[ad_1]
By Loyiso Sidimba 
2h ago
Johannesburg – The attempt by the EFF and its leader Julius Malema to repeal the apartheid-era legislation under which the politician is accused of fire failed in the Constitutional Court on Friday.
Malema and the EFF wanted the supreme court to overturn a 2019 North Gauteng Superior Court ruling that dismissed their request for a declaratory order that, constitutionally interpreted, the Intrusion Act of 1959 did not apply to occupants of land protected by the Law for the Extension of Security of Tenure (Esta) and the Law for the Prevention of Evictions and Illicit Occupation of Land (PIE).
He faces three identical charges, which were brought between 2014 and 2016, related to unlawfully and intentionally inciting, instigating, ordering, or procuring EFF supporters and / or others to commit a crime by illegally invading or occupying any vacant lot where whatever they find.
“The sentence of Malema and the economic freedom fighters for an order declaring that the Transfer Law does not apply to squatters under the PIE is rejected,” concluded the ConCourt.
According to the majority ruling written by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, the high court decision declaring section 18 (2) (b) of the Revolutionary Assemblies Law unconstitutional and invalid up to the limited limit of the sentence .
The section establishes that any person who incites, instigates, orders or procures another person to commit a crime, whether under common law or against a statute or legal regulation, will be guilty of a crime and, at the time of his conviction, will be punished with the pain that is imposed. a person convicted of actually committing that crime would be liable.
Instead, the supreme court ruled that the section is declared incompatible with section 16 (1) of the Constitution and is invalid insofar as it criminalizes the incitement of another to commit “any crime.”
Article 16 (1) of the Constitution establishes that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media, freedom to receive or impart information or ideas, freedom of artistic creativity, and academic freedom. and the freedom of scientific dissemination. investigation.
The ConCourt suspended the declaration of nullity for a period of 24 months so that Parliament could correct the constitutional defect.
“During the suspension period of the annulment order, Article 18 (2) (b) of the Revolutionary Assemblies Law must read as follows:” (2) Any person who— (b) incites, instigates, orders or attempts any other person to commit, any [serious] The crime, whether under customary law or against a law or statutory regulation, will be guilty of a crime and, at the time of conviction, will be subject to the penalty that would correspond to a person convicted of having actually committed that crime ” , states the ruling.
The ConCourt continued: “If Parliament does not correct the defect within 24 months from the date of this judgment or within an extended period of suspension, the reading will be final.”
In his dissenting judgment, Judge Steven Majiedt wrote that he would have refused to confirm the nullity of the sentencing portion of the contested provision of the Revolutionary Assemblies Act, granted permission to appeal, and dismissed the appeal of the EFF and Malema, but did not would issue an order on costs.
Political Bureau
[ad_2]
