IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No CCT ______ / 2014 In the matter between:
HUGH GLENISTER Applicant
and
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent
MINISTER OF POLICE Second Respondent
(FORMERLY THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY)
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Third Respondent
NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Fourth Respondent
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Fifth Respondent
FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT
I, the undersigned,
HUGH GLENISTER
make oath and say:
1. I am an adult male businessperson of 18 Kitui Road, Sunninghill.
2
2. Save where the context indicates otherwise, the facts herein set out are within my own knowledge. Where I make legal submissions, I do so on the advice of my legal advisors and in the belief that such advice is sound.
3. I have read the notice of appeal prefixed hereto and confirm that the contents thereof accords with my instructions and confirm, in particular, that I intend to make application to the above Honourable Court for leave to appeal to the above Honourable Court against the whole of the judgment and orders, including orders for costs concerning me, of the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town) in its case numbers 23874/2012 and 23933/2012 delivered on 13 December 2013 on the grounds set out therein.
4. In relation to the finding that I have “piggy-backed” on the Helen Suzman Foundation’s (“HSF”) application, I have been advised to place on record that the two applications were brought separately and without the parties referring to each other in any way. This applies also to the antecedent abortive attempts to gain direct access to this court in 2012, both of which applications were refused. The two applications were heard together as a matter of convenience to the court a quo and the parties, not because the applicants were in any way involved in “piggy-backing”.
5. In clarification, unlike in Glenister II, in the application to court a quo, HSF was not amicus curiae, but rather an individual litigant. I did not instruct my legal team to either caucus, consult, or communicate with HSF in any way regarding the nature or content of the HSF application in respect of its factual or legal attacks upon the 2012 South African Police Service Amendment Act
3
(the Second Amendment Act). I have been informed by my legal team that neither did they do so.
6. The court a quo erred in assuming that they might have done so in coming to its “piggy-back” finding. Many of the broad criticisms made in my application to the court a quo chimed with those of HSF – not as a result of collusion but because of the defects in the Second Amendment Act. To have disallowed me a favourable costs order in the face of this is unreasonable, irrational and an injudicial exercise of its discretion by the court a quo.
7. I accordingly pray that it will please the above Honourable Court to grant me such leave
_____________
Hugh Glenister
I certify that at ______________________ on the _________ day of _______________________ 2014, the Deponent signed this Affidavit and swore and acknowledged that he knew and understood the contents hereof, had no objection to taking this oath and considered this oath to be binding on his conscience, and uttered the words "I swear that the contents of this Affidavit are true, so help me God".
_______________________
