A declaration: I have a huge amount of sentiment invested in Grahamstown. It is the place where a number of significant and formative events in my life played themselves out; it is here that many of my most enduring relationships were established; it is the site of my alma mater and the space in which some of my earliest critical ideas germinated.
I love this town. Yes, town, because while Grahamstown may qualify under a British definition of city, that it includes a cathedral and, by implication, the seat of an Anglican bishop, the reality is that this is no more than a large town. Another British definition holds that city status is conferred by the monarch.
And right there, perhaps, is the nub of the debate which has generated much heat in the large town of saints: that too many believe historical decree, providence or precedent mean Grahamstown is forever entitled to be the location of the seat of the High Court of the Eastern Cape.
History is certainly important as a factor in guiding us in taking appropriate decisions for today and for the future. But it is only one factor. And we cannot be held hostage by decisions that have been taken in former eras. Grahamstown must argue its case today, given current circumstances and the assumptions we are allowed to make about the future. The past is a limited reference point.
It is not enough, therefore, for Grahamstown to argue that it will be further disadvantaged as a result of the relocation of the seat of the court. It must show that the move is bad for the administration of justice and not in the interests of the majority of the people of the Eastern Cape. At the very least it must show that the negative consequences outweigh the benefits.
It is ironic that those most vehemently opposed to the relocation of the seat of the court to Bhisho are in academia and the legal fraternity, as they consistently fail to bring the rigour of their professional disciplines to bear on the debate. For example, thus far we have seen no research of any worth, nor any substantive arguments presented, which challenge folk wisdom or answer basic questions such as:
- How many people currently owe their livelihoods directly to the fact that the seat of the court is in Grahamstown?
- How many people, therefore, will be affected by the relocation of the seat from Grahamstown?
- How many legal practitioners – advocates and attorneys - will be displaced as a result of the relocation of the seat?
- What will be the cost of erecting new buildings or renovating existing ones to house those who administer justice at the new seat of the High Court in Bhisho?
- Of what real value is the proximity of the seat of the High Court to the university’s law faculty?
- What does Grahamstown offer which other towns or cities do not, to ensure that the seat remains on High Street in perpetuity?
Much of one’s responses to these issues may be intuitive but intuition is seldom an appropriate starting point in argument in court or in academic disciplines. I have tried to uncover what research underpins the positions. About the only source material to which I’ve been referred is economist Geoff Antrobus’s work from about 10 years ago which, while a valid study still, is somewhat dated, as Geoff would be the first to acknowledge.
Rhodes University’s Institute for Social and Economic Research which, I would have thought, would be the repository of data on Grahamstown’s economy, referred me to the local tourism office for information on how many bed and breakfast establishments owe their business to the work of the court. So, we have very little statistical information on which to base a decision which favours Grahamstown.
On the flip side, of course, Government has not covered itself in glory in failing to lay a solid basis for the move. I would have thought that, in order to be reassured that this political decision can be trusted, we should clearly understand what benefits may accrue. For example:
- How many cases are heard in each of the four divisions of the court in the Eastern Cape which have concurrent jurisdiction – Grahamstown, Bhisho, Mthatha and Port Elizabeth?
- How many appeals from the lower courts are heard in the High Court in the various centres?
- How is the administration of justice within the province negatively impacted by the fact that the seat of the High Court is in Grahamstown and not at the seat of the legislature, Bhisho?
- How many of the cases heard in Grahamstown emanate from far-flung parts of the province, creating difficulties for indigent litigants?
- Are people negatively disposed towards the administration of justice as a result of the location of the seat of the court?
- What benefits, if any, might there be to the entire province of moving the seat of the court eastwards?
- Will people’s perceptions of the administration of justice - if not the administration of justice per se - be enhanced through a relocation of the seat to Bhisho because of its centrality within the province?
The reality is that, whether it is a popular view in Grahamstown or not, we are one province and a political decision may well point to the competing stakeholder or constituency interests which Government has to balance. And much as it may stick in the craw of some, it will be apparent to any Constitutional Law 101 student that the Executive is entitled to take such decisions. An unhappy local populace may well, of course, decide to vote in new representatives when the time comes around.
The hoo-hah around the seat of the court ignores other anomalies in the administration of justice in the Eastern Cape, fundamental to the transformation of our society. These include the lack of a dedicated panel of Labour Court judges (bizarre, given our province’s strong industrial base and a largely unionised workforce) and the continued existence of the Southern Divorce Court (historically for black litigants, although this is finally set to change with increased powers going to the Magistrate’s Division).
But resolution of these issues requires sound reasoning. Sophisticated spin-doctoring (as we have seen on Grahamstown’s behalf), even sentiment - no matter how well-placed - are never adequate antidotes to compelling facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment