What happened to South Africa’s Nuclear energy program? Also why does the West force countries to de-nuclearise while keeping nuclear weapons?

What happened to South Africa’s Nuclear energy program? Also why does the West force countries to de-nuclearise while keeping nuclear weapons?

METRO FM Talk with Faith Mangope

METRO FM Talk with Faith Mangope

After 8 Is After 8: We unpack South Africa's position on Nuclear Energy.

When the police seize or take possession of your vehicle, you would reasonably expect it to be kept safe until it is returned to you. But what happens when the very institution entrusted with protecting your property fails to do so? A Gauteng High Court has held the Minister of Police liable after a woman’s 2014 Volkswagen Golf was stripped of critical components while stored at a South
African Police Service facility in Pretoria West. When Suzette Ropafadzo Paradza went to collect her vehicle, the engine was missing. Further inspection revealed that the gearbox, alternator, starter and catalytic converter had also disappeared. The court refused to enforce an indemnity Paradza had signed when collecting the vehicle, finding the Minister liable for the loss. The ruling raises serious questions about the security of vehicles held as police exhibits, the effectiveness of SAPS storage facilities and the accountability of officials responsible for safeguarding seized property.
So, how widespread is the problem of theft and stripping of vehicles held in police custody? Who should be held accountable when critical vehicle parts disappear from state-controlled facilities, and what recourse do motorists have when their property is damaged or stolen while in the hands of law enforcement? We speak to MISA, the Motor Industry Staff Association, about the implications of this
judgment and what needs to change to protect motorists and restore public confidence.

PHAKAMILE HLUBI-MAJOLA -
SPOKESPERSON -
MOTOR INDUSTRY
STAFF ASSOCIATION.

When the police seize or take possession of your vehicle, you would reasonably expect it to be kept safe until it is&nbsp;returned to you. But what happens when the very&nbsp;institution entrusted with protecting your property fails to&nbsp;do so? A Gauteng High Court has held the Minister of&nbsp;Police liable after a woman&rsquo;s 2014 Volkswagen Golf was&nbsp;stripped of critical components while stored at a South African Police Service facility in Pretoria West. When&nbsp;Suzette Ropafadzo Paradza went to collect her vehicle, the&nbsp;engine was missing. Further inspection revealed that the&nbsp;gearbox, alternator, starter and catalytic converter had also&nbsp;disappeared.&nbsp;The court refused to enforce an indemnity Paradza had&nbsp;signed when collecting the vehicle, finding the Minister&nbsp;liable for the loss. The ruling raises serious questions&nbsp;about the security of vehicles held as police exhibits, the&nbsp;effectiveness of SAPS storage facilities and the&nbsp;accountability of officials responsible for safeguarding&nbsp;seized property. So, how widespread is the problem of theft and stripping of&nbsp;vehicles held in police custody? Who should be held&nbsp;accountable when critical vehicle parts disappear from&nbsp;state-controlled facilities, and what recourse do motorists&nbsp;have when their property is damaged or stolen while in the&nbsp;hands of law enforcement? We speak to MISA, the Motor&nbsp;Industry Staff Association, about the implications of this judgment and what needs to change to protect motorists&nbsp;and restore public confidence.
PHAKAMILE HLUBI-MAJOLA - SPOKESPERSON - MOTOR INDUSTRY STAFF ASSOCIATION.

AFTER 8 IS AFTER 8: WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE WHEN VEHICLES GO MISSING IN SAPS CUSTODY?

In a democracy, the right to protest, criticise government and mobilise people around a political cause is fundamental. But where does that right end, and when can words spoken at a rally, statements made in public or messages posted on social media become evidence in a criminal case? South Africa’s July 2021 unrest brought these questions into sharp focus, with the prosecution of Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla over alleged incitement linked to the unrest placing the relationship between
political speech and criminal liability under scrutiny. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges against her. The central issue is not simply whether someone called on people to mobilise, but what they said, what they intended, and whether the legal requirements for the alleged offences can be established.
Tonight, we speak to a legal analyst about the charges, the evidence prosecutors must present, and the point at which political mobilisation can cross the line into criminal conduct. 

MELUSI XULU,
LEGAL ANALYST AT
DONDA
ATTORNEYS INC.

In a democracy, the right to protest, criticise government and&nbsp;mobilise people around a political cause is fundamental. But&nbsp;where does that right end, and when can words spoken at a&nbsp;rally, statements made in public or messages posted on social&nbsp;media become evidence in a criminal case? South Africa&rsquo;s July&nbsp;2021 unrest brought these questions into sharp focus, with the&nbsp;prosecution of Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla over alleged&nbsp;incitement linked to the unrest placing the relationship between political speech and criminal liability under scrutiny. She has&nbsp;pleaded not guilty to the charges against her. The central issue&nbsp;is not simply whether someone called on people to mobilise,&nbsp;but what they said, what they intended, and whether the legal&nbsp;requirements for the alleged offences can be established. Tonight, we speak to a legal analyst about the charges, the&nbsp;evidence prosecutors must present, and the point at which&nbsp;political mobilisation can cross the line into criminal conduct.&nbsp;
MELUSI XULU, LEGAL ANALYST AT DONDA ATTORNEYS INC.

From Political Mobilisation to Criminal Charges — Where Is the  Legal Line?

The decision to place a child for adoption is one of the most deeply personal decisions a woman can make. Yet, for some women navigating South Africa’s adoption system, that decision can become a difficult encounter with the very institutions meant to provide support and protection.
Questions about a woman’s circumstances, her choices and her reasons for considering adoption can raise serious concerns about dignity, privacy and the right to make decisions about her own reproductive life. The Women’s Legal Centre has welcomed a significant Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that dismissed an appeal by the Minister of Social Development. The ruling confirmed
that government social workers had unlawfully interfered in adoption processes and found the Department of Social Development’s adoption guidelines unconstitutional. The judgment raises important questions about the limits of state intervention, the rights of women considering adoption and whether the policies governing adoption in South Africa adequately protect those rights.
So, what exactly did the court find unlawful, and how were the dignity and privacy of the two women involved violated? How does this judgment strengthen women’s reproductive autonomy while ensuring that the best interests of children remain central to adoption decisions? And what does it mean
for the future of adoption law and policy in South Africa? We discuss these questions and more with the Women’s Legal Centre, unpacking the significance of the judgment and the protections women should expect when making decisions about adoption.

The decision to place a child for adoption is one of the most&nbsp;deeply personal decisions a woman can make. Yet, for some&nbsp;women navigating South Africa&rsquo;s adoption system, that&nbsp;decision can become a difficult encounter with the very&nbsp;institutions meant to provide support and protection. Questions about a woman&rsquo;s circumstances, her choices and&nbsp;her reasons for considering adoption can raise serious&nbsp;concerns about dignity, privacy and the right to make decisions&nbsp;about her own reproductive life.&nbsp;The Women&rsquo;s Legal Centre has welcomed a significant&nbsp;Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that dismissed an appeal&nbsp;by the Minister of Social Development. The ruling confirmed that government social workers had unlawfully interfered in&nbsp;adoption processes and found the Department of Social&nbsp;Development&rsquo;s adoption guidelines unconstitutional. The&nbsp;judgment raises important questions about the limits of state&nbsp;intervention, the rights of women considering adoption and&nbsp;whether the policies governing adoption in South Africa&nbsp;adequately protect those rights. So, what exactly did the court find unlawful, and how were the&nbsp;dignity and privacy of the two women involved violated? How&nbsp;does this judgment strengthen women&rsquo;s reproductive&nbsp;autonomy while ensuring that the best interests of children remain central to adoption decisions? And what does it mean for the future of adoption law and policy in South Africa? We&nbsp;discuss these questions and more with the Women&rsquo;s Legal&nbsp;Centre, unpacking the significance of the judgment and the&nbsp;protections women should expect when making decisions&nbsp;about adoption.

After 8 Is After 8: We unpack South Africa's position on Nuclear Energy.

In 1 playlist(s)

METRO FM Talk with Faith Mangope

Social links

Recent clips