injustice, which are argued through the bodies (and graves, and spirits) of the dead. I aim to understand the way in which these claims of injustice are structured by heritage legislation.

Due to the party-orientation and professional nature of the adversary mode of criminal procedure, the principles of a fair trial are best observed where the accused is represented by a lawyer. Given the advantages to be gained from legal representation, the principle of equal justice requires that all accused should have access to legal assistance and thus that legal aid should be provided for indigent accused. The South African legal aid scheme cannot yet provide assistance to all indigent accused because of the large number of these accused, the shortage of manpower and the lack of funds. There are, however, few legislative provisions to safeguard the rights of the vast majority of accused, arraigned in the lower courts, who remain undefended. The Supreme Court, in order to ensure that these accused are fairly tried, has imposed the following types of duties on judicial officers: (a) a duty to facilitate the accused's participation in the proceedings by advising him of his rights and duties and assisting him in their exercise; (b) a duty to control the prosecutor in the exercise of his powers; and (c) a duty to conduct an enquiry before arriving at administrative-type decisions. These duties are, however, inadequate to achieve the Court's, objective because, firstly, not all, rights are made accessible to the accused, and secondly, the duties are inadequate to ensure that the accused's guilt is reliably established. The failure of the legislature and the Supreme Court to incorporate the principle of equal justice into the legal process, has resulted in court proceedings that are characterized by unjust practices and outcomes. To ensure the more equitable prosecution of undefended accused it is suggested that an activist judicial officer should be responsible for the enforcement of all the principles of a fair trial (which would be concretized in clear legal rules) in an impartial manner, with his decisionmaking routinely supervised by the Supreme Court. / Thesis (LL.D.)-University of Natal, Durban, 1986.

Developing an adjudicative institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa entails the establishment of a system that gives effect to the rights (of access) to social security and to justice. These rights are protected in the Constitution and in various international law instruments. In the Constitution, the Bill of Rights guarantees everyone the right to have access to social security, including appropriate social assistance for persons who are unable to support themselves and their dependants. It further requires the State to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of the right to access to social security. Since a dispute resolution (adjudication) framework is an integral part of any comprehensive social security system, it is included in the constitutional obligation of the State. The establishment of a social security adjudication system is an intersection of the right of access to social security and the right of access to justice. The Constitution states that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. In addition, other rights protected in the Constitution have a bearing on the realisation of the rights of access to social security and to justice. There is a close correlation between all the rights in the Bill of Rights, as they are interrelated, interdependent and mutually supporting. They must all be read together in the setting of the Constitution as a whole and their interconnectedness must be taken into account in interpreting rights; and in determining whether the State has met its obligations in terms of any one of them. These rights, which include the right to equality (section 9), the right to human dignity (section 10) and the right to just administrative action (section 33) must thus be considered in establishing a social security adjudication system. Also to be considered are other constitutional prerequisites for the establishment of a social security adjudication system, such as the limitation and enforcement of rights (sections 36 and 38 respectively); principles relating to courts and the administration of justice (Chapter 8) and basic values and principles governing public administration (Chapter 10). In establishing a social security adjudication system in South Africa, international law standards and developments in comparative systems must also be taken into account. The Constitution adopts an international law- and comparative law-friendly approach. It states that when interpreting fundamental rights, international law must be considered while foreign law may be considered (section 39). This thesis aims to develop an adjudicative and institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa that realises the rights of access to social security and to justice in the South African social security system. This is achieved by exploring the concept of access to justice, and its application in the social security adjudication system. The current social security adjudication system is evaluated against the concept of access to justice applicable in international and regional law instruments, comparable South African (non-social security) systems and comparative international jurisdictions. Principles and standards on the establishment of a social security adjudication system are distilled; and a reformed system for South Africa is proposed. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

Developing an adjudicative institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa entails the establishment of a system that gives effect to the rights (of access) to social security and to justice. These rights are protected in the Constitution and in various international law instruments. In the Constitution, the Bill of Rights guarantees everyone the right to have access to social security, including appropriate social assistance for persons who are unable to support themselves and their dependants. It further requires the State to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of the right to access to social security. Since a dispute resolution (adjudication) framework is an integral part of any comprehensive social security system, it is included in the constitutional obligation of the State. The establishment of a social security adjudication system is an intersection of the right of access to social security and the right of access to justice. The Constitution states that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. In addition, other rights protected in the Constitution have a bearing on the realisation of the rights of access to social security and to justice. There is a close correlation between all the rights in the Bill of Rights, as they are interrelated, interdependent and mutually supporting. They must all be read together in the setting of the Constitution as a whole and their interconnectedness must be taken into account in interpreting rights; and in determining whether the State has met its obligations in terms of any one of them. These rights, which include the right to equality (section 9), the right to human dignity (section 10) and the right to just administrative action (section 33) must thus be considered in establishing a social security adjudication system. Also to be considered are other constitutional prerequisites for the establishment of a social security adjudication system, such as the limitation and enforcement of rights (sections 36 and 38 respectively); principles relating to courts and the administration of justice (Chapter 8) and basic values and principles governing public administration (Chapter 10). In establishing a social security adjudication system in South Africa, international law standards and developments in comparative systems must also be taken into account. The Constitution adopts an international law- and comparative law-friendly approach. It states that when interpreting fundamental rights, international law must be considered while foreign law may be considered (section 39). This thesis aims to develop an adjudicative and institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa that realises the rights of access to social security and to justice in the South African social security system. This is achieved by exploring the concept of access to justice, and its application in the social security adjudication system. The current social security adjudication system is evaluated against the concept of access to justice applicable in international and regional law instruments, comparable South African (non-social security) systems and comparative international jurisdictions. Principles and standards on the establishment of a social security adjudication system are distilled; and a reformed system for South Africa is proposed. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.