The Sovereign Voice issue 4 | Page 8

UZA DIRECTIONS HEARING 3 Unified Common Law Grand Jury of Southern Africa In February 2016, the Applicant UZA requested that the Applicant be able to change the cause of action before the ITNJ. This request, which the Applicant (or any Party) has the right to give, presented many issues because prior to February, the matter was ready to proceed to a trial. Given that the ITNJ then had to clarify UZA’s position in the matter, another directions hearing was held on 14 April 2016. Chief Justice Sir John Walsh of Brannagh emphasised that no Party may frivolously change the substance of a matter before the ITNJ once it has begun. He further highlighted that if a Party would like any changes to be made to a matter, that Party must first seek leave from the Tribunal to ensure that the proposed changes are appropriate and do not hinder the process or infringe on another Party’s rights. Following this, His Honour asked the Administrator of UZA, Brother Thomas, why and how UZA would like to change the cause of action of the matter. In response, Brother Thomas suggested that the Constitutional Court is not a “community court”, which he believes is prescribed in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. He further explained that community courts are neighborhood-focused problem-solving courts that apply problem-solving approaches such as restorative justice principles to local concerns, and that as the Constitutional Court has failed to do this, it has been acting unconstitutionally. Julie-Anne Pho ITNJ Court Officer The Applicant wanted to pursue this moving forward, and although UZA believed that it deviated from the cause of action currently on foot, His Honour clarified that this was not so. The allegation that the Constitutional Court is not a “community court” merely supports the broader allegation that the Constitutional Court is acting outside its legal mandate as established by the Constitution. Evidence for the trial was also discussed at the directions hearing. Brother Thomas required guidance as to how many witnesses UZA should call, and what kind of evidence would be required to argue the Applicant’s case. His Honour made clear that the ITNJ must remain neutral and as such, cannot help Parties in an open matter with their respective cases. Notwithstanding, examples of convincing evidence were given to aid UZA. Such examples included studies conducted by experts in the field, articles published in law magazines by respected authorities, and expert opinion evidence. These examples were contrasted from those not deemed probative, including blog posts and lay opinion evidence. His Honour clarified that anybody may give factual evidence, for example, detailing his or her personal experiences with the Constitutional Court, but opinion evidence cannot be given unless given by an expert. It was explained to Brother Thomas that it is up to UZA to decide how it will TheSovereignVoice.Org