Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Opinionistas

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are not that of Daily Maverick.....

From courtroom chaos to constitutional clarity in the unruly case of King Khoekhoe

Marthinus van Staden
By Marthinus van Staden
3 Dec 2024
Facebook
0
When individuals can declare themselves kings, establish their own courts and reject state authority, we risk sliding into a kind of legal anarchism where the strongest or most persistent simply ignore the laws they dislike.

“Take your court and shuff (sic) it in your m&%# se p&%% you all corrupt m%$# se p&%$ your judiciary is a f#$% fluke and a joke you protect corrupt bastards you, on my land you f$@& collaberators (sic) of the white bastards.

“You tell Judge... this is King Khoekhoe and tell her I say %$& $#@ %$ tell i say #@% &%$# so the f%$#@ f&%$  n%$# with a @#$ &$#.

“I dispise (sic) you your f#$@! law.”

The above is a verbatim copy-and-paste from the recent Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town’s record in the case of Stellenbosch University v Carlson and Another.

A seemingly self-proclaimed king who threatens to establish his own court system makes veiled references to acquiring Russian weapons and hurls expletive-laden insults at judges isn’t your typical contempt of court case. Yet this is exactly what the Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town faced in its recent ruling against Granville Colin Carlson, who styles himself as “His Majesty King Khoekhoe De Goringhaicona the First”.

The case highlights a growing challenge in South Africa’s constitutional democracy: the tension between traditional leadership claims and the rule of law. While the Constitution recognises traditional leadership and customary law, it makes clear that these institutions operate within, not above, the constitutional framework. Some self-proclaimed traditional leaders, however, seem to view this as optional.

Carlson’s case began conventionally enough. After filing multiple frivolous lawsuits against Stellenbosch University, including a peculiar claim for $450-million for trademark infringement, he was declared a vexatious litigant in August 2023. This legal designation required him to obtain court permission before filing any new cases against the university. Simple enough, one might think.

But what followed was anything but simple. Carlson not only ignored the court order by filing new cases without permission, but also declared he would establish his own court system.

When called to answer for his contempt, he responded with a late-night email announcing his “significant decision” to open his own court in South Africa, followed by an ominous reference to contacting the Russian parliament for weapons to “liberate my people from your law”.

This would be almost comical if it weren’t so serious. The rule of law — that fundamental principle that no one is above the law — is not just legal jargon but the bedrock of democratic society. When individuals, regardless of their claimed titles or authority, can simply decide that laws don’t apply to them, we step on to a dangerous path.

Important questions


The case raises important questions about how modern democracies handle claims of traditional authority. South Africa’s Constitution thoughtfully balances respect for traditional leadership with constitutional supremacy.

It recognises traditional leaders and customary law while making clear that these institutions must operate within constitutional bounds. This isn’t about suppressing traditional leadership, but ensuring it functions within a framework that protects all citizens’ rights.

Carlson’s case is particularly instructive because it reveals the challenges courts face when dealing with individuals who fundamentally reject their authority. How do you enforce the law against someone who doesn’t recognise your right to do so? The Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town’s handling of the case provides a masterclass in judicial restraint and principled decision-making.

Despite Carlson’s provocative behaviour — including sending vulgar, expletive-laden emails to court officials — the court maintained its composure. It methodically analysed his claims, gave him multiple opportunities to appear and defend himself and ultimately delivered a judgment that was firm but measured. The suspended sentence and fine (R4,000 or four months’ imprisonment suspended for five years) demonstrate the court’s focus on achieving compliance rather than mere punishment.

But the case also reveals a broader societal challenge. In an era of increasing individualism and questioning of traditional institutions, how do we maintain respect for the rule of law? When individuals can declare themselves kings, establish their own courts and reject state authority, we risk sliding into a kind of legal anarchism where the strongest or most persistent simply ignore the laws they dislike.

The solution isn’t just about enforcement — though that’s certainly important. It’s about education and understanding. Many South Africans, like citizens worldwide, may not fully grasp how the legal system works or why it matters. The relationship between traditional authority and constitutional democracy needs better explanation and engagement.

Universities and other institutions facing similar challenges might consider proactive engagement with traditional communities and leaders. While frivolous lawsuits must be defended against, there might be opportunities for dialogue about legitimate concerns before they escalate into legal battles.

The judgment sends a clear message: claiming traditional authority doesn’t exempt anyone from the law. Additionally, it also reveals the need for broader societal conversation about how traditional leadership fits within modern democratic structures.

This isn’t unique to South Africa — many countries grapple with similar challenges as they balance respect for traditional institutions with the demands of modern governance.

Important precedents


As South Africa continues to develop its constitutional democracy, cases like this serve as important precedents. They remind us that the rule of law must be consistently enforced, regardless of who challenges it.

However, they also highlight the need for ongoing dialogue about how traditional and modern governance systems can coexist productively.

Carlson’s case might seem extraordinary, but it reflects very real tensions in modern society. The challenge for courts — and society at large — is to maintain the rule of law while respecting genuine traditional leadership claims. This requires wisdom, patience and an unwavering commitment to constitutional principles.

As Judge Mas-udah Pangarker noted in the judgment, traditional leadership is recognised and respected in South Africa — although subject to the Constitution. This simple principle points the way forward: respect for tradition need not mean abandoning the rule of law.

Instead, it means finding ways for traditional leadership to flourish within, not outside, the constitutional framework.

The next time someone declares themselves king and threatens to establish their own court system, South Africa’s courts have a clear precedent to follow.

However, perhaps more importantly, they have demonstrated how to handle such challenges with dignity, restraint and unwavering commitment to constitutional principles.

In an era of increasing challenges to institutional authority, that’s a lesson worth learning. DM

Categories:

Tags: