Faculty of Law
Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Legal Philosophy
Selected Highlights from Research Findings
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995; its purpose was to give voice to people who had been the victims of violence and human rights abuses during the apartheid era. Perpetrators of such crimes could also give testimony and request amnesty from prosecution. Prof Caroline Nicholson of the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence has studied the TRC from the perspective of Therapeutic Jurisprudence – an interdisciplinary approach to law that centres around the law’s impact on the community in which it operates.
The aim of her research was to assess the position in South Africa today in light of the objectives set for the TRC at its inception, and also to assess the extent to which these objectives have been achieved.
The research took the form of a literature survey focused on the TRC process, the associated legal challenges and the recommendations made in the light of these challenges. The survey also included various works written about and in response to the TRC, as well as statements made by persons such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Yasmin Sooka.
Nicholson came to the conclusion that, although the TRC had generated an enormous amount of goodwill and hope at the time of its inception, South Africans are currently disillusioned by the lack of effect given to its recommendations.
Such disillusionment lends momentum to a drive to force those who were responsible for apartheid atrocities, and who failed to seek amnesty, to assume responsibility through prosecutions.
All in all, it appears that the TRC has failed to live up to its promise. The outcomes of this research were reported at two international conferences
Contact person: Prof CMA Nicholson.
A disturbingly large proportion of LLB students leave the University without a degree. This trend may be partially explained by the fact that many students who enrol for the course do not have the requisite academic ability to cope with its demands.
The current entry requirements for the course are based on students’ m-scores – aggregate scores reflecting the symbols attained during their matriculation examinations. Individuals with m-scores below 14 are not allowed into the course.
The high failure rate among LLB students suggests, however, that this criterion might not be stringent enough. Anton Kok of the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence conducted a study to assess the value of matriculation subjects and symbols as predictors of academic success among LLB students.
The study revealed that students with an m-score below 18 generally do not cope well with the demands of academic study. It was also found that a student’s choice of matriculation subjects may be a better predictor of academic success than his or her m-score per se: students who have higher-grade Mathematics and Physical Science at matriculation outperform students who do not have these school subjects.
In fact, even students who achieved D- and E-symbols in Mathematics and Physical Science perform better than the average LLB student. This may be due to the fact that success in these two subjects serves as a proxy indicator of “intelligence,” capacity for logical thinking or perhaps even reading ability.
On the basis of these findings, Kok recommends that LLB applicants with m-scores between 14 and 18 should at least be informed of their poor chance of success. He also suggests that marketing material and recruitment drives at high schools should point out the indirect practical utility of higher-grade Mathematics and Physical Science for law students, and that preference should be given to LLB applicants who take these subjects at higher-grade level in their final school year
Contact person: Mr JA Kok.
|
