ITSHOKENG KEKANA | Legal consistency in Chidimma’s citizenship case outweighs public sympathy

South Africa has repeatedly confronted cases involving irregular appointments, unlawful procurement, disputed citizenship and administrative failures.

While the facts differ, they all test the same principle on whether the law should bend to exceptional circumstances or be applied consistently.

A state governed by the rule of law cannot afford to administer justice according to emotion. Laws derive their authority from consistency, and consistency is sustained through precedent.

Every decision made by courts and public institutions extends beyond the parties before them; it establishes principles that will guide future cases.

When the law clearly defines certain conduct as unlawful, it must continue to be treated as such. If legal outcomes begin to depend on public sympathy, media attention or popularity, the law ceases to be an objective standard and becomes vulnerable to selective application.

A legal system cannot endure if similar cases produce different outcomes simply because society feels differently about the individuals concerned.

Should difficult or exceptional circumstances influence the application of the law, or should the law be applied consistently irrespective of the personalities involved?

Difficult cases naturally evoke compassion, and compassion has a place in a just society. But the purpose of the law is not to decide who deserves sympathy; it is to apply legal principles fairly, consistently and without favour. The more exceptional circumstances are allowed to override established legal standards, the more uncertain those standards become.

Every judgment leaves a footprint. Today’s exception can become tomorrow’s precedent, shaping expectations for future disputes and limiting the state’s ability to enforce its own laws consistently.

This is why the integrity of the legal system depends not only on reaching fair outcomes but also on preserving the certainty and predictability that allow citizens to trust the law.

The rule of law demands that justice remain principled rather than personal. A nation that substitutes legal consistency with emotional discretion risks weakening the very foundation on which justice, equality and public confidence are built.

The renewed public attention surrounding the case involving Chidimma Adetshina has again placed the courts and administrative bodies under intense scrutiny. Yet the greater issue extends beyond the particulars of a single case.

It invites a broader constitutional conversation about the rule of law, the consistent application of legal principles and the precedents that today’s decisions establish for generations to come.

Every generation encounters cases that capture the nation’s attention. They dominate headlines, divide public opinion and often evoke strong emotions.

While the facts of each case may differ, they all confront the same constitutional question: should difficult or exceptional circumstances influence the application of the law, or should the law be applied consistently irrespective of the personalities involved?

A constitutional democracy is not sustained by popular opinion but by legal certainty. The legitimacy of courts and administrative bodies rests on their ability to decide matters according to the Constitution, legislation and established legal principles, rather than the prevailing mood of society.

A legal system that substitutes principle with sentiment risks producing unequal outcomes, where similar cases are treated differently because of the identity, popularity or circumstances of those involved

Their role is not to determine who deserves public sympathy, but to ensure justice is administered fairly, impartially and within the boundaries of the law.

This is where precedent assumes constitutional significance. Judicial and administrative decisions do not exist in isolation; they become part of the legal framework that informs future disputes. Every decision sends a message about how similar matters will be approached tomorrow.

If legal principles are diluted whenever a case attracts extraordinary public attention, consistency becomes increasingly difficult to maintain, and public confidence in the rule of law begins to erode.

This does not mean the law should be devoid of humanity. Compassion and fairness remain indispensable values in any constitutional order. But those values must operate within the framework established by the law, not in place of it.

A legal system that substitutes principle with sentiment risks producing unequal outcomes, where similar cases are treated differently because of the identity, popularity or circumstances of those involved.

South Africa’s constitutional quest was founded on the promise that everyone would be equal before the law. That promise is tested not in straightforward cases but in those that provoke disagreement and demand difficult choices.

It is precisely in such moments that institutions must demonstrate their independence and fidelity to constitutional principles.

The question therefore is not simply how one particular dispute should be resolved. The more enduring question is whether the decisions made today strengthen the consistency, predictability and integrity of the legal system.

When this case has faded from the headlines, the precedent it leaves behind may continue to shape South African law for years to come; therefore, the importance of preserving the rule of law.

• Kekana is an independent writer focusing on social commentary and spatial inequality in SA.

Sowetan