Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Editorial: Artifacts of judging: Justice Johan Froneman

View through CrossRef
Early in the Constitutional era, in Qozeleni v Minister of Law and Order 1994 3 SA 625 (E) Justice Johan Froneman called for the "rubicon … to be crossed out not only intellectually, but also emotionally before the interpretation and application of the … Constitution is fully to come into its own right". He further argued for the Constitution "to become … a living document". In his many judgements in a judicial career spanning 25 years, Justice Froneman suggested some of what such a crossing of the Rubicon could entail. He also gave meaning to the idea of the Constitution as a living document. The contributions in this special edition unpack, reflect on, evaluate and further the work of and themes tackled by Justice Froneman. Justice Johan Froneman retired from the Constitutional Court in 2020. He was appointed to the Constitutional Court in 2009 after serving as Judge of the Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown (1994-2009); Deputy Judge President of the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court (1996-1999) and two terms in 2002 acting on the Supreme Court of Appeal. In 1999 he was a visitor at Harvard University by invitation of Professor Frank Michelman. He was also Extraordinary Professor in Public Law at Stellenbosch University (2003-2008) and a Visitor at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, in 2008. He is currently an extraordinary professor in the Department of Public Law, University of the Free State. He has delivered judgements in a wide range of cases. Of particular interest is his careful deliberation on issues pertaining to transformation, legal interpretation, property and language. Justice Froneman in his many carefully argued judgements displayed not only the intellectual rigour that he was calling for, but also the emotional and very much personal crossing that he referred to in 1994.
Title: Editorial: Artifacts of judging: Justice Johan Froneman
Description:
Early in the Constitutional era, in Qozeleni v Minister of Law and Order 1994 3 SA 625 (E) Justice Johan Froneman called for the "rubicon … to be crossed out not only intellectually, but also emotionally before the interpretation and application of the … Constitution is fully to come into its own right".
He further argued for the Constitution "to become … a living document".
In his many judgements in a judicial career spanning 25 years, Justice Froneman suggested some of what such a crossing of the Rubicon could entail.
He also gave meaning to the idea of the Constitution as a living document.
The contributions in this special edition unpack, reflect on, evaluate and further the work of and themes tackled by Justice Froneman.
Justice Johan Froneman retired from the Constitutional Court in 2020.
He was appointed to the Constitutional Court in 2009 after serving as Judge of the Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown (1994-2009); Deputy Judge President of the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court (1996-1999) and two terms in 2002 acting on the Supreme Court of Appeal.
In 1999 he was a visitor at Harvard University by invitation of Professor Frank Michelman.
He was also Extraordinary Professor in Public Law at Stellenbosch University (2003-2008) and a Visitor at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, in 2008.
He is currently an extraordinary professor in the Department of Public Law, University of the Free State.
He has delivered judgements in a wide range of cases.
Of particular interest is his careful deliberation on issues pertaining to transformation, legal interpretation, property and language.
Justice Froneman in his many carefully argued judgements displayed not only the intellectual rigour that he was calling for, but also the emotional and very much personal crossing that he referred to in 1994.

Related Results

Judicial Collegiality and Tolerance of Difference: Insights from Justice Johan Froneman's Dissents
Judicial Collegiality and Tolerance of Difference: Insights from Justice Johan Froneman's Dissents
The retirement of Justice Johan Froneman from the Constitutional Court of South Africa provides an ideal opportunity to reflect on his approach to collegiality and tolerance of dif...
Keadilan Restoratif: Upaya Menemukan Keadilan Substantif?
Keadilan Restoratif: Upaya Menemukan Keadilan Substantif?
Substantive justice is an idea of justice that seeks to present it comprehensively and completely in society. Substantive justice in this case does not only interpret the law as li...
Justice paysanne
Justice paysanne
En anthropologie juridique, le terme « justice paysanne » renvoie à l’une des expressions du pluralisme juridique, entendu comme l’existence d’une pluralité d’ordres normatifs, de ...
Restorative Justice in Youth and Adult Criminal Justice
Restorative Justice in Youth and Adult Criminal Justice
Restorative justice is an innovative justice response to crime and offending that takes many forms such as victim-offender meetings, family group conferencing and youth justice con...
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Experiences, Barriers, and Self-Efficacy Enhancement for Social Justice-Oriented Faculty
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Experiences, Barriers, and Self-Efficacy Enhancement for Social Justice-Oriented Faculty
Although a commitment to social justice is central to the identity of counseling psychologists, little is known about how faculty contribute to a culture of social justice. The cur...

Back to Top