Panelists in a debate relating to the proposed establishment of a Constitutional Court argue that the specialised court will play a crucial role in interpreting, safeguarding and nullifying laws that infringe on fundamental human rights and the Constitution.

Deliberating at a ConCourt debate at Letlhakeng recently, the five panelists expressed their endorsement of the initiative.

They further emphasised that the ConCourt would protect the rights of marginalised communities and ensured equitable representation, particularly within Ntlo ya Dikgosi.

One of the panelists, Mr Jimmy Thukwi, a student attorney, said that the ConCourt would interpret the Constitution to make sure that certain fundamental human rights were not compromised.

He added that it would also safeguard the rights of minority groups. He said that it would ensure that no law was inconsistent with the Constitution.

However, he criticised Bogosi Act of 2008 and the Tribal Land Act, stating that the two pieces of legislation contained provisions that promote dunfair tribal discrimination.

Therefore, he expressed hope that the ConCourt would help address identified injustices existing in some pieces of legislation.

Another panelist, Letlhakeng MP, Brigadier Domcaza Mokgwathi, said the ConCourt would preserve the basic human rights enshrined in the Constitution and serve as a voice for the voiceless.

He added that it would also reinforce democratic principles. 

Mr Thobo Nthukwi stated that ConCourt would interpret the Constitution and safeguard fundamental human rights, including freedom of association and other human rights protections.

Other panelists, including Mr Mosupi Motsonono and Ms Tetelelo Dinoge, expressed similar views, stating that the introduction of the ConCourt was well-timed.

From the audience, Mr Mafoko Dingake said that the ConCourt would provide solutions to human rights violations faced by citizens and would serve even the most disadvantaged members of the community.

Mr Maikgantsho Ramontsho called for an overhaul of the Constitution before setting up a ConCourt.

He warned that if the country establishes the ConCourt before refining its Constitution, the former might set incorrect precedents as it would base its judgments on an inconsistent Constitution.

He said without prior overhaul of the Constitution, the ConCourt will serve and be dictated to by what was contained in the supreme law of the country and by so doing only protected and served what was contained in the Constitution.

“Ideally, the ConCourt should enforce laws that are clearly established in the Constitution or abolish laws that contradict it,” he said.

Mr Lefty Ramotshwai said that the timing was not appropriate, therefore urging government to give preference to Constitutional review before setting up a ConCourt. ENDS