Disclosure of corporate political donations and expenditure to shareholders: Why South Africa should follow the United Kingdom’s legislative approach

Disclosure of corporate political donations and expenditure to shareholders: Why South Africa should follow the United Kingdom’s legislative approach

Author: Vela Madlela

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law, University of South Africa
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 1, p. 114-156
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i1a4

Abstract

Whilst corporate political donations and expenditure is legally permissible in South Africa, and whilst some companies may be making such donations and incurring such expenditure for valid reasons, corporate political donations and expenditure is frequently associated with secrecy and poor corporate governance practices within companies. One strategy that some corporate-law jurisdictions have adopted to regulate corporate political donations and expenditure is to require company boards to disclose relevant information about such donations and expenditure directly to their shareholders. However, South African law currently does not require companies to disclose their political donations or expenditure directly to the shareholders, either in the annual financial statements, or in the directors’ report that must be included in the annual financial statements, or in the annual report. Following an examination of key policy considerations relevant to the disclosure of corporate political donations and expenditure to shareholders, and an examination of the legislative approach in the UK, the article argues for the effective disclosure of corporate political donations and expenditure to shareholders under the Companies Act 71 of 2008. It then makes detailed recommendations on how such disclosure requirements could be introduced and implemented in South Africa.

Guilty of being deaf. Kruse v S — paying lip service to the fair-trial rights of hearing-impaired accused persons

Guilty of being deaf. Kruse v S — paying lip service to the fair-trial rights of hearing-impaired accused persons

Authors: Ferdinand Heinrich Hermann Kehrhahn & Jani Charlese de Lange

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Lecturer, Independent Institute of Education, Varsity College, Pretoria; Lecturer, Department of South African Sign Languages and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 1, p. 157-180
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i1a5

Abstract

This article considers the case of Kruse v S, where the right to a fair trial of a deaf accused was infringed owing to the poor communication and translation of the trial proceedings. This article considers the methods available to translate court proceedings to a deaf or hard-of-hearing accused, and demonstrates an appreciation that the deaf community is not homogeneous and that a single interpreting method cannot accommodate every deaf person. In raising the question as to which method is best suited to a specific accused, the article indicates that the culture and history of the deaf accused should be indispensable factors to consider. The article explores the rights of deaf accused in the South African criminal justice system by considering the Constitution, national legislation, and judicial norms and standards which relate to the interpreting of trial proceedings to the deaf accused. The existing laws and safeguards that protect these rights are poorly implemented at a grass-roots level, which calls for better training of stakeholders and more effective policy implementation. A concerted effort on the part of the government is required to ensure that the rights of the deaf accused are protected.

Hyperlinking and copyright

Hyperlinking and copyright

Author: Sadulla Karjiker

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Anton Mostert Chair of Intellectual Property Law, Stellenbosch University
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 1, p. 181-204
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i1a6

Abstract

This article critically considers the legality of hyperlinking to copyright-protected material on the Internet. It considers the position with respect to standard hyperlinks, and attempts to provide a possible approach in light of the proposed introduction of two new exclusive rights, namely (i) the right of communication to the public; and (ii) the making-available right. These new exclusive rights appear to be an attempt to amend the South African Copyright Act in order to give effect to the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, which sought to ‘digitise’ copyright law in light of the digital technology that had developed. The WIPO Copyright Treaty supplements, in particular, the rights granted to copyright owners under the Berne Convention, extending the right of communication to the public to include the making-available right. Use will be made of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has given effect to the right of communication to the public (including the making-available right), following its inclusion in the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996. Through a more focused analysis of these exclusive rights, it is intended that this article can provide some guidance to South African lawyers and our courts when considering the application and scope of these exclusive rights.

Where do we belong? The plight of plaintiffs with small maritime claims

Where do we belong? The plight of plaintiffs with small maritime claims

Author: Malcolm Wallis

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 1, p. 205-231
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i1a7

Abstract

Is a claim falling within the definition of a ‘maritime claim’ in terms of s 1 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 and also within s 29(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944 capable of being pursued in the magistrates’ courts? In World Net Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Donsantel 133 CC & another 2020 (3) SA 542 (KZP) the full court in KwaZulu-Natal held that such claims must be pursued within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the high court. The article submits that this is incorrect and disregards the history of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, amounts pro tanto to an implied repeal of the relevant section of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, and is inconsistent with the principles of statutory interpretation applied by our courts. It urges the Maritime Law Association urgently to seek an opportunity to challenge the decision, which is prejudicial to claimants with small claims arising out of ship-related contracts or delicts.

Book Review: Andrew Stewart, Rosemary Owens, Niall O’Higgins & Anne Hewitt (eds) Internships, Employability and the Search for Decent Work Experience (2021)

Book Review: Andrew Stewart, Rosemary Owens, Niall O’Higgins & Anne Hewitt (eds) Internships, Employability and the Search for Decent Work Experience (2021)

Author: Johann Maree

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 1, p. 251-257
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i1a9

Abstract

None