But we should be wary of the analysis offered in Dambisa Moyo's influential new book.
This application is to declare section 1 1 b of the Intimidation Act unconstitutional and invalid. The offence is also committed where no fear is in fact created. All that need be established is speech or conduct which, reasonably apprehended, might have created fear.
In other words, a person may be convicted under section 1 1 b if they expressed themselves in a manner that put someone, somewhere in fear, or might reasonably have been expected to do so.
The fear need not be specific. A complainant need only allege that they feared, or might reasonably have feared, or that someone else feared, or might reasonably have feared, for themselves, their property, their livelihood, or the persons, property or livelihoods of others.
This constitutes a far-reaching interference with the right to freedom of expression contained in section 16 of the Constitution. This application therefore argues that the breadth of the interference with section 16 of the Constitution that section 1 1 b creates cannot be justified in terms of the limitation clause in section 36 of the Constitution, and the section accordingly falls to be declared unconstitutional and invalid.
In April heads of argument were filed in the Moyo case. This case seeks to have section 1 2 of the Intimidation Act declared unconstitutional and invalid. The application was dismissed on 30 Novemberand the court refused to declare section 1 1 b inconsistent with section 36 of the Constitution.
SERI filed for leave to appeal the decision.
In it, the Court reasoned that the restriction of the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and necessary, and the fact that section 1 1 b of the Act covers expressions that also fall outside the restriction in section 16 2 of the Constitution does not mean that it violates, or is contrary to, any fundamental rights, as long as such expressions instil the fear of being harmed or personal safety being compromised.
In light of this judgment, SERI supplemented its grounds and argued the leave to appeal on 22 March Under this section, an accused person must sacrifice the rights to silence and against self-incrimination, if he or she is to be given the benefit of the presumption of innocence.
If, on the other hand, he or she wishes to exercise his or her rights to silence and protection from self-incrimination, he or she must accept that he or she will not be presumed innocent. The SCA judges, however, differed in some aspects of the judgment.
The majority judgment, written by Wallis JA, found that section 1 2 breaches the right to silence while the minority judgment, written by Mbha JA, found that section 1 2 created an unconstitutional reverse onus, which required, in some circumstances, an accused person to prove the lawfulness of an utterance without the prosecution leading any evidence of its unlawfulness.
In relation to section 1 1 bthe minority found section 1 1 b unconstitutional as it infringes the right to free expression and upheld the appeal. On 18 JulyMoyo filed an application for leave to appeal the matter to the Constitutional Court.
The application for leave to appeal argues that the majority judgment of the SCA that found section 1 1 b of the Intimidation Act constitutionally compliant is incorrect because the judges misconstrued the purpose and effect of this section in historical context and that the judges applied an interpretation to section 1 1 b that "it cannot reasonably bear".
This, Moyo argues, indicates that the SCA should have declared section 1 1 b unconstitutional as it is "plainly inconsistent with the Constitution".
The matter will be heard in the Constitutional Court on 18 February Directives in the Constitutional Court 1 August here. Judgment in the Supreme Court of Appeal 20 June here.
Moyo heads of argument 20 April here. Sonti heads of argument 20 April here. Notice of motion 7 April here. Founding affidavit 7 April here.Opinion & Analysis; World; Search; Con-Court reserves ruling in Moyo's case.
Tendai Kamhungira • 15 June PM • 1 comment. HARARE – Chief Justice Luke Malaba yesterday said Cabinet minister and Zanu PF politburo member Jonathan Moyo did not exhaust all remedies available to him when he approached the Constitutional .
Born and raised in Lusaka, Zambia, Moyo has spent the past eight years at Goldman Sachs as head of economic research and strategy for sub-Saharan Africa, and . Why Dead Aid is Dead Wrong. But we should be wary of the analysis offered in Dambisa Moyo's influential new book. Africa is represented as a basket case for human development--a "zero.
Case Study - Retail Analytics using Microsoft Azure Machine Learning Solutions A Retail Store Chain is predicting revenues and store locations using Azure Machine Learning & Power BI Read how a Global Retail Chain, with the help of Microsoft Azure Machine Learning Solution, was .
Cases of Leprosy infection in West Nile region are on the rise, health officials have said. MOYO. Cases of Leprosy infection in West Nile region are on the rise, health officials have said. District News & Analysis. Adjumani Arua Koboko Maracha Moyo Nebbi Pakwach translating to 01 case per population at the national level under the. A Case Study of Zimbabweans at University of Fort Hare Alice Campus South Africa Zimbabwean students ‘populace at the University of Fort Hare consists of the Shona, Ndebele, Kalanga, Nambya, Tonga, Shangani and Venda. Inocent Moyo of University of Zululand, Richards Bay (uzulu). Read 33 publications, and contact Inocent Moyo on ResearchGate, the professional network for scientists.
Moyo filed an affidavit in this case in which he does not deny this allegation. Five other Members of Parliament are named as having displayed their ballot papers before depositing them in the ballot box.
A Case Study of Zimbabweans at University of Fort Hare Alice Campus South Africa Zimbabwean students ‘populace at the University of Fort Hare consists of the Shona, Ndebele, Kalanga, Nambya, Tonga, Shangani and Venda.