Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
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
Academy of Science of South Africa
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

The Role of the Judiciary in Constitutional Interpretation in Pakistan
The Role of the Judiciary in Constitutional Interpretation in Pakistan
This study examines the evolving role of the judiciary in Pakistan in interpreting the Constitution, exploring how the courts have come to terms with their position as the primary ...
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...
Judicial Review Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Kehakiman
Judicial Review Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Kehakiman
The discourse between the application of judicial activism or judicial restraint has become a hot issue of judicial review authority where recently the Constitutional Court through...
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...
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...

Back to Top