Peter Brett
Related Authors
Interests
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Related Authors
Beloit College
University of Witwatersrand
University of Cape Town
University of KwaZulu-Natal
National University of Lesotho
University of Pretoria
Uploads
Papers by Peter Brett
In today's South Africa legal heroism is back. Its Constitutional Court, in particular, has been widely lauded for its role as bulwark against 'state capture' under deposed President Jacob Zuma. For almost a decade its judgements exposed and condemned a series of high-profile corruption scandals. It combated a (Presidential) war on law that had been concealed using secretive security apparatuses entrenched thanks to the global 'war on terror' analysed in Abel's most recent books.
A closer examination of these recent events does however do much to vindicate Abel's earlier scepticism about law's offensive value. As a weapon against state capture it has in fact proved more than double-edged. Opposition parties did, it is true, ultimately succeed in removing Zuma following a series of Constitutional Court judgements against him. But just as in Brazil the spectacular deployment of law to fight the crimes of politicians has subsequently unleashed a whole range of unforseen energies. A Ramaphosa administration styling itself as the return of honest government thus now itself struggles with (racially-tinged) state capture allegations advanced by both opposition parties and those suspected of sympathy with the ancien régime.
A second such offensive use became increasingly routine over the course of Zuma's tenure. The higher courts began to be constantly elicted by non-govermental organisations in an effort to substitute structural interdicts for Executive inaction. Judges assumed responsibility for day-to-day administration. One almost inevitable casualty of this development was the rule of law as traditionally understood. The sheer onrush of urgent matters requiring immediate remedy saw the Constitutional Court increasingly ignore competing pressures to establish precedent and clarify principle. The whole episode provides yet another illustration of the porosity of the law/politics boundary in exceptional times.
Cette contribution explore le phénomène grandissant de remise en cause, par voie judiciaire, de questions afférentes à la légitimité gouvernementale par de simples citoyens. Pour ce faire, elle s’appuie sur la genèse et le déroulement de trois affaires récentes en Afrique australe. Un aspect marquant de ces trois affaires a été l’implication d’avocats sud-africains. Trois facteurs expliquent les ressorts de ce « cause lawyering ». La mondialisation du droit a d’abord ouvert de nouveaux leviers d’actions judiciaires. La longue histoire de domination des juristes sud-africains sur la région leur a, en retour, permis d’exploiter de telles opportunités. Enfin, la transformation des litiges de pays voisins en véritables « causes » a résulté également de l’intensification des conflits internes à la profession juridique en Afrique du Sud.
In today's South Africa legal heroism is back. Its Constitutional Court, in particular, has been widely lauded for its role as bulwark against 'state capture' under deposed President Jacob Zuma. For almost a decade its judgements exposed and condemned a series of high-profile corruption scandals. It combated a (Presidential) war on law that had been concealed using secretive security apparatuses entrenched thanks to the global 'war on terror' analysed in Abel's most recent books.
A closer examination of these recent events does however do much to vindicate Abel's earlier scepticism about law's offensive value. As a weapon against state capture it has in fact proved more than double-edged. Opposition parties did, it is true, ultimately succeed in removing Zuma following a series of Constitutional Court judgements against him. But just as in Brazil the spectacular deployment of law to fight the crimes of politicians has subsequently unleashed a whole range of unforseen energies. A Ramaphosa administration styling itself as the return of honest government thus now itself struggles with (racially-tinged) state capture allegations advanced by both opposition parties and those suspected of sympathy with the ancien régime.
A second such offensive use became increasingly routine over the course of Zuma's tenure. The higher courts began to be constantly elicted by non-govermental organisations in an effort to substitute structural interdicts for Executive inaction. Judges assumed responsibility for day-to-day administration. One almost inevitable casualty of this development was the rule of law as traditionally understood. The sheer onrush of urgent matters requiring immediate remedy saw the Constitutional Court increasingly ignore competing pressures to establish precedent and clarify principle. The whole episode provides yet another illustration of the porosity of the law/politics boundary in exceptional times.
Cette contribution explore le phénomène grandissant de remise en cause, par voie judiciaire, de questions afférentes à la légitimité gouvernementale par de simples citoyens. Pour ce faire, elle s’appuie sur la genèse et le déroulement de trois affaires récentes en Afrique australe. Un aspect marquant de ces trois affaires a été l’implication d’avocats sud-africains. Trois facteurs expliquent les ressorts de ce « cause lawyering ». La mondialisation du droit a d’abord ouvert de nouveaux leviers d’actions judiciaires. La longue histoire de domination des juristes sud-africains sur la région leur a, en retour, permis d’exploiter de telles opportunités. Enfin, la transformation des litiges de pays voisins en véritables « causes » a résulté également de l’intensification des conflits internes à la profession juridique en Afrique du Sud.
The book begins with three conditions that have made judicialisation possible in Africa as a whole; new corporate rights norms (including the expansion of indigenous rights), the proliferation of new avenues for legal proceedings, and the development of new support structures enabling litigation. It then studies the effects of these changes based on fieldwork in three Southern African countries – Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana. Examining three recent court cases involving international law, international courts and transnational NGOs, it looks beyond some of international relations’ established models to explain when and why and legal rights can be clarified.
This text will be of key interest to scholars and students of African politics and human rights, and more broadly to international relations and international law and justice.
Adom Getachew; Reviews by Sarah Gray, Radia Kesseiri and Peter Brett
This article was published on 30 September 2021
Paper given at BISA Annual Conference, June 5th 2024.