order issued in this respect would be effective, the proceedings must remain confidential until the court order has been both issued and served on the various persons who must be given notice’ – (this justification does not new ground and is covered by what has been said above in respect of the motivation for excusing an applicant from not having to give notice to a respondent in certain cases); and secondly, the argument was now made that Section 98(1) of POCA ‘although creates a general rule that hearings contemplated in the Act must be open to the public it explicitly excludes ex parte applications from that general rule’; and thirdly, it is stated that the Constitution authorizes in camera ‘because hearings in certain exceptional circumstances the National Assembly has determined, in section 98(1) of the Act, that ex parte proceedings under the Act are one of those exceptional circumstances’; and finally the was made that the respondent had not challenged the ‘as validity of section 98(1) he could not assert that an ex parte hearing in camera was inconsistent with the Constitution and that in any event section 98(1) of the Act authorized the utilization of such procedure’ – (all these grounds have already been held not to be in accord with the correct interpretation to be given to section 98 above). [82] This then to the consideration the central question whether or not the applicant has met the requirements set by section 98 (2) of POCA and the Constitution? [83] In this regard it is firstly of relevance that it is without question that section 98(2)(b) is not of application. [84] Secondly I consider that the requirements set by section 98(2)(a) were also not met as the bringing of this application, without notice to the respondent, already satisfied the interests of justice, which, in this instance, did not also require the exclusion of the public on the facts of this case. [85] In this regard it must also be kept in mind that the respondent was forewarned during the proceedings before the lower court on 28 July 2011 that an application for
order issued in this respect would be effective, the proceedings must remain confidential until the court order has been both issued and served on the various persons who must be given notice’ – (this justification does not new ground and is covered by what has been said above in respect of the motivation for excusing an applicant from not having to give notice to a respondent in certain cases); and secondly, the argument was now made that ‘although Section 98(1) of POCA creates a general rule that hearings contemplated in the Act must be open to the public it explicitly excludes ex parte applications from that general rule’; and thirdly, it is stated that ‘because the Constitution authorizes in camera hearings in certain exceptional circumstances the National Assembly has determined, in section 98(1) of the Act, that ex parte proceedings under the Act are one of those exceptional circumstances’; and finally the was made that ‘as the respondent had not challenged the validity of section 98(1) he could not assert that an ex parte hearing in camera was inconsistent with the Constitution and that in any event section 98(1) of the Act authorized the utilization of such procedure’ – (all these grounds have already been held not to be in accord with the correct interpretation to be given to section 98 above). [82] This then to the consideration the central question whether or not the applicant has met the requirements set by section 98 (2) of POCA and the Constitution? [83] In this regard it is firstly of relevance that it is without question that section 98(2)(b) is not of application. [84] Secondly I consider that the requirements set by section 98(2)(a) were also not met as the bringing of this application, without notice to the respondent, already satisfied the interests of justice, which, in this instance, did not also require the exclusion of the public on the facts of this case. [85] In this regard it must also be kept in mind that the respondent was forewarned during the proceedings before the lower court on 28 July 2011 that an application for
The%20Prosecutor%20General%20v%20Uuyuni%20(POCA%204-2012)%20[2013]%20NAHCMD%2067%20(12%20March%202013).docx