No abstract

The feminist movement is often described as a political movement that advocates radical social change. Consistent with this description, this issue of Agenda is intended to tap into those "hidden sources of power from where true knowledge and therefore, lasting action comes" (Lorde, 1984:37). Our aim is to eradicate those spaces that stifle and suppress women. As portrayed in the title, there is no reason why women cannot be "kings" (Needham and Aidoo, 1995). We wish to tell the stories of prolific women throughout Africa, both those in the limelight and those working diligently in the background locating the contribution of women within collective movements for social justice in their respective spheres. The purpose is to credit women as innovators, pioneers and history makers with agency, autonomy and determination. Accordingly, the narratives of these phenomenal women are addressed though the following main themes: oppression and suppression of women activists; feminism; sexual minorities; and women's participation in government and governance structures.

On 1 September 2016, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in the case of Ndleve v Pretoria Society of Advocates ([2016] ZACC 29), in which it unanimously dismissed an application for leave to appeal lodged by Ralph Patrick Ndleve. The case established that there is a duty placed upon the Society of Advocates to uphold the law and ensure the integrity of the profession and the justice system as a whole. Further, the Society of Advocates was held to owe that duty to both the courts and the public. The case also established that the dominus litis in such cases is the Society of Advocates, and not the clients who lodged complaints.Ndleve’s application followed a series of applications before the Constitutional Court and the lower courts, in which Ndleve sought to set aside a decision of the High Court striking him from the roll of advocates. His disbarment followed an application moved before the High Court by the Pretoria Society of Advocates (the Society) after it received complaints of unethical professional conduct from various of Ndleve’s “clients”. Among these were complaints that Mr Ndleve took instructions directly from clients without being instructed by an attorney; that he continued to practise as an advocate after he had been struck off the roll; that he took money from clients without the intervention of an attorney; and that he had stolen money from clients. What stands out in this case, as will be discussed below, is that Ndleve’s dishonesty persisted even in the manner in which he conducted his application before the Constitutional Court.