UZA DIRECTIONS HEARING 1
Unified Common Law
Grand Jury of
Southern Africa
an agreement, namely by determining where they each
stood in the action, and to assist in clarifying if not
resolving particular issues. Despite the absence of any
appearance by the Respondent, Chief Justice Walsh of
Brannagh assisted the Applicant in narrowing the issues
in dispute. In its application, UZA listed potentially
hundreds of defendants in the matter, as each individual
In early November 2015, the ITNJ received an ap-
“officer of the Republic of South Africa” was identified
plication from the Unified Common Law Grand Jury
as a co-defendant. His Honour explained that if hun-
of Southern Africa (‘UZA’). UZA wanted the ITNJ to
dreds of people were parties in the matter, each person
intervene in a number of constitutional issues perceived
had a right to present his or her own individual case.
to be occurring in Southern Africa, at the fault of the
Naturally, this means that there would be hundreds of
Republic of South Africa and “all its agents”.
hearings, which could take many months if not years.
Ultimately, His Honour concluded that only those truly
At 8AM (GMT+2) on Tuesday 1 December 2015, the
responsible for alleged wrongdoing are appropriate Re-
ITNJ held its first directions hearing, for the matter of
spondents in the matter, and that just because someone
the Unified Common Law Grand Jury of Southern Africa
is a public officer of the Republic of South Africa, does
(‘UZA’) v Republic of South Africa. The hearing was
not automatically mean that he or she has done some-
conducted virtually, to allow for multiple parties from
thing unconstitutional. UZA also made a lot of claims
multiple places to attend. Chief Justice of the ITNJ, Sir
in its application, and yet was not clear on the remedy it
John Walsh of Brannagh, presided over the matter from
sought, which therefore meant that it was unclear what
his Chambers in Melbourne, Australia. The Applicant
assistance it sought from the ITNJ. After questioning at
UZA was represented at the hearing by its Administra-
the directions hearing, Brother Thomas acknowledged
tor, Brother Thomas, and Counsel, Miss T, who both
that UZA did not want to pursue every specified claim,
attended the hearing from Cape Town, South Africa.
but rather, these claims were examples of the underly-
Unfortunately there was no appearance from the Re-
ing problem. Ultimately, His Honour assisted UZA in
spondent. There were some issues with service of the
categorising all of its ’sub-claims’ into one large claim,
application onto the Respondent.
which will be the subject of this matter moving forward:
that although the Constitutional Court of South Africa
The purpose of this directions hearing (like any other
is a valid court, its agents, namely the Justices of the
directions hearing) was to assist the parties to come to
Court, have been acting in contravention of the Court’s
mandate as established under law.
TheSovereignVoice.Org