The 11th of September has become a day associated with terror. On this day in 2001 in the United States of America faced a great attack of terrorist who claimed the lives of many Americans. A similar event occurred on 11 September and 12 September 2014 in South Africa as Judge Thokozile Masipa released her verdict. The DIFFERENCE this time is that the world was not attacked by terrorists but by ignorance! Everyone felt like a judge and felt the power to hand down judgment on Oscar Pistorious based on their un-tested versions and opinions and conscience despite the learned judge’s explanation of the rules of evidence and procedure. Judge Masipa displayed respect for the rule of law and came to her conclusion based on what the law says. The judge allowed law of evidence, criminal law and procedure and all tests involved to play their role as the main sources of law and key determinants of the outcome of cases. Conscience, which is influenced by religion, ideology, philosophy, gender and race among many PLAYS a major role in how human being make judgment. Our morality and beliefs GUIDE the way we think and make decisions. The learned judge displayed freedom in her thinking, the judge displayed independence from all influencing factors and has to be applauded as one of those who have obtain such in a world where people’s minds are boxed by culture and religion. Masipa is a black, elderly woman who could have easily released an extremely negative verdict against Pistorious despite the law and the poor performance on the state during presentation of evidence had she followed conscience like all her critics are doing. If this was a law CLASS I would break down the South African adjective law division and enlighten the public more on the role of the judge during any trial. It is through the lack of understanding of adjective law and the court system that most people criticize the judge today instead of the state’s legal team for failure to provide relevant evidence during the trial to prove murder and not possibilities of murder. The Whatsapp messages and the expert witnesses all suggested possibility which was a waste of time in a court of law in South Africa. Nothing presented by the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that Oscar had the intention to kill Reeva Steenkamp and the law prohibits the judge to just decide to accept the argument of the APPLICANT until this has been achieved. The defendant on the other hand is not required to prove his innocence and failure on his side to do so did not affect him. It was upon the state to prove his guilt and not the judge which is where almost everyone got lost. The judge was a referee and the two legal teams were the players during the trial. Barry Roux was a goalkeeper and Gerrie Nel was a penalty shooter. You cannot blame the judge for Barry Roux’s ability to prevent Gerrie Nel from scoring enough goals and you cannot blame the judge for Gerrie Nel’s failure to score goals. Direct all criticism to the National Prosecution Authority and not the judiciary. Judges are facilitators and should uphold the law. Their duty is to test for legality which is what Judge Masipa did during this trial. FINALLY, the right to access to justice was upheld during this trial. Oscar Pistorious was treated with respect and dignity as innocent by the court despite prejudice from the public. Procedure triumphs over merit!
Posted on: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:47:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015