Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Judicial Collegiality and Tolerance of Difference: Insights from Justice Johan Froneman's Dissents
View through CrossRef
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 difference. Like his predecessors, Justice Froneman navigated a delicate balance between collegiality and dissent. While the diverse backgrounds and experiences of his judicial colleagues enriched the Court's deliberations, Justice Froneman's dissents demonstrated the need for the Court to function as a cohesive unit to resolve judicial differences. His insistence on understanding the proper context of issues, taking account of relevant facts and synthesising opposite viewpoints was particularly pronounced in cases involving potentially divisive moral and ideological questions. Cases that touched on South Africa's contested political history and the proper role of the Court in a constitutional democracy further provided him with the platform to strike a balance between collegiality and dissent, thereby showing that tensions between unity and diversity among judges can be resolved amicably and that doing so would positively contribute to the development of the Court's jurisprudence on tolerance
Title: Judicial Collegiality and Tolerance of Difference: Insights from Justice Johan Froneman's Dissents
Description:
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 difference.
Like his predecessors, Justice Froneman navigated a delicate balance between collegiality and dissent.
While the diverse backgrounds and experiences of his judicial colleagues enriched the Court's deliberations, Justice Froneman's dissents demonstrated the need for the Court to function as a cohesive unit to resolve judicial differences.
His insistence on understanding the proper context of issues, taking account of relevant facts and synthesising opposite viewpoints was particularly pronounced in cases involving potentially divisive moral and ideological questions.
Cases that touched on South Africa's contested political history and the proper role of the Court in a constitutional democracy further provided him with the platform to strike a balance between collegiality and dissent, thereby showing that tensions between unity and diversity among judges can be resolved amicably and that doing so would positively contribute to the development of the Court's jurisprudence on tolerance.
Related Results
Editorial: Artifacts of judging: Justice Johan Froneman
Editorial: Artifacts of judging: Justice Johan Froneman
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 intellectuall...
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com
Abstract
Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...
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...
Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd: Johan Froneman, the Transformation of Property Law and the Virtue of Small Things
Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd: Johan Froneman, the Transformation of Property Law and the Virtue of Small Things
In this article in honour of Justice Johan Froneman, I consider an early judgment of his on the Constitutional Court, Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd 2...
Priorities of Judicial Review of Complaints as a Component of the Judicial Protection Mechanism for Citizens’ Rights in Pre-Trial Criminal Proceedings
Priorities of Judicial Review of Complaints as a Component of the Judicial Protection Mechanism for Citizens’ Rights in Pre-Trial Criminal Proceedings
Based on the analysis of contemporary scholarly approaches to defining the functional purpose of first-instance courts in ensuring judicial protection of citizens’ rights during pr...
JUDICIAL CONCILIATION AND JUDICIAL CONCILIATOR
JUDICIAL CONCILIATION AND JUDICIAL CONCILIATOR
The article analyzes the provisions of procedural legislation on judicial conciliation and judicial conciliators. The authors review the provisions of several draft laws that conta...
Consideration As A Criminal Sanction
Consideration As A Criminal Sanction
In the list of types of liability traditionally distinguished in the legal system of Armenia, procedural, including criminal, liability was not included. The 1998 edition of
the RA...
Judicial constitutional review and the transformation of modern constitutionalism: problems of harmonization and development
Judicial constitutional review and the transformation of modern constitutionalism: problems of harmonization and development
The relevance of the research topic lies in the significance of judicial constitutional review as a key institution that ensures stability and development of the constitutional ord...

