The law, as an anarchist there is no love there. As a rational human I investigated why i was not convinced by the justification of the herd mentality. ‘Morality is the herd instinct of the individual’ Natural lawyers will tell you that morality does indeed find application in the justification for the rule of law (Jung). Rule of law Rule by law - there is a ruler somewhere in there. Fascinating rabbit hole is the fight between natural law proponents and positivists. Really mind altering reading - I would highly recommend you delve in.
We have a Constitution (Con)- impregnated with the rights of all that reside within our boarders. How such rights are birthed is - 50% the mother and 50% the father. My analysis places the Constitutional Court (cc) as the Mother and the Con itself as the Father. No conduct shall be valid if it is found to violate the Con - and the only body competent to adjudicate whether such conduct falls foul of the Con is the CC. Now how such a body is elected is another hole I’d rather not get into - but as an anarchist I find the way it is done to be very undemocratic (in its pure unsullied sense)
My point at this moment is that our system has not placed enough emphasis on the the law of the land African Customary Law (CL). Straw man - people will argue that most people would want to continue with the status quo because it works. My point is that it doesn’t work for the greater and denser populace. Most of them are living under ACL, but what I’ve found is that it has been left to the way side for the established Roman Dutch, English and International Law. The beauty that we are missing because of the rigidity and deAfricanization of the incumbent system - which permeates ACL 😍.
A way I find would be sweet - cumbersome and maybe impractical but anyway - is a mix between the Jury system and our own. Have as many Citizens as they have Judges listening to the case as the usual process goes. However, ultimately the jury should make the final decision between the judgments of the Justices. Yes, because the Constitutional Court has burdened me with pages upon pages of incisive and emotional words which I somewhat still hold to this day. But there is a minority and majority at the end of the day. Why not then have those Citizens numbering as much as the Justices in the same room for deliberation as the Justices. But flip it. Have the Justices make their argument to the citizens about the merits of the case and why they believe their judgment is the direction our country must take on that particular CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER. Then as the jury system works they leave those Citizens to chose between the JUDGMENTS (there is usually a dissenter) of the Justice - they believe is talking to the current climate of the day (make it a Constitutional Classroom)- & if you want to finish the circle - have that judgment given to parliament to see other areas of the law that may need fixing in lieu of the judgment or enact further legislation to tackle the grey areas exposed by the judgment.
This is because
Anarchists are people too...
