Law Commons^™

Chief Justice Mogoeng V Africa4palestine And Others [2021] Jsc/819/20; Jsc/825/20; And Jsc/ 826/20, Dunia P. Zongwe

SAIPAR Case Review

This is a judgment against the first judge among his peers: the Chief Justice. Handed down by the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) of South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission (JSC), this judgment involves the remarks made in 2020 by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at a webinar hosted by a pro-Israel, conservative, Zionist newspaper. During that webinar, Mogoeng criticized the South African government’s official policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Following Mogoeng’s faux pas and a loud public outcry, three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) lodged complaints with the JCC against Mogoeng for his Israel comments.

This appeal judgment largely confirms the JCC’s earlier complaint …

Chief Justice Mumba Malila And The Challenges Ahead: An Editorial, O'Brien Kaaba, Kafumu Kalyalya

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Savenda Management Services Limited V Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited And Gregory Chifire Selected Judgment No. 47 Of 2018, Elliot Mfune

SAIPAR Case Review

The case of Savenda Management Services Limited v Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited and Gregory Chifire is significant in that it raises the question whether Zambian judges have virtually unbridled power to move on their own motion to punish for contempt of court any person who criticises their judgements. In addition, the case reinforces the traditional struggles associated with distinguishing civil from criminal contempt, the consequences of which are entirely based on the distinction. The case is also important as it exposes inadequate sentencing guidelines in Zambian contempt laws, the effect of which has led to excessive and unwarranted sentences. A …

Savenda Management Services Limited V Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited & Gregory Chifire (Alleged Contemnor) (Appeal No. 37/2017) [2018] Zmsc 11, Mwami Kabwabwa

SAIPAR Case Review

Adjudicators have a social responsibility. When the Judiciary/judges carry out their constitutional mandate of dispensing justice it is critical to bear in mind that judges carry a level of responsibility for the impact that their decisions have on society. For this reason, judges ought to be held responsible for every judgment they render either good or bad. Contempt is an exceedingly powerful instrument in the hands of the courts to tame the conduct and behaviour of lawyers and lay people who come into contact with judicial authority. Like any other power, the exercise of contempt power has to be checked. …

The Paradoxical Impact Of Scalia's Campaign Against Legislative History, Stuart Minor Benjamin, Kristen M. Renberg

Cornell Law Review

Beginning in 1985, Judge and then Justice Antonin Scalia advocated forcefully against the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. Justice Scalia's position, in line with his textualism, was that legislative history was irrelevant and judges should avoid invoking it. Reactions to his attacks among Justices and prominent circuit judges had an ideological quality, with greater support from ideological conservatives. In this Article, we consider the role that political party and timing ofjudicial nomination played in circuit judges' use of legislative history. Specifically, we hypothesize that Republican circuit judges were more likely to respond to the attacks on legislative history …

Queer Eyes Don't Sympathize: An Empirical Investigation Of Lgb Identity And Judicial Decision Making, Jared Ham, Chan Tov Mcnarrara

Cornell Law Review

Do Lesbian, gay, and bisexual judicial decision makers differ from their heterosexual counterparts? Over the past decade much has been said about queer judges, with many suggesting that they cannot be impartial in cases involving LGBTQ+ parties or religious interests. To investigate these questions, this Note presents the findings of the first empirical analysis of the decision making of lesbian, gay, and bisexual judges in the United States.

Examining employment-discrimination litigation, this Note finds no evidence that a judge's sexual orientation affects the outcome of the cases they decide on the merits. Specifically, looking to one year of data from …

The Six-Month List And The Unintended Consequences Of Judicial Accountibility, Miguel F. P. De Figueiredo, Alexandra D. Lahav, Peter Siegelman

Cornell Law Review

A little-known mechanism instituted to improve judicial accountability and speed up the work of the federal judiciary has led to unintended consequences, many of them unfortunate. Federal district court judges are subject to a soft deadline known as the Six-Month List (the List). By law, every judge's backlog (cases older than three years and motions pending more than six months) is made public twice a year. Because judges have life tenure and fixed salaries, a mere reporting requirement should not influence their behavior. But it does. Using the complete record of all federal civil cases between 1980 and 2017 and …

Attorney General V Mutuna And Others (Appeal No. 088/2012) [2013] Zmsc 38, Muna B. Ndulo

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Reform, Constitutionalism And The Rule Of Law In Zambia: From A Justice System To A Just System, Muna Ndulo

Zambia Social Science Journal

In Zambia it is generally agreed on by all stakeholders that the judicial system needs reform to make it more accountable, independent, and able to deliver justice efficiently and effectively. This article discusses judicial reform in the context of the independence of the judiciary. It tries to unpack the term judicial reform. It argues that for the rule of law and constitutionalism to prevail it is crucial that the judiciary is independent and there is separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, and legislature and the judiciary. For judges to be personally and substantively independent they need security …