This dissertation analyses whether the rights of indigenous people are being recognised, respected and upheld when the state awards prospecting and mining rights on land owned and lawfully occupied by indigenous people in South Africa. This analysis is based on the fact that most prospecting and mining rights in South Africa are awarded on or around communal lands where rural communities and, in some instances, indigenous people reside. Through the Constitution, the NEMA, the MPRDA and other environmental sector-specific legislation examples, it is established that the state tends to prioritise economic development that alienates indigenous peoples' right to live in a healthy and safe environment as a result of the on-going mining operations. A sustainable approach which appreciates the balance between economic, social and environmental sustainability is proposed as a means and step towards realisation of South Africa's mineral wealth, the right of communities to live in a healthy environment and community, as well as prior consultation when prospecting and mining rights are awarded on communal lands. The approach of the Bengwenyama-ye-Maswati Constitutional Court decision pertaining to the rights of local communities and indigenous people when mining takes place in South Africa is adopted to link the three sustainability pillars to the realisation of the rights of these local communities. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Domestic Violence is a pervasive social evil which must be combated with every means possible. To this end, the legislator enacted the Domestic Violence Act, 116 of 1998 (hereafter referred to as the DVA) to provide for a fast and accessible process by which the victims of domestic abuse can obtain an interdict to protect themselves against further acts of violence. Section 7(1)(c) of the DVA allows for a court, when considering an application made for a protection order in terms of the Act, to make an order prohibiting the Respondent from entering the shared residence of the Applicant and Respondent. Section 7(1)(d) allows for a court, when considering an application as mentioned, to make an order prohibiting the Respondent from entering any specific part of the shared residence. It is argued that the orders provided for in sections 7(1)(c) and (d) amounts, de facto, to an order that evicts the Respondent from the shared residence. Evictions are a traumatic procedure for the person(s) concerned, and endangers a large variety of human rights. It should therefore be approached with extreme caution to ensure that no person’s fundamental rights are infringed. Section 26(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Constitution) determines that no person(s) may be evicted from their home without a valid order of court, which order should be granted only after taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances. Specific pieces of legislation have been enacted to regulate the eviction process, prescribing specific procedures and setting requirements for a legal eviction. When an order is given in terms of section 7(1)(c) of the DVA, these procedures are not followed and the requirements are not met, resulting in illegal evictions. These orders may further infringe upon certain fundamental rights of the Respondent, such as the constitutional property rights set out in section 25, and the right of access to the courts. The concerned sections of the DVA can be justified under section 36 of the Constitution. However, it is argued that the DVA is in practice frequently misused by applicants, to such an extent that it becomes a tool of abuse, defying the whole purpose of the Act and extreme caution should be used by presiding officers when considering applications for orders in terms of sections 7(1)(c) and (d) of the DVA. / LLM, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

This dissertation analyses whether the rights of indigenous people are being recognised, respected and upheld when the state awards prospecting and mining rights on land owned and lawfully occupied by indigenous people in South Africa. This analysis is based on the fact that most prospecting and mining rights in South Africa are awarded on or around communal lands where rural communities and, in some instances, indigenous people reside. Through the Constitution, the NEMA, the MPRDA and other environmental sector-specific legislation examples, it is established that the state tends to prioritise economic development that alienates indigenous peoples' right to live in a healthy and safe environment as a result of the on-going mining operations. A sustainable approach which appreciates the balance between economic, social and environmental sustainability is proposed as a means and step towards realisation of South Africa's mineral wealth, the right of communities to live in a healthy environment and community, as well as prior consultation when prospecting and mining rights are awarded on communal lands. The approach of the Bengwenyama-ye-Maswati Constitutional Court decision pertaining to the rights of local communities and indigenous people when mining takes place in South Africa is adopted to link the three sustainability pillars to the realisation of the rights of these local communities. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Domestic Violence is a pervasive social evil which must be combated with every means possible. To this end, the legislator enacted the Domestic Violence Act, 116 of 1998 (hereafter referred to as the DVA) to provide for a fast and accessible process by which the victims of domestic abuse can obtain an interdict to protect themselves against further acts of violence. Section 7(1)(c) of the DVA allows for a court, when considering an application made for a protection order in terms of the Act, to make an order prohibiting the Respondent from entering the shared residence of the Applicant and Respondent. Section 7(1)(d) allows for a court, when considering an application as mentioned, to make an order prohibiting the Respondent from entering any specific part of the shared residence. It is argued that the orders provided for in sections 7(1)(c) and (d) amounts, de facto, to an order that evicts the Respondent from the shared residence. Evictions are a traumatic procedure for the person(s) concerned, and endangers a large variety of human rights. It should therefore be approached with extreme caution to ensure that no person’s fundamental rights are infringed. Section 26(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Constitution) determines that no person(s) may be evicted from their home without a valid order of court, which order should be granted only after taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances. Specific pieces of legislation have been enacted to regulate the eviction process, prescribing specific procedures and setting requirements for a legal eviction. When an order is given in terms of section 7(1)(c) of the DVA, these procedures are not followed and the requirements are not met, resulting in illegal evictions. These orders may further infringe upon certain fundamental rights of the Respondent, such as the constitutional property rights set out in section 25, and the right of access to the courts. The concerned sections of the DVA can be justified under section 36 of the Constitution. However, it is argued that the DVA is in practice frequently misused by applicants, to such an extent that it becomes a tool of abuse, defying the whole purpose of the Act and extreme caution should be used by presiding officers when considering applications for orders in terms of sections 7(1)(c) and (d) of the DVA. / LLM, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

'n Onafhanklike, ondersoekende en verantwoordelike media word beskou as een van die belangrikste rolspelers waarvan die behoud van die demokrasie in Suid- Afrika afhanklik is. Die regte en vryhede van die media geniet grondwetlike erkenning en beskerming. As fundamentele regte en onontbeerlike komponente van mediavryheid, waarborg die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, 1996 aan elkeen die reg op vryheid van uitdrukking (artikel 16) en die reg op toegang tot inligting (artikel 32). Die grondwetlike beskerming van mediavryheid bemagtig die media om (i) openbare aangeleenthede in belang van die publiek aan te spreek, (ii) die staat tot deursigtigheid, openheid en verantwoording op te roep en (iii) as teenwig teen magsmisbruik en wanpraktyke aan regeringskant op te tree. Die reg op mediavryheid is egter nie absoluut afdwingbaar nie en kan gevolglik in die toepassing daarvan beperk word. Die staat beskik oor die gesag om dié reg aan beperkings onderhewig te stel ten einde ander individuele fundamentele regte te beskerm of belangrike openbare belange te dien. Sodanige staatsoptrede is egter slegs moontlik indien dit, weens die oppergesag van die Grondwet (artikel 2), in ooreenstemming met die grondwetlike bepalings geskied. Desnieteenstaande word die media, ondanks die belangrike rol wat hulle ter behoud van die demokrasie in Suid-Afrika vervul en die grondwetlike erkenning en beskerming wat aan mediavryheid verleen word, voortdurend onder groot druk geplaas. Die meeste druk kom van die staat se kant. Die aanname en beoogde implementering van die Protection of State Information Bill, 2010 dien as mees resente voorbeeld hiervan. Staats- en administratiefregtelike beperkings op mediavryheid sal, indien die Wetsontwerp gepromulgeer word, aan die orde van die dag wees. Aangesien die voorgenome beperkings op grond van hulle potensiële ongrondwetlikheid wyd gekritiseer word, is dit die vernaamste doel van hierdie studie om die grondwetlike grense waarbinne die staat mediavryheid mag beperk, te omlyn en ondersoek in te stel na die trefwydte en grondwetlikheid van die staat se gesag om beperkings op mediavryheid te plaas. Deur die omvang van staatsgesag in die algemeen en in besonder rakende die beperking van mediavryheid, aan die hand van die relevante grondwetlike voorskrifte te ondersoek, is bevind dat alle staatsoptrede streng deur die Grondwet gereguleer word. Alhoewel die reg op mediavryheid vatbaar is vir regulering en beperking, is tot die slotsom gekom dat die Grondwet ingevolge artikels 33 en 36 duidelike grense vir die beperking daarvan deur die staat stel. Alle uitvoerende en administratiewe staatsorgane wat kragtens wetgewing en uit hoofde van die diskresionêre bevoegdhede wat aan hulle verleen word, die reg op mediavryheid beperk, moet aan die vereistes vir regverdige administratiewe optrede voldoen. Bygevolg moet alle administratiewe besluite en handelinge wat die reg op mediavryheid beperk, regmatig, redelik en prosedureel billik wees en met die verskaffing van voldoende skriftelike redes gepaard gaan. Sowel staatsregtelike as administratiefregtelike beperkings op mediavryheid moet voldoen aan die vereistes wat die algemene beperkingsklousule vir die grondwetlike beperking van fundamentele regte stel. Enige beperking van die reg op mediavryheid moet dus kragtens 'n algemeen geldende regsvoorskrif geskied en moet, met in agneming van die artikel 36-sleutelfaktore, as redelik en regverdigbaar binne 'n oop en demokratiese samelewing gebaseer op menswaardigheid, gelykheid en vryheid plaasvind. Enige staats- en administratiefregtelike beperkings op mediavryheid wat nie aan hierdie grondwetlike vereistes voldoen nie, is gevolglik ongrondwetlik. Nadat die bepalings ter beperking van mediavryheid deur die Protection of State Information Bill, 2010 krities ontleed is, is bevind dat dit nie daarin sal slaag om die grondwetlike toets te slaag nie. / LLM, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

This study focuses on the impact of legal representation in general as well as on CCMA proceedings involving unfair dismissals relating to conduction on capacity. The study also touches on the common law position before the enactment of Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956 and Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. Rule 25 of CCMA rules which makes provision that legal representation at CCMA arbitration proceedings relating to fairness of dismissal and party has alleged that the reason for dismissal relates to the employees conduct on capacity, the party is not entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner. The dissertation analyses the effect of this provision on the Constitutional rights to legal representations well as rights relating to fair procedure. Refusal of legal representation in certain instances is justified in the right of legislative requirements on obligation placed particularly on the arbitrator legislative measures which, justifies refusal of legal representation at CCMA that cannot be imposed without giving consideration to the Constitution. The study will highlight the South African case on position with regards to legal representation at CCMA. A literature study will be done using current and researched sources such as textbooks, law journals, and legislation, case law, conferences papers and internet sources. Different rights will be weighed up through literature sources. / LLM (Labour Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Section 28(1)(d) of the Constitution guarantees a child the right to be protected against abuse. When a child’s constitutional rights are violated by an offender by means of sexual abuse and degradation, the state has a legal responsibility to restore that right. In determining whether the state is adhering to its legal responsibility to socially reintegrate sexually abused children, the Constitution, the VEP, the Victims’ Charter, the UPVM, legislation and one-stop centres were explored. It was found that none of these programs, charters and documents places an obligation on the state. Section 39(1)(b) of the Constitution states that the court must consider international law when interpreting the Bill of Rights. The CRC, ACRWC, United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles were studied. It was found that although South Africa is a signatory to everyone, it does not adhere to the principles stated in the respected document. Section 39(1)(c) of the Constitution states that the court may consider foreign law when interpreting the Bill of Rights. The dissertation does not consist of a comparative study. Each of Canada, Australia and New Zealand’s legislation was studied relating to compensation schemes in order to determine what lessons can be drawn from the three countries. It was found that each country has a unique compensation scheme. Although South Africa can learn from the way in which these schemes are administered and funded, the schemes of the three countries are not beyond critique. South Africa can therefore also take note of the negative aspects of the compensation schemes of the three countries so as to improve on it. It was found that through a literature study the state does not adhere to its legal responsibility to socially reintegrate sexually abused children. It is recommended that the state should consider implementing a state-funded compensation scheme to assist the children that have fallen victim to sexual abuse and degradation. / LLM, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

'n Onafhanklike, ondersoekende en verantwoordelike media word beskou as een van die belangrikste rolspelers waarvan die behoud van die demokrasie in Suid- Afrika afhanklik is. Die regte en vryhede van die media geniet grondwetlike erkenning en beskerming. As fundamentele regte en onontbeerlike komponente van mediavryheid, waarborg die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, 1996 aan elkeen die reg op vryheid van uitdrukking (artikel 16) en die reg op toegang tot inligting (artikel 32). Die grondwetlike beskerming van mediavryheid bemagtig die media om (i) openbare aangeleenthede in belang van die publiek aan te spreek, (ii) die staat tot deursigtigheid, openheid en verantwoording op te roep en (iii) as teenwig teen magsmisbruik en wanpraktyke aan regeringskant op te tree. Die reg op mediavryheid is egter nie absoluut afdwingbaar nie en kan gevolglik in die toepassing daarvan beperk word. Die staat beskik oor die gesag om dié reg aan beperkings onderhewig te stel ten einde ander individuele fundamentele regte te beskerm of belangrike openbare belange te dien. Sodanige staatsoptrede is egter slegs moontlik indien dit, weens die oppergesag van die Grondwet (artikel 2), in ooreenstemming met die grondwetlike bepalings geskied. Desnieteenstaande word die media, ondanks die belangrike rol wat hulle ter behoud van die demokrasie in Suid-Afrika vervul en die grondwetlike erkenning en beskerming wat aan mediavryheid verleen word, voortdurend onder groot druk geplaas. Die meeste druk kom van die staat se kant. Die aanname en beoogde implementering van die Protection of State Information Bill, 2010 dien as mees resente voorbeeld hiervan. Staats- en administratiefregtelike beperkings op mediavryheid sal, indien die Wetsontwerp gepromulgeer word, aan die orde van die dag wees. Aangesien die voorgenome beperkings op grond van hulle potensiële ongrondwetlikheid wyd gekritiseer word, is dit die vernaamste doel van hierdie studie om die grondwetlike grense waarbinne die staat mediavryheid mag beperk, te omlyn en ondersoek in te stel na die trefwydte en grondwetlikheid van die staat se gesag om beperkings op mediavryheid te plaas. Deur die omvang van staatsgesag in die algemeen en in besonder rakende die beperking van mediavryheid, aan die hand van die relevante grondwetlike voorskrifte te ondersoek, is bevind dat alle staatsoptrede streng deur die Grondwet gereguleer word. Alhoewel die reg op mediavryheid vatbaar is vir regulering en beperking, is tot die slotsom gekom dat die Grondwet ingevolge artikels 33 en 36 duidelike grense vir die beperking daarvan deur die staat stel. Alle uitvoerende en administratiewe staatsorgane wat kragtens wetgewing en uit hoofde van die diskresionêre bevoegdhede wat aan hulle verleen word, die reg op mediavryheid beperk, moet aan die vereistes vir regverdige administratiewe optrede voldoen. Bygevolg moet alle administratiewe besluite en handelinge wat die reg op mediavryheid beperk, regmatig, redelik en prosedureel billik wees en met die verskaffing van voldoende skriftelike redes gepaard gaan. Sowel staatsregtelike as administratiefregtelike beperkings op mediavryheid moet voldoen aan die vereistes wat die algemene beperkingsklousule vir die grondwetlike beperking van fundamentele regte stel. Enige beperking van die reg op mediavryheid moet dus kragtens 'n algemeen geldende regsvoorskrif geskied en moet, met in agneming van die artikel 36-sleutelfaktore, as redelik en regverdigbaar binne 'n oop en demokratiese samelewing gebaseer op menswaardigheid, gelykheid en vryheid plaasvind. Enige staats- en administratiefregtelike beperkings op mediavryheid wat nie aan hierdie grondwetlike vereistes voldoen nie, is gevolglik ongrondwetlik. Nadat die bepalings ter beperking van mediavryheid deur die Protection of State Information Bill, 2010 krities ontleed is, is bevind dat dit nie daarin sal slaag om die grondwetlike toets te slaag nie. / LLM, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

This study focuses on the impact of legal representation in general as well as on CCMA proceedings involving unfair dismissals relating to conduction on capacity. The study also touches on the common law position before the enactment of Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956 and Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. Rule 25 of CCMA rules which makes provision that legal representation at CCMA arbitration proceedings relating to fairness of dismissal and party has alleged that the reason for dismissal relates to the employees conduct on capacity, the party is not entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner. The dissertation analyses the effect of this provision on the Constitutional rights to legal representations well as rights relating to fair procedure. Refusal of legal representation in certain instances is justified in the right of legislative requirements on obligation placed particularly on the arbitrator legislative measures which, justifies refusal of legal representation at CCMA that cannot be imposed without giving consideration to the Constitution. The study will highlight the South African case on position with regards to legal representation at CCMA. A literature study will be done using current and researched sources such as textbooks, law journals, and legislation, case law, conferences papers and internet sources. Different rights will be weighed up through literature sources. / LLM (Labour Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Section 28(1)(d) of the Constitution guarantees a child the right to be protected against abuse. When a child’s constitutional rights are violated by an offender by means of sexual abuse and degradation, the state has a legal responsibility to restore that right. In determining whether the state is adhering to its legal responsibility to socially reintegrate sexually abused children, the Constitution, the VEP, the Victims’ Charter, the UPVM, legislation and one-stop centres were explored. It was found that none of these programs, charters and documents places an obligation on the state. Section 39(1)(b) of the Constitution states that the court must consider international law when interpreting the Bill of Rights. The CRC, ACRWC, United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles were studied. It was found that although South Africa is a signatory to everyone, it does not adhere to the principles stated in the respected document. Section 39(1)(c) of the Constitution states that the court may consider foreign law when interpreting the Bill of Rights. The dissertation does not consist of a comparative study. Each of Canada, Australia and New Zealand’s legislation was studied relating to compensation schemes in order to determine what lessons can be drawn from the three countries. It was found that each country has a unique compensation scheme. Although South Africa can learn from the way in which these schemes are administered and funded, the schemes of the three countries are not beyond critique. South Africa can therefore also take note of the negative aspects of the compensation schemes of the three countries so as to improve on it. It was found that through a literature study the state does not adhere to its legal responsibility to socially reintegrate sexually abused children. It is recommended that the state should consider implementing a state-funded compensation scheme to assist the children that have fallen victim to sexual abuse and degradation. / LLM, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014