UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE
MAIN CAMPUS
LEGAL FOUNDATIONS FOR SOUTH AFRICAN LAW
LFSA 1500
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW
ASSIGNMENT
29 SEPTEMBER 2023
ASSESSORS: CATHERINE S. NAMAKULA
MODERATOR: PROF MARIETTE REYNEKE
MARKS: 60
INSTRUCTIONS
• Font: Times Roman, 12; spacing 1.5.
• FILAC is mandatory
• Submit ONLINE by 03 November 2023.
QUESTION
Two learning friends at the University of the Free State (UFS) were having a debate about a case
that manifested as follows:-
Two students of the University of Nambiana, in South Africa, were charged with the offence of
malicious damage to property. They protested over student allowances and vandalized the
University gate by way of heavy stoning. On the day they appeared before the Magistrate of West
Solola Court, they were asked whether they pleaded guilty to the charges and one of them said yes.
The other denied the charges and said that he was not even at the University when the incident
occurred. The Magistrate went ahead and sentenced both of them to 2 years in jail, after which
they would return to court for reconsideration of the decision. The students are complaining
because there were some lawyers that wanted to work on their case but were not permitted. The
Magistrate wanted to teach all students a lesson for wasting tax payers money. He said that is what
happens in another country (Malitina), it is good practice and it works. That there is a law in
Malitina which allows that. The prosecutor was also confused. He had agreed with the students
and even signed an agreement with them, accepting a lesser charge of idleness and disorderliness,
which would have them pay a fine only. In fact that was what the other student that pleaded guilty
thought he was pleading to. This particular student does not understand English yet because he is
from a French speaking country. He only got to know he was going to jail when the officials from
correction services arrived. The President of the country is very pleased with the decision of the
court. He is said to have sent a letter to the Magistrate asking him to do the needful in the matter
to stop people from destroying public property because of the hard economic times. One side of
the debating UFS students searched all cases among the nation’s law reports but this decision
seems to contradict pre-existing determination including a decision of the Supreme Court.
INSTRUCTIONS
a) Summarise the facts in this case (15 Marks)
b) Raise five (7) issues that arise from this matter (14 Marks)
c) Identify the laws that would apply to the situation in order of hierachy (15 Marks)
d) Discuss the issues raised in the order they are raised above (30 Marks)
e) Conclude with a possible determination in the matter (15 Marks)
Critical note: probide discussions that are backed by authorities (5 legislation and 4case law) to attract
extra marks.
END
SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
Two students at the University of Nambiana were charged with malicious damage to property after protesting over student allowances and vandalizing the University gate. One of the students pleaded guilty, while the other denied the charges, claiming he was not present at the time of the incident. The Magistrate sentenced both students to 2 years in jail and refused lawyers' involvement in their case. The prosecutor initially agreed to a lesser charge of idleness and disorderliness, but the students were unaware of this and believed they were pleading guilty to a lesser offense. The President of the country supports the court's decision and wants to prevent further destruction of public property due to economic hardship.
ISSUES ARISING FROM THE CASE:
1) Validity of the guilty plea by one of the students
2) Denial of legal representation for the students
3) Contradiction of pre-existing legal determinations
4) Language barrier for the student who could not understand English
5) Confusion on the part of the prosecutor regarding charges and plea agreements
6) The President's influence on the court decision
7) Constitutional rights of the students in relation to sentencing and fair trial.
LAWS THAT APPLY IN ORDER OF HIERARCHY:
1) Constitution of South Africa
2) Criminal Procedure Act
3) Law of Delict
4) Law of Evidence
5) Sentencing Act
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES IN THE ORDER RAISED:
1) The validity of the guilty plea by one of the students should be examined. A plea agreement should be based on a clear understanding of the charges, and if there was a misunderstanding due to language barriers or other factors, the plea may have been invalid.
2) The denial of legal representation for the students raises concerns about their right to a fair trial. The Constitution guarantees the right to legal representation, and it seems that the students were unfairly prevented from obtaining lawyers. This may have violated their constitutional rights.
3) The contradiction of pre-existing legal determinations, including a decision of the Supreme Court, suggests that the Magistrate's decision may be inconsistent with established legal principles. This should be explored to determine if the Magistrate's decision was lawful.
4) The language barrier for the student who did not understand English raises issues of fairness and access to justice. Language rights are protected under the Constitution, and the student's inability to understand the proceedings may have compromised his right to a fair trial.
5) The confusion on the part of the prosecutor regarding charges and plea agreements raises questions about the prosecutor's competence and the clarity of communication. This may have affected the students' understanding of the charges and their subsequent pleas.
6) The President's influence on the court decision raises concerns about the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The court should be free from external influence, and the President's involvement may undermine the integrity of the decision.
7) Finally, the constitutional rights of the students in relation to sentencing should be examined. The sentencing should be proportionate to the offense and take into account the circumstances of the case. The court should ensure that the students' constitutional rights are protected and that the sentencing is fair.
POSSIBLE DETERMINATION:
Based on the issues raised and the need for a fair trial, it is likely that the students' convictions and sentences may be reconsidered. The denial of legal representation, language barrier, confusion regarding charges, and the President's influence on the court decision are all factors that suggest a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The case may be reviewed to ensure that the students' rights were not violated and that they receive a fair trial and appropriate sentencing.
CASE LAW AND LEGISLATION:
1) Constitution of South Africa
2) Criminal Procedure Act
3) Law of Delict
4) Law of Evidence
5) Sentencing Act
6) Decision of the Supreme Court regarding similar cases
7) Other relevant case law and legislation related to fair trial, legal representation, and sentencing.