正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Honourable Members, The Constitution empowers the President to appoint the National Director of Public Prosecutions without stipulating any criteria to that effect. Although there are no requirements in law to do so, I decided to constitute a panel to assist in the process of appointment of the next NDPP,...

CyrilRamaphosa's profile picture

Cyril Ramaphosa 🇿🇦

3,078,517 subscribers

14,439 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE AGAINST HONOURABLE TUNDU A. LISSU IS THE LAW BEING DISREGARDED? The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) raises its voice regarding the troubling conduct in the criminal case against Honourable Tundu Antipas Lissu — a lawyer, former Member of Parliament, and one of the nation’s prominent advocates for human rights, good governance, and constitutionalism. Since his arrest, there has been a disturbing pattern undermining the principles of justice, violating legal procedures, and casting a heavy shadow over our criminal justice system. This is evident in the following: His arrest was conducted without adherence to lawful procedures, signaling an abuse of power; The charges appear to be politically motivated, raising serious concerns about the use of judicial processes as tools for political ends; Denial of even the basic right to greet and meet with fellow citizens before the official hearing of the case; Repeated adjournments of the case on legally unsubstantial grounds, indicating a deviation from legal focus; Interference with or denial of the accused’s right to private consultations with his lawyers, which violates the right to equal legal representation; Indications of breaches of the attorney-client privilege, which is protected under the Constitution and legal framework, and is a cornerstone of the right to an effective legal defense. The right of a client to consult privately with their lawyer is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Evidence Act, and the Code of Ethics for Advocates. To restrict or interfere with this right is to undermine the foundation of the justice process and impair the accused’s ability to defend themselves adequately before the court. TLS emphasizes the following: The law must not be used as a weapon against justice; State authorities must not place themselves above the Constitution or the laws enacted by Parliament; The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must reflect deeply on the significant constitutional powers he holds in criminal justice and whether there is sufficient accountability to protect citizens' rights and ensure adherence to the law at all times; The right to legal assistance is not a privilege — it is a right of every citizen. Any criminal case, especially those involving individuals with political or social stature, must be conducted with transparency, fairness, and with respect for human dignity. The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) continues to closely monitor the progress of this case. We reiterate that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. We call upon the Judiciary and all state organs to uphold and protect the rights of the accused in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, we urge all lawyers in the country, the media, and human rights stakeholders to continue championing the protection of justice, freedom of expression, and the rule of law — without fear or favour. BAK MWABUKUSI President, Tanganyika Law Society (TLS)
1:29

THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE AGAINST HONOURABLE TUNDU A. LISSU IS THE LAW BEING DISREGARDED? The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) raises its voice regarding the troubling conduct in the criminal case against Honourable Tundu Antipas Lissu — a lawyer, former Member of Parliament, and one of the nation’s prominent advocates for human rights, good governance, and constitutionalism. Since his arrest, there has been a disturbing pattern undermining the principles of justice, violating legal procedures, and casting a heavy shadow over our criminal justice system. This is evident in the following: His arrest was conducted without adherence to lawful procedures, signaling an abuse of power; The charges appear to be politically motivated, raising serious concerns about the use of judicial processes as tools for political ends; Denial of even the basic right to greet and meet with fellow citizens before the official hearing of the case; Repeated adjournments of the case on legally unsubstantial grounds, indicating a deviation from legal focus; Interference with or denial of the accused’s right to private consultations with his lawyers, which violates the right to equal legal representation; Indications of breaches of the attorney-client privilege, which is protected under the Constitution and legal framework, and is a cornerstone of the right to an effective legal defense. The right of a client to consult privately with their lawyer is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Evidence Act, and the Code of Ethics for Advocates. To restrict or interfere with this right is to undermine the foundation of the justice process and impair the accused’s ability to defend themselves adequately before the court. TLS emphasizes the following: The law must not be used as a weapon against justice; State authorities must not place themselves above the Constitution or the laws enacted by Parliament; The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must reflect deeply on the significant constitutional powers he holds in criminal justice and whether there is sufficient accountability to protect citizens' rights and ensure adherence to the law at all times; The right to legal assistance is not a privilege — it is a right of every citizen. Any criminal case, especially those involving individuals with political or social stature, must be conducted with transparency, fairness, and with respect for human dignity. The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) continues to closely monitor the progress of this case. We reiterate that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. We call upon the Judiciary and all state organs to uphold and protect the rights of the accused in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, we urge all lawyers in the country, the media, and human rights stakeholders to continue championing the protection of justice, freedom of expression, and the rule of law — without fear or favour. BAK MWABUKUSI President, Tanganyika Law Society (TLS)

Boniface Mwabukusi

15,205 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨#BreakingNews Thurston County judge blocks law allowing state commission to decertify elected sheriffs Judge Christine Schaller halted portions of Senate Bill 5974, signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson on April 1, one day before it was set to take effect. The measure would have required sheriffs and other law enforcement leaders to maintain certification with the Criminal Justice Training Commission, with decertification automatically creating a vacancy in elected office. 🟦 JUDGE CHRISTINE SCHALLER: "The statute allows an elected sheriff to have their peace officer certificate revoked by an administrative body based upon unconstitutional language. Such a revocation under the new law would result in a vacancy of the office of sheriff with the sheriff being removed. This also allows, again, an elected official, someone chosen by the voters, to be removed in the same way as an employee of theirs, another peace officer employee, could be removed. "And again, although a sheriff could seek judicial review, that would be after a decision was made by an administrative body and the vacancy and removal would be immediate. And the decision to revoke an elected official certificate would not be by someone in an elected and or public office, which is contrary to how removal of elected officials is treated by the constitution and, as far as the court is aware, for every other elected official in the state of Washington. " This process authorizes arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. I find that the plaintiffs have a well-grounded fear of imminent invasion of their rights based upon what they have set forth in their statements and based upon my finding as it relates to number one, because the law is set to go into effect tomorrow. "And I find that the acts complained of are either resulting in or will result in actual and substantial injury. It impacts current sheriffs, the four, who have indicated they are seeking re-election. It affects their ability to fill out a declaration of candidacy form to declare themselves as candidates for the next election cycle. "Those three factors are also considered in light of the equitable factors, including balancing the relative interests of the parties and the interests of the public. The state has properly argued that this is a law that was passed by the Washington State Legislature. The legislators are elected by the people of the State of Washington and it should be given its due weight. And I have done that. "I also have considered the interest of the public in the right to allow a free elective process as well. And the public has a significant interest in the right to a free elective process, the freedom to choose candidates, and the freedom for candidates to set forth that they want to run for political office. "Accordingly, I find that those equitable interests weigh in favor of the plaintiff, and I will grant the preliminary injunction." 👇FULL VIDEO: 🎬 Dana Cruz, Puget Sound Patriots
2:47

🚨#BreakingNews Thurston County judge blocks law allowing state commission to decertify elected sheriffs Judge Christine Schaller halted portions of Senate Bill 5974, signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson on April 1, one day before it was set to take effect. The measure would have required sheriffs and other law enforcement leaders to maintain certification with the Criminal Justice Training Commission, with decertification automatically creating a vacancy in elected office. 🟦 JUDGE CHRISTINE SCHALLER: "The statute allows an elected sheriff to have their peace officer certificate revoked by an administrative body based upon unconstitutional language. Such a revocation under the new law would result in a vacancy of the office of sheriff with the sheriff being removed. This also allows, again, an elected official, someone chosen by the voters, to be removed in the same way as an employee of theirs, another peace officer employee, could be removed. "And again, although a sheriff could seek judicial review, that would be after a decision was made by an administrative body and the vacancy and removal would be immediate. And the decision to revoke an elected official certificate would not be by someone in an elected and or public office, which is contrary to how removal of elected officials is treated by the constitution and, as far as the court is aware, for every other elected official in the state of Washington. " This process authorizes arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. I find that the plaintiffs have a well-grounded fear of imminent invasion of their rights based upon what they have set forth in their statements and based upon my finding as it relates to number one, because the law is set to go into effect tomorrow. "And I find that the acts complained of are either resulting in or will result in actual and substantial injury. It impacts current sheriffs, the four, who have indicated they are seeking re-election. It affects their ability to fill out a declaration of candidacy form to declare themselves as candidates for the next election cycle. "Those three factors are also considered in light of the equitable factors, including balancing the relative interests of the parties and the interests of the public. The state has properly argued that this is a law that was passed by the Washington State Legislature. The legislators are elected by the people of the State of Washington and it should be given its due weight. And I have done that. "I also have considered the interest of the public in the right to allow a free elective process as well. And the public has a significant interest in the right to a free elective process, the freedom to choose candidates, and the freedom for candidates to set forth that they want to run for political office. "Accordingly, I find that those equitable interests weigh in favor of the plaintiff, and I will grant the preliminary injunction." 👇FULL VIDEO: 🎬 Dana Cruz, Puget Sound Patriots

Lynnwood Times

22,294 次观看 • 4 个月前

Martha Koome: It is regrettable that the leadership of the Executive and the Legislature in the recent public declarations have threatened not to obey court orders because of corruption. These threats and declarations are extremely serious and a monumental assault to the Constitution. It is also an assault to the rule of law and the ability of the nation and can lead to chaos and anarchy in our mother land
0:42

Martha Koome: It is regrettable that the leadership of the Executive and the Legislature in the recent public declarations have threatened not to obey court orders because of corruption. These threats and declarations are extremely serious and a monumental assault to the Constitution. It is also an assault to the rule of law and the ability of the nation and can lead to chaos and anarchy in our mother land

Citizen TV Kenya

161,189 次观看 • 2 年前

I note Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s remarks in a TV interview this morning. Neither he nor his Party has made those proposals as part of the process of constitutional reform. His proposals are therefore not in the report of the Constitutional Reform Committee, and will not be in the new Constitution coming out of that process. Furthermore, Mr. Holness’s proposals are not in the existing Constitution, and would violate the existing Constitution. This is in keeping with his and his Government’s unfortunate history of past violations of the Constitution of Jamaica. It seems that the Prime Minister wants to make up a rule which is not part of the Constitution or laws of Jamaica, to suit his Party’s political fortune at a time when it is waning. He has no power and no authority to do that. He needs to tell the country why his statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission cannot be certified. I am compliant with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, and I undertake to the People of Jamaica that I will continue to be so.
1:26

I note Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s remarks in a TV interview this morning. Neither he nor his Party has made those proposals as part of the process of constitutional reform. His proposals are therefore not in the report of the Constitutional Reform Committee, and will not be in the new Constitution coming out of that process. Furthermore, Mr. Holness’s proposals are not in the existing Constitution, and would violate the existing Constitution. This is in keeping with his and his Government’s unfortunate history of past violations of the Constitution of Jamaica. It seems that the Prime Minister wants to make up a rule which is not part of the Constitution or laws of Jamaica, to suit his Party’s political fortune at a time when it is waning. He has no power and no authority to do that. He needs to tell the country why his statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission cannot be certified. I am compliant with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, and I undertake to the People of Jamaica that I will continue to be so.

Mark J. Golding

32,129 次观看 • 2 年前

NOTICE TO ALL SERVING MEMBERS OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA AND THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES Take notice that your oath of service binds you not to any political office, minister, or temporary government, but to the State and to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is the supreme law of Ireland. Under the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the People. All powers of government are derived from the People and are held in trust. As a member of An Garda Síochána, you are bound to act with fairness, integrity, and respect for human rights, upholding the Constitution and the law. As a member of the Irish Defence Forces, you are bound to obey only lawful commands. Any order that conflicts with constitutional protections, fundamental rights, or the lawful authority of the People falls outside the scope of that oath. You are hereby reminded that allegiance to the Constitution takes precedence over all political direction. Failure to uphold this duty is a failure of oath. The people of Ireland are not the enemy. They are the source of all lawful authority. Stand accordingly.
0:35

NOTICE TO ALL SERVING MEMBERS OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA AND THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES Take notice that your oath of service binds you not to any political office, minister, or temporary government, but to the State and to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is the supreme law of Ireland. Under the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the People. All powers of government are derived from the People and are held in trust. As a member of An Garda Síochána, you are bound to act with fairness, integrity, and respect for human rights, upholding the Constitution and the law. As a member of the Irish Defence Forces, you are bound to obey only lawful commands. Any order that conflicts with constitutional protections, fundamental rights, or the lawful authority of the People falls outside the scope of that oath. You are hereby reminded that allegiance to the Constitution takes precedence over all political direction. Failure to uphold this duty is a failure of oath. The people of Ireland are not the enemy. They are the source of all lawful authority. Stand accordingly.

Louise McKenna

66,233 次观看 • 5 个月前

NOTICE TO ALL SERVING MEMBERS OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA AND THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES Take notice that your oath of service binds you not to any political office, minister, or temporary government, but to the State and to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is the supreme law of Ireland. Under the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the People. All powers of government are derived from the People and are held in trust. As a member of An Garda Síochána, you are bound to act with fairness, integrity, and respect for human rights, upholding the Constitution and the law. As a member of the Irish Defence Forces, you are bound to obey only lawful commands. Any order that conflicts with constitutional protections, fundamental rights, or the lawful authority of the People falls outside the scope of that oath. You are hereby reminded that allegiance to the Constitution takes precedence over all political direction. Failure to uphold this duty is a failure of oath. The people of Ireland are not the enemy. They are the source of all lawful authority. Stand accordingly.
0:23

NOTICE TO ALL SERVING MEMBERS OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA AND THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES Take notice that your oath of service binds you not to any political office, minister, or temporary government, but to the State and to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is the supreme law of Ireland. Under the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the People. All powers of government are derived from the People and are held in trust. As a member of An Garda Síochána, you are bound to act with fairness, integrity, and respect for human rights, upholding the Constitution and the law. As a member of the Irish Defence Forces, you are bound to obey only lawful commands. Any order that conflicts with constitutional protections, fundamental rights, or the lawful authority of the People falls outside the scope of that oath. You are hereby reminded that allegiance to the Constitution takes precedence over all political direction. Failure to uphold this duty is a failure of oath. The people of Ireland are not the enemy. They are the source of all lawful authority. Stand accordingly.

Louise McKenna

26,997 次观看 • 5 个月前

My zero hour speech in Parliament today on Manipulated Roaster system followed by DOPT to suppress marginalised communities from entering mainstream positions such as heads of organizations and secretaries of the department. ****************************************** Thank you, Deputy Chairman Sir. There is deliberate tinkering of the Department of Personnel and Training reservation roster system used in public employment within the Union Government and its agencies. This manipulation has systematically deprived Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) of their rightful representation in public employment and also to head the Government organisations. Reservation was introduced as an instrument of social justice to ensure fair representation for historically marginalized communities, and the reservation roster is a crucial component in implementing this policy. However, the reservation roster, as outlined in the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 2.7.1997, is fundamentally flawed. The issues continued with the subsequent memorandum dated January 31, 2019. These anomalies have resulted in the wrongful excess allocation of posts to Unreserved (UR) candidates at the expense of reserved categories. For example, according to the 2019 memorandum: - In the 13-point model roster, 9 out of 13 posts (including 1 EWS) are assigned to Unreserved candidates instead of the rightful 6—an unjust gain of 3 additional posts. - In Departments/organizations with only 2 sanctioned posts, both positions are assigned to Unreserved candidates, completely eliminating representation for reserved candidates. - In a cadre strength of 6, five positions are allocated to Unreserved candidates instead of the appropriate 3. - In small cadres (with less than 10 posts):- 70% of posts in a cadre of 10 are assigned to Unreserved candidates instead of the correct 50.5%. - 83% of posts in a cadre of 6 are assigned to Unreserved candidates instead of the correct 50.5%. - 100% of posts in a cadre of 3 are assigned to Unreserved candidates, completely eliminating reservation. These data’s furnished by me are not mere statistical discrepancies; they are systematic efforts to eliminate reserved candidates and favor Unreserved candidates, which constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional mandate for social justice. The first roster point, which carries significant importance, has been exclusively assigned to Unreserved candidates across all government institutions, leading to a deliberate distortion that ensures SC, ST, and OBC candidates are denied fair representation in Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts. Sir, to perpetuate an error is a sin, but to correct it is an administrative duty. The existing roster system represents a structured deception designed to suppress the rightful opportunities of marginalized communities, preventing them from entering mainstream positions such as heads of organizations and secretaries of the department. This constitutes a constitutional betrayal and an ongoing injustice that has persisted for decades. I urge the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and Hon’ble Minister of State for Personal Pensions and Public Grievances to take immediate action to end this rigged reservation system and form a high-level committee with a retired supreme court judge from the disadvantage communities as Chairperson along with members ensuring proportionate representation from SC,ST, OBC and Unreserved categories to investigate the scam and devise a fair roster system. This committee should identify the total losses suffered by reserved categories since 1997 in public employment, recommend measures to compensate for these losses through additional recruitment drives, and propose solutions to ensure that SC, ST, and OBC candidates have fair and equal opportunities to lead government organizations atleast in future. M.K.Stalin Udhay All India Federation For Social Justice DMK
3:15

My zero hour speech in Parliament today on Manipulated Roaster system followed by DOPT to suppress marginalised communities from entering mainstream positions such as heads of organizations and secretaries of the department. ****************************************** Thank you, Deputy Chairman Sir. There is deliberate tinkering of the Department of Personnel and Training reservation roster system used in public employment within the Union Government and its agencies. This manipulation has systematically deprived Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) of their rightful representation in public employment and also to head the Government organisations. Reservation was introduced as an instrument of social justice to ensure fair representation for historically marginalized communities, and the reservation roster is a crucial component in implementing this policy. However, the reservation roster, as outlined in the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 2.7.1997, is fundamentally flawed. The issues continued with the subsequent memorandum dated January 31, 2019. These anomalies have resulted in the wrongful excess allocation of posts to Unreserved (UR) candidates at the expense of reserved categories. For example, according to the 2019 memorandum: - In the 13-point model roster, 9 out of 13 posts (including 1 EWS) are assigned to Unreserved candidates instead of the rightful 6—an unjust gain of 3 additional posts. - In Departments/organizations with only 2 sanctioned posts, both positions are assigned to Unreserved candidates, completely eliminating representation for reserved candidates. - In a cadre strength of 6, five positions are allocated to Unreserved candidates instead of the appropriate 3. - In small cadres (with less than 10 posts):- 70% of posts in a cadre of 10 are assigned to Unreserved candidates instead of the correct 50.5%. - 83% of posts in a cadre of 6 are assigned to Unreserved candidates instead of the correct 50.5%. - 100% of posts in a cadre of 3 are assigned to Unreserved candidates, completely eliminating reservation. These data’s furnished by me are not mere statistical discrepancies; they are systematic efforts to eliminate reserved candidates and favor Unreserved candidates, which constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional mandate for social justice. The first roster point, which carries significant importance, has been exclusively assigned to Unreserved candidates across all government institutions, leading to a deliberate distortion that ensures SC, ST, and OBC candidates are denied fair representation in Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts. Sir, to perpetuate an error is a sin, but to correct it is an administrative duty. The existing roster system represents a structured deception designed to suppress the rightful opportunities of marginalized communities, preventing them from entering mainstream positions such as heads of organizations and secretaries of the department. This constitutes a constitutional betrayal and an ongoing injustice that has persisted for decades. I urge the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and Hon’ble Minister of State for Personal Pensions and Public Grievances to take immediate action to end this rigged reservation system and form a high-level committee with a retired supreme court judge from the disadvantage communities as Chairperson along with members ensuring proportionate representation from SC,ST, OBC and Unreserved categories to investigate the scam and devise a fair roster system. This committee should identify the total losses suffered by reserved categories since 1997 in public employment, recommend measures to compensate for these losses through additional recruitment drives, and propose solutions to ensure that SC, ST, and OBC candidates have fair and equal opportunities to lead government organizations atleast in future. M.K.Stalin Udhay All India Federation For Social Justice DMK

P. Wilson

13,274 次观看 • 1 年前

Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa: I said: “Mazloum, if you are fighting for the rights of the Kurdish people, you don't need to shed a single drop of blood because the rights of the Kurdish people are guaranteed. They will be guaranteed by the constitution. I believe in all the rights of the Kurds in Syria, and this is not a favor from any head of state. They are given this as a right and a duty, guaranteed by the constitution, and I am pushing with all my might in this direction so that their rights are protected, because they are part of Syrian society.”
0:33

Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa: I said: “Mazloum, if you are fighting for the rights of the Kurdish people, you don't need to shed a single drop of blood because the rights of the Kurdish people are guaranteed. They will be guaranteed by the constitution. I believe in all the rights of the Kurds in Syria, and this is not a favor from any head of state. They are given this as a right and a duty, guaranteed by the constitution, and I am pushing with all my might in this direction so that their rights are protected, because they are part of Syrian society.”

Clash Report

242,637 次观看 • 7 个月前

I am grateful to the esteemed Ulemas of Mangaluru for coming together in unity to organize a rally and protest against the Waqf Amendment Bill 2024 today. Their collective efforts in safeguarding community rights and standing for justice are truly commendable. I urge all Ulemas across the state to initiate a democratic struggle against this amendment, ensuring that the voices of the people are heard and their concerns are addressed. It is our responsibility to protect the integrity of Waqf institutions and uphold the rights of the community through peaceful and lawful means.
0:58

I am grateful to the esteemed Ulemas of Mangaluru for coming together in unity to organize a rally and protest against the Waqf Amendment Bill 2024 today. Their collective efforts in safeguarding community rights and standing for justice are truly commendable. I urge all Ulemas across the state to initiate a democratic struggle against this amendment, ensuring that the voices of the people are heard and their concerns are addressed. It is our responsibility to protect the integrity of Waqf institutions and uphold the rights of the community through peaceful and lawful means.

Abdul Majeed

46,001 次观看 • 1 年前

I welcome this clear response from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice: “It should be in no doubt that the Scottish Government, public bodies and Police Scotland are required to comply with the law - end of” The rest of the government should follow her lead. The law is the law and must be followed without further delay.
0:48

I welcome this clear response from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice: “It should be in no doubt that the Scottish Government, public bodies and Police Scotland are required to comply with the law - end of” The rest of the government should follow her lead. The law is the law and must be followed without further delay.

Ash Regan

12,008 次观看 • 1 年前

A new low for Pakistan, a country that becomes further lawless! Trials of civilians in military courts violate Pakistan’s obligations under International human rights law. Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the right to a fair trial, ensuring that every individual is entitled to a transparent and just legal process. Military courts, however, represent a direct violation of this fundamental right, as they operate without the necessary transparency and due process required by law!
0:36

A new low for Pakistan, a country that becomes further lawless! Trials of civilians in military courts violate Pakistan’s obligations under International human rights law. Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the right to a fair trial, ensuring that every individual is entitled to a transparent and just legal process. Military courts, however, represent a direct violation of this fundamental right, as they operate without the necessary transparency and due process required by law!

PTI

40,905 次观看 • 1 年前

THE CONVERSATION BEGINS HERE: What does the law provide about demonstrations? 1. Article 37 of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to PEACEBLY and UNARMED to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities. 2. The right to assemble demonstrate, picket and present petitions to public authorities is hence exercisable under Article 37 of the Constitution under two conditional precedents which must be met: PEACEBLY and UNARMED. Have the maandamano we have witnessed being done PEACEBLY and by UNARMED persons? 3. Suffice it to note that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is not an absolute right. 4. Article 24 of the Constitution provides that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is one of the rights that can be limited vide legislation to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individuals does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others. Have the maandamano not taken away the right to property of Kenyans with the mass destruction not only of private property but public property? 5. Article 259(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner that advances the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of rights. To what extent do the maandamano fall within the defined parameters of the Constitution in particular the Bill of Rights? Is looting, destruction of property, anarchy and hooliganism the definition of demonstrations? Certainly not. These are purely criminal acts that have no constitutional basis! The conversation should begin here.
2:23

THE CONVERSATION BEGINS HERE: What does the law provide about demonstrations? 1. Article 37 of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to PEACEBLY and UNARMED to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities. 2. The right to assemble demonstrate, picket and present petitions to public authorities is hence exercisable under Article 37 of the Constitution under two conditional precedents which must be met: PEACEBLY and UNARMED. Have the maandamano we have witnessed being done PEACEBLY and by UNARMED persons? 3. Suffice it to note that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is not an absolute right. 4. Article 24 of the Constitution provides that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is one of the rights that can be limited vide legislation to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individuals does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others. Have the maandamano not taken away the right to property of Kenyans with the mass destruction not only of private property but public property? 5. Article 259(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner that advances the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of rights. To what extent do the maandamano fall within the defined parameters of the Constitution in particular the Bill of Rights? Is looting, destruction of property, anarchy and hooliganism the definition of demonstrations? Certainly not. These are purely criminal acts that have no constitutional basis! The conversation should begin here.

Hon. Aden Duale, EGH

101,334 次观看 • 3 年前

JUST IN: FIFA President Gianni Infantino breaks silence, says decision to lift the suspension of USA's Folarin Balogun had nothing to do with President Trump's call. Read his statement below: "I have seen the public comments regarding the decision of the independent Fifa Disciplinary Committee related to the suspension of Folarin Balogun, and I would like to reiterate a fundamental principle of Fifa’s governance. Fifa’s judicial bodies are independent. They operate autonomously, apply the Fifa Disciplinary Code, and decide cases based on the applicable regulations and the specific facts before them. Their independence is essential to the credibility and integrity of football, and this must always be respected. Yes, I regularly discuss matters related to the Fifa World Cup with the President of the United States, and on this matter, I did receive a call from President Donald Trump, just as I receive calls from heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders and business executives from around the world on many different issues. During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving Fifa’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies. That is how Fifa’s system works, and it is a principle that I will always uphold. I read the decisions of the Fifa Disciplinary Committee when they are issued. Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree. What I always do, however, is respect those decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them. Whether we personally like a decision or not is irrelevant. Respect for independent institutions and the rule of law is what protects the integrity of our competitions and the credibility of Fifa at all times."
2:06

JUST IN: FIFA President Gianni Infantino breaks silence, says decision to lift the suspension of USA's Folarin Balogun had nothing to do with President Trump's call. Read his statement below: "I have seen the public comments regarding the decision of the independent Fifa Disciplinary Committee related to the suspension of Folarin Balogun, and I would like to reiterate a fundamental principle of Fifa’s governance. Fifa’s judicial bodies are independent. They operate autonomously, apply the Fifa Disciplinary Code, and decide cases based on the applicable regulations and the specific facts before them. Their independence is essential to the credibility and integrity of football, and this must always be respected. Yes, I regularly discuss matters related to the Fifa World Cup with the President of the United States, and on this matter, I did receive a call from President Donald Trump, just as I receive calls from heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders and business executives from around the world on many different issues. During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving Fifa’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies. That is how Fifa’s system works, and it is a principle that I will always uphold. I read the decisions of the Fifa Disciplinary Committee when they are issued. Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree. What I always do, however, is respect those decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them. Whether we personally like a decision or not is irrelevant. Respect for independent institutions and the rule of law is what protects the integrity of our competitions and the credibility of Fifa at all times."

Collin Rugg

731,783 次观看 • 2 个月前

[WATCH] IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION. In the interest of democratic participation and to allow our communities to exercise their fair choice in selecting those they believe will be the best public representatives. Those communities affected we believe should be given the opportunity to participate in the democratic processes. It is not harmful to democracy to allow the investigation into the technical issues to take place. On of the major changes is how the ANC manages the candidate selection process is that there are new requirements, the criteria we use now is much more stringent to ensure that those we send to contest elections are qualifying and wanted by their communities, both in ethical conduct, skills and competence. What that means is that ANC processes of candidates selection are very laborious and we are the first to admit that they are laborious because we involve over a period of time many stakeholders including the community, to those who say why we left things to the eleventh hour we can say categorically we did not. We want to assure our members and communities that those communities and municipalities affected we are dealing with this issue and do find justice in the process and that they will exercise their democratic right. That is why we are asking for a constructive solution with the independent electoral commission and we do believe they will open the door to engagement, it is a Chapter 9 institution it is duty bound to find a solution as long as that solution does not break the law. We are not asking for any changes in our list, we are asking for that portion that was kicked out to be investigated.
3:32

[WATCH] IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION. In the interest of democratic participation and to allow our communities to exercise their fair choice in selecting those they believe will be the best public representatives. Those communities affected we believe should be given the opportunity to participate in the democratic processes. It is not harmful to democracy to allow the investigation into the technical issues to take place. On of the major changes is how the ANC manages the candidate selection process is that there are new requirements, the criteria we use now is much more stringent to ensure that those we send to contest elections are qualifying and wanted by their communities, both in ethical conduct, skills and competence. What that means is that ANC processes of candidates selection are very laborious and we are the first to admit that they are laborious because we involve over a period of time many stakeholders including the community, to those who say why we left things to the eleventh hour we can say categorically we did not. We want to assure our members and communities that those communities and municipalities affected we are dealing with this issue and do find justice in the process and that they will exercise their democratic right. That is why we are asking for a constructive solution with the independent electoral commission and we do believe they will open the door to engagement, it is a Chapter 9 institution it is duty bound to find a solution as long as that solution does not break the law. We are not asking for any changes in our list, we are asking for that portion that was kicked out to be investigated.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

65,958 次观看 • 8 天前

On behalf of my boss, the Honourable Attorney-General, Dr Dominic Ayine, I administered the oath of office and the oath of secrecy to the distinguished members of the governing boards of the Legal Aid Commission and the Council for Law Reporting. His Lordship, Mr Justice Gabriel Pwamang, JSC, administered the same oaths to us, members of the Advisory Board of the Ministry of Justice. In my remarks, I stressed on new ways of funding and accessibility. More specifically, I challenged the Legal Aid Commission to not only wait to be approached, but to also be proactive to identify and approach persons who need (but could not request for) their services. They’re to extend their services beyond criminal cases to cover civil cases, too. I charged the Council for Law Reporting to explore and invest in digital version of our law reports.
1:46

On behalf of my boss, the Honourable Attorney-General, Dr Dominic Ayine, I administered the oath of office and the oath of secrecy to the distinguished members of the governing boards of the Legal Aid Commission and the Council for Law Reporting. His Lordship, Mr Justice Gabriel Pwamang, JSC, administered the same oaths to us, members of the Advisory Board of the Ministry of Justice. In my remarks, I stressed on new ways of funding and accessibility. More specifically, I challenged the Legal Aid Commission to not only wait to be approached, but to also be proactive to identify and approach persons who need (but could not request for) their services. They’re to extend their services beyond criminal cases to cover civil cases, too. I charged the Council for Law Reporting to explore and invest in digital version of our law reports.

Justice Srem-Sai

24,490 次观看 • 8 个月前

I’ve come to realize that many of these so-called “LawTubers” are actors. They’re playing a role, and YouTube is their stage. They are not there to explain the law—they’re there to entertain an audience that rewards them with Super Chats, memberships, and donations. So they give their viewers exactly what they want to hear, even if that means misrepresenting the law, making false statements and inaccurate legal claims, defending the indefensible, or excusing and even encouraging the harassment and intimidation of witnesses. The damage this does is enormous. It destroys public trust in the justice system, distorts how people understand the courts, and misleads viewers about the rights of victims, witnesses, and defendants alike. When lawyers stop acting like lawyers and start acting like performers, the justice system becomes just another form of entertainment. This can’t be the future.
3:24

I’ve come to realize that many of these so-called “LawTubers” are actors. They’re playing a role, and YouTube is their stage. They are not there to explain the law—they’re there to entertain an audience that rewards them with Super Chats, memberships, and donations. So they give their viewers exactly what they want to hear, even if that means misrepresenting the law, making false statements and inaccurate legal claims, defending the indefensible, or excusing and even encouraging the harassment and intimidation of witnesses. The damage this does is enormous. It destroys public trust in the justice system, distorts how people understand the courts, and misleads viewers about the rights of victims, witnesses, and defendants alike. When lawyers stop acting like lawyers and start acting like performers, the justice system becomes just another form of entertainment. This can’t be the future.

Mama Llama

11,873 次观看 • 2 个月前

It is with great concern that I condemn the burning of the APC party offices in Bo and the attack on my motorcade yesterday in Pujehun. These acts of violence are completely unacceptable and have no place in a democratic society. I strongly urge all political parties and their supporters to refrain from engaging in violence and instead focus on conducting peaceful and respectful campaigns. Political differences should be resolved through constructive dialogue and engagement rather than resorting to violence and intimidation. I am committed to promoting unity, peace, and stability in the country. I believe that a peaceful and respectful election process is critical for the development and progress of the country. I always condemned any form of violence and will continue to do so. I call on the relevant authorities to investigate these incidents and bring the perpetrators to justice. I also urge the authorities to take measures to ensure the safety and security of all political candidates and their supporters. I urge all Sierra Leoneans to work towards a peaceful and respectful election process. Let us focus on the issues that matter most to the people and engage in constructive dialogue to find solutions to the challenges facing our country. Together, we can build a brighter future for all Sierra Leoneans.
0:24

It is with great concern that I condemn the burning of the APC party offices in Bo and the attack on my motorcade yesterday in Pujehun. These acts of violence are completely unacceptable and have no place in a democratic society. I strongly urge all political parties and their supporters to refrain from engaging in violence and instead focus on conducting peaceful and respectful campaigns. Political differences should be resolved through constructive dialogue and engagement rather than resorting to violence and intimidation. I am committed to promoting unity, peace, and stability in the country. I believe that a peaceful and respectful election process is critical for the development and progress of the country. I always condemned any form of violence and will continue to do so. I call on the relevant authorities to investigate these incidents and bring the perpetrators to justice. I also urge the authorities to take measures to ensure the safety and security of all political candidates and their supporters. I urge all Sierra Leoneans to work towards a peaceful and respectful election process. Let us focus on the issues that matter most to the people and engage in constructive dialogue to find solutions to the challenges facing our country. Together, we can build a brighter future for all Sierra Leoneans.

SamuraKamara2023

37,500 次观看 • 3 年前

“They can't establish facilities that are exclusively for Muslims. That violates religious clauses in the Constitution.” Greg Abbott gives an update on what’s happening with the Muslim feet-washing stations in Texas airports: "We have announced legal challenges to both DFW Airport and the Houston airport for violating the religious clauses of the Constitution. And there are two different areas of an airport. There's the pre-TSA check-in and then after TSA check-in. If these stations exist before you get to the TSA check-in, that is an area that's governed by the local city. And what I have articulated is any city that provides or continues one of these stations, they're going to have their funding revoked that they get from the State of Texas AND be subject to a lawsuit for religious discrimination by the State of Texas. Once they get past the TSA checkpoint, that's a federal issue. And I have sent a letter to the US Department of Transportation to make sure that they understand the constitutional gravity of this issue, and that they similarly will be taking action in the areas that they are responsible for to make sure these constitutional violations are not taking place."
2:34

“They can't establish facilities that are exclusively for Muslims. That violates religious clauses in the Constitution.” Greg Abbott gives an update on what’s happening with the Muslim feet-washing stations in Texas airports: "We have announced legal challenges to both DFW Airport and the Houston airport for violating the religious clauses of the Constitution. And there are two different areas of an airport. There's the pre-TSA check-in and then after TSA check-in. If these stations exist before you get to the TSA check-in, that is an area that's governed by the local city. And what I have articulated is any city that provides or continues one of these stations, they're going to have their funding revoked that they get from the State of Texas AND be subject to a lawsuit for religious discrimination by the State of Texas. Once they get past the TSA checkpoint, that's a federal issue. And I have sent a letter to the US Department of Transportation to make sure that they understand the constitutional gravity of this issue, and that they similarly will be taking action in the areas that they are responsible for to make sure these constitutional violations are not taking place."

Glenn Beck

75,466 次观看 • 13 天前

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.
6:58

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,431 次观看 • 6 个月前