 So, ladies and gentlemen, friends, colleagues, it's really a pleasure to invite you to the first director's lecture series for the 2022-2023 academic year. It's a real pleasure to have Professor Tully Modensella at SOWAS, Tully, it's lovely having you here, with, of course, Vam Devaliers, who's the Vice Chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch. My name is Adam Habib and I am the director of SOWAS, University of London. Before we begin Tully Arts event, I want to remind you that we are in a fairly somber moment in this nation at this moment. I know that we often are quite a robust place that is the recipient of fairly robust debate, as it should be. But tonight, there has somebody who has been passed on, the sovereign of this nation, but also a human being who's passed on. And I think it's important that from whatever ideological vantage point we come, we reflect a human empathy. And from that principle of human empathy, I think I would like to ask you to just observe a minute's silence for the family and the government and the people of this nation. Thank you. Let me just tell you a little bit about the director's series. A year ago, we at SOWAS launched what we call the director's lecture series. And really it's been targeted to deliberate on the big questions of our time. There are complex issues around identity, around memorials, around inequality, around democracy, around populism that plague our world and is a manifestation across national boundaries. And we felt that we want to bring people here who don't normally get a voice, but to ask provocative questions and to try and think through difficult questions of this historical moment. So our first lecture, for instance, our first deliberation, was on vaccine equity in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. And we asked the question, why aren't we distributing vaccines more equitably around the world and the consequences thereof? We had debates around reparations. And we had difficult issues that do not get a sufficient hearing in our world. We make sure that those issues receive some deliberation through the director's lecture series. The director's lecture series is, we hope, a blended event until very recently. It was mainly an online event, but we hope increasingly to move towards a blended event. There are a number of people here who are online and, of course, many in the hall itself. And today, as I said, is the first of this lecture series for the 2022-2023 academic year. And I don't think we could have a better person than Tulima Densella, a fierce advocate of human rights, a feared advocate of holding states accountable. Tulima Densella is the law trust chain social justice in Stalin's posh university, but she is truly the former public protector in South Africa. And any of you who have any understanding of South Africa will know that South Africa is in the middle of unraveling what we have come to call state capture. The initial report that enabled that unraveling of state capture emerged from Tulima Densella and her team, as she reminded me, in the public protector's office many, many years ago. And she did so in the context of huge threats against her, huge threats to a person, huge threats to a right to occupy an office. And she would stood those threats. She stood there. She provided, if you like, incredible evidence that when principal leaders stand up for conviction that they can fundamentally change the possibilities of an administration and particularly of a society. And so I think South Africans owe a particular debt to Tulima Densella who moved on from that position to play a particularly important role in launching the Tulima Foundation for Democracy, Leadership and Literacy. She is a member of the African Academy of Sciences. And as I said, she plays an important role as law trust chair in social justice at Stalin's posh university. I want to stop there. This is not a lecture for me. It's really a year to listen to Tulima Densella. And I want to invite Virm de Villiers, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Stelenbosch to take this moment to introduce one of his senior professors, Virm de Villiers. Thank you very much, Adam. So good evening, everyone. So I'm Virm de Villiers. I'm the Rector and Vice Chancellor of Stelenbosch University. I want to thank you and also so as for the invitation tonight. And it's really truly a pleasure to be here to represent Stelenbosch University and to strengthen our partnerships and to deepen the collaborations between the two institutions. So it is a pleasure to introduce a phenomenal person, a terrific colleague at Stelenbosch University, Professor Tulima Densella. She actually needs very little introduction, but I want to highlight a few aspects of her very impressive CV. And that is in 2014, Time Magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world. And in 2016, she was Forbes Africa's person of the year. And that's also the year in which a non-renewable seven-year term as South Africa's public protector came to an end. Of all her achievements, it was surely that role as public protector that most put her in the public eye, especially in South Africa. During her tenure as public protector, she investigated several high-profile cases, including at least two implicating our former president. But more importantly, she also came to the aid of thousands of ordinary South Africans who had turned to her to protect them from abuses by the state. Now she may be self-spoken, but she is a fearless fighter for ethics and good governance. She was born in Soweto, obtained a Bachelor of Law from what is now the University of Esortini, and an LLB from Wittes University in Johannesburg. And then her first job actually was as an assistant teacher at her former high school. Later as an advocate of the High Court of South Africa, she would become a lifelong activist for human rights and the rule of law. She was an active participant in the anti-apartheid struggle and would also be one of the drafters of South Africa's new constitution after 1994. As a daughter, sister and mother, she is a strong proponent of gender equality. She is a member of the South African Women Lawyers Association and the Business Women's Association of South Africa and has written extensively on the advancement of women. I'm very proud that she joined Stellenbosch University at the start of 2018 as the Law Faculty Trust Chair in Social Justice. She has not only been helping us in building a community of shared values, she launched the annual Social Justice Summit. She puts her body on the line. She summited Kilimanjaro whilst raising funds for students in need. She spearheaded an annual Freedom Walk, which I also participated in on June the 16th this year, from the center of Stellenbosch to one of the outlying communities. A solid slog of 16Ks and I really had to struggle to keep up, but that's who she is. So it's really a pleasure to give you to Lee Madoncera. Thank you, Prof Vim de Villiers, for that very kind introduction and thank you to Prof Habib in this community for the privilege to be here. The only other place I know where the senior introduces the junior is at One Young World. So the reason I'm here is because I was attending One Young World and our job is to support young people like most people in this room who are solving the problems of this world and showing us how it's done, what impact they've already made and how can we support them. And our job as counselors is to introduce them like rock stars. So somehow, like the young people at One Young World, I get to have my boss introduce me like a rock star. So thank you, Prof. That's quite humbling and thank you, Prof. Adam Habib. Two men that I admire a lot and of course because they had to talk about me as presenting this lecture, they forgot to mention that both of them have been crusading for social justice without me and more recently with me for many years. And therefore it is a huge privilege and honor to talk to you today about the meaning of social justice as part of a conversation on building bridges of hope. I chose this idea of the meaning of social justice and linking it to building bridges of hope because when I think back to the times of Jane Austen in this part of this world, I think about the time of James Somerset in this part of this world, Charlotte McCoy again, our part of this world, of the world, Oly Shriina, Pixley Gaseeme and everyone. There's nothing in this world that could convince me to go back in time and leave during their time. So things are sometimes bad in our time and they're not as good as they could be, but I genuinely think that we thank those who went before us and did something to convince people to embrace the humanity of everyone. And I believe that they did that by building bridges of hope. For example, if you think about why I'm able to practice law today, women tried to fight on their own, Una Wookiee who saved articles under Gandhi and passed with sterling colors was blocked by the law society when she was supposed to be admitted. If High Court accepted and the matter went to the Appellate Division, she lost because colleagues thought women should not practice law for various reasons including our temperament which if you talk about people who explode in the room when they're angry in your lifetime whether it's at home or out there, it's not people like Justice Kate O'Regan. But she would have been told during Una Wookiee's time that she's not fit to practice law. The other reason, apart from temperament, they also said we do not have modesty and what was held against women lawyers was the fact that a certain coffinia in Roman times was annoyed by the judge that wouldn't listen to her and she turned around and flushed the judge so it became the coffinian curse. But other people have smashed other people's faces with their fists and it was never said they should not practice. So I'm just saying that the reason we're here is because those before us sowed something beyond what their peers could see and they thought that a better world was possible and they started putting ideas to society to help them transition to the other side. So I come from a part of this world that is seen as a magical transition from a cursed society built on an extractive structure of colonialism, apartheid, patriarchy, heteronormal seeing everything that excludes other people where people with disabilities would be hidden by families because they were seen as a curse. But that society had people who sowed a better future and they left us with a constitution that embraces the humanity of everyone. So unlike Somerset in Stuart versus Somerset, we can speak for ourselves. If you think about that case, if it hadn't been for the fact that he had godparents as a grownup, he had godparents and to save himself, to be saved from slavery, the godparents had to apply to a court to stop Stuart from sending him back to Jamaica into slavery. Again it took a judge who understood that for law to be upheld, for everyone to respect the rule of law, the law had to be just or the law had to be interpreted justly and he is even reputedly as having said, let justice prevail even if the heavens may fall. That was the chief justice, Lord Mansfield. So that's why I think if we're going to discuss social justice, I invite you to join me in discussing the topic within the context of breaches of hope. Because we might not be where we want to be, but today is better than yesterday. And if we build those breaches of hope, that some of the people on the shoulders of whom we stand, build, we can build another breach for the next generation. For example, I have legal equality with everyone because somebody made that possible. I have a claim to human rights because somebody made it possible. I have a right to vote because somebody made it possible. So if I was in the same situation as Charlotte McCoy again and all of these other people I've mentioned, I would still have just to struggle to get a voice. As Nancy Fraser says, a proper democracy must give everyone a voice. And so what is social justice? Perhaps we should start there. I am fascinated that most of the papers that I've read about social justice start with this line, there is no common definition of social justice. And then they go on and define it. Sometimes they define it as affirmative action. Sometimes they define it as socioeconomic rights. Sometimes they define it as gender justice or as disability justice, et cetera. I feel that's disrespecting the concept. When we discuss other concepts, there's no common agreement on what is law. That's why we study it. We look at Dawkins approach. We look at Hart's approach. And there are all these various nuanced takes on what is the law and what is the purpose of the law. But we never start by saying nobody knows what law means because that's dismissive. There are only two things I find in my part of the world that I introduced with art. It is social justice and it is ubuntu. When we talk about justice, again, justice means different people to different people if you like. But normally as lawyers, as academics, as scholars, when we define a concept, we start at the source. We would say, when did it first appear? And what was the definition given to it? For example, justice starts getting mentioned around the times of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. It's all about fairness. And then social justice image for the very first time as a concept in around 1843 to 18, around 1843, 1880 to 1843. And it was introduced by an Italian Jesuit scholar, Luigi Taparelli. So at the very least, we should go with that definition, which was fairness to all. But the fact that he confined it to economic outcomes and even spread of economic burdens and economic benefits does not mean he meant that was all. It just means that was the most pressing challenge of his time. And the most pressing challenge of that time was poverty and extreme inequality or unconscionable inequality in the wake of the first Industrial Revolution, where people had been rooted away from subsistence farming. And they had to have their sole existence devoted to paying to have a home, paying to have food and selling your labor to someone else, and that person saying they would pay you as little as possible because you have nothing else to do. And that was happening in this part of this world. In South Africa, the same thing was happening around exactly that time, where the locals had been turned into, according to a Stalin-Bosch professor, Professor Sanpeter Blanche. They were made to be unfree labor. He invents a concept of unfree labor. Again, unfree labor is when you have no option. So it's a certain kind of slavery because you've been dispossessed of land. You've had taxes imposed on you. You can't have more than a certain number of cows. If you have more than a certain number of cows, your cows will be impounded and you'll be left with nothing. And then, obviously, you have no option but to work. It's not a transaction between equals. So that was around 1843. Social justice was defined by Luigi Taparelli. And he himself is supposed to have been one of the followers of Thomas Aquina, those who are into theology, would know that the church at that stage were Catholics believed that a proper society is one where the humanity of everyone is embraced. And societal beddings are evenly shared. And societal, the benefits of living together are spread evenly and equitably. And they claimed that was natural. And you'd know, those of you are lawyers, that there are different theories, which I'm going to get to very quickly on social justice. The theories of it's a social contract, which we call utilitarian theories, like hopes. And then those who felt it is natural. But coming to the natural one, I'm going to get to immediately after the next one. The next time we saw social justice being mentioned was in 1919. It wasn't defined, but you could still see that it was about evenly spreading the burdens of collaboration. Because this is, 1919 is the Treaty of Versailles, which followed the First World War. And the feeling was that the war came because some were left behind. If I use modern language now in terms of the sustainable development cause, and some were assured more of societal beddings and less of the benefits of society. And of course, one of my colleagues, Prof Evans Kailula, who is one of the leaders in the ILO, which was formed under the Treaty of Versailles to advance social justice in the world, mourns, of course, the fate to that. This Treaty of Versailles was unfaithful to German workers. And that's why we ended up with the Second World War. Because when the big guys, like they're doing in my part of this world, have a deal that works for big business and works for the political elite, the grass suffers. And of course, you have a recipe. But that was 1919. And then we had this, after the Soviet Union, it tended, social justice tended to be associated with socialism, even though it was not about socialism. But of course, socialists tended to be more inclined towards socialism. Although, of course, the dictatorship of the proletariat can't be socially just, isn't it? I was a Marxist. But when I look back now, I say, no, it can't be just to have the dictatorship of anybody. A socially just society should have nobody dictating to anybody. And should have nobody having a divine right to govern. It should be democracy. It should be nothing about us without us and for us all, which is how the Athenians thought about it after studying it in Africa here, according to UNICEF studies. 1971, John Rolth told us what justice is and embedded in that. If you look at from page six of a theory of justice to page 18, tells us what social justice is. So if you look at when social justice was invented, people say social justice was not part of the deal. Why was that so? It's because traditional societies in many parts of this world tended to take it for granted that between social groups, there must be inequality. If you are a king, there are certain things that you must have that somebody who's not a king must not have. If you are a man, you must have certain things that women can't have. If you are a slave owner, et cetera, et cetera. And that's why. But I've come across authorities that say there was still a social justice element in the times of initially talking socrates followed by Plato and then Aristotle, that there were elements of social justice because democracy is anchored in social justice. If you think about the fact, Athenians came with the concept of democracy when they felt that the elites were making all of these decisions for themselves, where the burdens were unevenly shared by those who are not represented. And the benefit went to the aristocrats. And so they came up with the notion of democracy. Why would you say? Because the whole idea of deems was all constituencies were represented, the original, original democracy. All the deems were represented in the lots and whoever then would pick up the lots and every person had an opportunity to govern. That was the original part of democracy, of course, before people like Plato said, I think it was Plato. Keep blaming Plato for everything. But I think it's Plato who said democracy is both a skill and a right. And that's where things then went pear shaped, that people should only be elected based on the ability. But me and you know that these days, they're not elected on the basis of their ability. They're elected on the basis of how much money can they spend to manufacture our consent. And of course, in South Africa with a proportional representation, they're just elected if we like the party and everyone goes in. So but John Rawls is the second person to tell us about social justice. Then the Copenhagen Declaration. Then after that, we get to see in South Africa for the first time in 1995 social justice being mentioned in S versus Macquanyane, where in particular justice Madala says social justice is a dimension of Ubuntu and substantive equality. And of course, although the other justices may not have mentioned the notion of social justice, but they talk about equality, substantive equality, which is not the same as treating everyone the same. It is about treating everyone differently when necessary. And you get that again in 1995 later after Macquanyane. You then get Justice Mosenegu, giving us a much more a clearer notion of what social justice is. He takes the John Rawls. He doesn't talk about John Rawls. But the notion of social justice is both distributive and redistributive. So distributive in that it's about equitable distribution of opportunities, resources, benefits, and burdens in a society. But he also says it is also restitutive in that when you have an uneven playing field because of past injustices, you cannot say that justice has now been achieved. And we've tested the theories of social justice. The first one, OK, let me say I've tested the theories of social justice. The one, which is the Rawlsian one, which says it's a natural thing, that humans and apes just want to live in a fair society. And the first time I heard about this was from Bob Geldorf at one young world in Canada to say they tested this with monkeys. And then we've since also seen the tests that were done by, among others, the Max Planck Institute. They take one monkey. They give it cucumbers for doing the job very well. And monkey is happy because he thinks this is a fair reward. It might not like cucumbers. This type of monkey prefers grapes. But he thinks this is life. You get cucumbers for the work until they lift a veil and monkey A sees this monkey B. And then monkey B does the same work. They both do the same work now. And monkey A, as usual, is expecting cucumbers for rewards. But then he sees monkey B being given grapes, which is his favorite food. He thinks, oh, my goodness. Rewards have improved here. And he's salivating, expecting grapes. And guess what he gets? He gets cucumbers. Gets angry and throws away the cucumbers. And these kinds of experiments have been done with different apes all over. But there's just that sense that everyone wants to live in a community where your contribution is equitable. And when your rewards from the system are equitable as well. Another revidio from the Mexico Planned Institute that also proves that it's a natural thing. Again, there are many theories. I'm just giving you this theory that I gravitate towards. They use children. And I think they're about like four or so. They make them play. And then they ask them to pick up their toys. They do the same amount of work. Then when it comes to rewards, the teacher gives one child three pieces of chocolate and gives the other one a whole jar of chocolate. Just check it. You'll find it. It calls the cost of injustice. And the faces of those little ones are priceless. Because both the one who is benefiting and jelly and the one who is being cheated look shocked at what just happened. And the teacher asks them, wow, what's happening? And they don't have the language. But you can tell the body language that they don't think it's fair that they should be rewarded inequitably. However, there is an element of social justice that in a world where you had Somerset being a slave owner and no, Stuart is a slave owner. And Somerset is a slave. When you finally say to Stuart, you're now free. What happens? Are they now equal? Can they compete equitably? Can the best rise to the top based on their skills? And I think that's the difficulty around social justice because it is a very complex thing. The definition is easy. We talk about it's about fairness to all. But at the social justice chair, we say it's about equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms based on case law, including brain versus cashier. The words of our own former constitutional court charge, Justice Kate O'Regan, are included. But then that brings the element that is not included in those cases. In the second case with the kids, they ask, what do we do? So the one child, the boy throws all the sweets back on the floor to be distributed equally. But in real life, how do you do that? How do you reverse things? But do you leave things the same? Justice Museneghe has a verse in Minister of Finance versus Van Heerden that I tend to like. But I am going to use this one from head of department, Mbomalanga Department of Education and another, versus our school, MLO, which is high school MLO and another. It's a 2009 case. And so this is where they talk about the tricky thing of how do you level the playing field if you denied others opportunity. And Justice Museneghe says apartheid has left us with many scars. The worst of these must be the vast discrepancy in access to public and private resources. The cardinal fault line of our past operation ran along race, class, and gender. It authorized a hierarchy of privilege and disadvantage. Unequal access to opportunity prevailed in every domain. Access to private or public education was no exception. While much remedial work has been done since the advent of constitutional democracy, sadly, deep social disparities and resultant inequality are with us. It is so that white public schools were hugely better resourced than black schools. When I was working at VERS, it was one rent for every four rent spent on a white child, one rent to a black child. But that was not the only thing. It was also the schools were not in any accessible spaces. And they had been forcibly removed those communities from certain urban areas. They were lavishly treated by the apartheid government. And so at the Social Justice Chair at Stalin Bush University, we've tested this theory, because most people say equality means we're now equal. We have a new constitution that says we seek to establish a new society that is based on democratic values, social justice, and fundamental human rights, where everyone's life is improved, and every citizen's life is improved, and everyone's potential is improved. And a lot of people think that means men and women should be treated the same, people with disabilities, and those who are not disabled should be treated the same. Black people and white people, rural people and urban people should be treated the same. At the Social Justice Chair, working with Professor Sandy Lebenbeck at Stalin Bush University, we got students and grown-ups. Well, students are grown-ups, and they're older than 18. But you understand what I mean. You're younger adults, OK? We got students to play a rigged monopoly game. We got one team to wear pink and one team to wear blue, literally. And then we got the blue team to wear shades of blue, and the pink team to wear shades of pink. Then we came to class and said, you all start playing. I discovered that young people do warcraft and things like that. They don't do monopoly. So if you don't know, please ask your mom, your dad, or some other ancient person like me. But it's just a capitalist game. And everyone gets 200 rent, or $200 or 200 pounds at the start, and you play a dice wherever you land. It decides your fate. So it's a game of chance to a certain extent. It's partly chance, partly your skill in terms of what you buy, like in a normal life, what you buy, and how then you use that as rent. Everyone who lands on your property normally starts with houses and grouches and things like that. And then eventually you turn your houses to a hotel. So they play for about an hour, blue and pink. And then we kicked out in this experimental day. We kicked out the pink team. And lawyers can argue about the irrationality of it. Because when they ask me, why are we being kicked out? We say because you're pink. Pink does not deserve to be here. And they ask irrational, blah, blah, blah. And then I said, well, I am the government here. I'm the lecturer. I'm the outside that you go off. So they go off for another hour whilst the blue team plays. But here's another additional thing. When they go away, we ask them to leave the properties and the blue teams should take the properties. And because it's a real monopoly game, we rig it in that we say the blues can also borrow money from the bank without interest. And they can also exchange trade among themselves. It is a real monopoly game. So it's our game. And then after a while, we then ask the pink team to come back. Quite interesting, like in real life, the pink team asks for a reset or compensation. And the blue team said no. And so I also said no. They played. And you can predict how the game is going to end. Some lucky pink might catch up with some very unlucky blue and coupled with skill. Because the shades of blue and shades of pink are supposed to show that there's no uniform experience in any group in society. When you talk about social justice between groups, people in one group are not the same. And that's why a case like Matangu versus Minnes of Labor in South Africa recognizes intersectionality. And in this case that I've just spoken to you about also recognizes intersectionality. And Daniels versus Kribante, which is a land case, also recognizes the different levels of inequality. So we then, in this particular case, it was a real immersion. What the students didn't know that we had decided that the winning team was going to get money. So the winning team then obviously was blue. And then we gave them a 100-rand pay winner, and then just like those kids games, some students honestly didn't feel OK with taking them. And we said, it was yours. It was a game. You take your 100-rand. And some students said, no, it's not fair. So me being a bleeding liberal, we messed up the game by then giving the blue ones some money. But it was nice because for a moment they thought they were not going to get money. For reasons other than their ability. And this is where the part of social justice that is about restitutive etching is spoken by some of the justices in the constitutional court. And all over the world, really the Indian court, I can mention some cases that have spoken about restitutive etching. Because the South African constitution is one of about 30 constitutions in the world that specifically mentioned that we're building a social etchage society. Indian constitution is one of those. The Kenyan constitution is one of those. And then I think the question that arises is how do you get there? You want to build a social etchage society, but on the ashes of a socially unjust society. Nancy Fraser thinks a socially just society should have representation, recognition, restitution. And if we look at South Africa, thank you. If you look at South Africa, inequality persists along the lines of our historical fault lines. And globally, actually, inequality tends to follow historical fault lines. Whether it's slavery, whether it's those who assess or in feudal systems, et cetera. Of course, there'll be a few that make it through if that society deliberately forecast on building any egalitarian society, like the Nordic countries or the Scandinavian countries. In South Africa, despite this wonderful constitution that has been praised, among others, by Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have 55% poverty, which is has a racial element. Among white people, poverty is at 1%. Among those classified as Indian or Asian, poverty is at 6%. Among those classified as colored or mixed race, poverty is around 41%. Among those classified as African or indigenous Africans, poverty is at 64% within the group, 0.1%. The top 10% of enners in the world capture 66% of national income in South Africa. But globally, they say half of the wealth of the world belongs to eight families. The top 10% owns in South Africa 90% of the assets. Black South Africans, white South Africans own 72% of land, et cetera, et cetera. Let me just say that the next question is, how do we then build bridges of hope? And I know I was given an understanding that I should then wrap it up. What we're asking is not to shame anybody. Nobody in this room, not many people, anyway in the world, we're responsible for the injustices we face in the world. But as our vice chancellor, Vim Develius, often says when we do the social justice work, we are now beneficiaries of those injustices. But we also face the burden of these injustices dividing us, these injustices undermining our ability to rise economically, because we have four cylinders, but we're running on only one. Like you have this airplane that has four engines, it's only running on one. And so it's our burden now. How do we tackle it? At the Social Justice Chair, it's done by the university. We've come up with a moosa plan for social justice. It's like the post-World War plan to rebuild Europe. And we're asking the public to join hands to plug the gap. It doesn't mean we'll allow corruption, because corruption is injustice. And state capture is even across injustice. So this plan caters for all of that. The first part of it is policies that are tailored for all, because one-size-fits-all policies exacerbate inequalities. We've seen that with gender mainstreaming. Those who know about gender mainstream. The second part of it is about mobilizing social cohesion and social accountability, which is me, you, and everyone else standing up and holding those who exercise public power accountable for their part of the work. So that means we have to understand how constitutions in our different countries work so that we can leverage them. And to the extent that those constitutions are not good enough, don't shout that the constitution is useless. Table, like Juan Diego, some young person from Panama, just table your own suggestion on what should be changed. So we're asking you to be the play-tos of our time, mycavelis of our time. But just don't do it like mycavelli, that the end justifies the means. But I'm just talking the skill, though, of Karl Marx again. I'm not saying, well, do you talk about for us, but just give us ideas on how we can turn things around. Because as long as there's injustice somewhere, there can't be sustainable peace anyway. And but I know I'm preaching to the choir, because this institution, as I understand it, is founded on social justice. And you already know what I'm talking about. And you are our hope. Thank you. Yeah. So Tuli, thank you very much. That was really lovely. We do have a number of people who are online, a number of people in the audience. I do want to move quickly two questions and reflections from the audience. I do want to say one thing, however. It seems to me that there's two messages in what you say. The one is that if we, that social justice is fundamental to our sustainable future. And if you are thinking about social justice, what you're talking about is both the equitable distribution of burdens and benefits of a society, but also the rest of the initiatives that would enable that to happen. But the second thing you're saying is that there's bridges of hope. And it seems to me that what you're saying is that if you're talking about bridges of hope, you're talking about creating a vision that can appeal to multiple sectors of society as part of a collective project of inclusion. Now, South Africa is the great example of this, if you like. And Nelson Mandela is the great example of it. But it seems to me that if you go to South Africa today, many young people will be critical of Nelson Mandela. Because the argument will be that what has happened with that bridges of hope in South Africa is that we've consolidated the very inequalities we were meant to address. And we are far more unequal society in many ways than what people feel. They feel that the 1994 prospect has been betrayed. And that has created an anger and a rebellion, if you like. And it seems to me that that's the hidden question that needs to remain. So I want you to just note that because I'm sure you want to respond to that. And I want to open up to the audience to see if they have others. I'll take rounds of three. I should say one thing before we end, because I'm sure somebody is going to raise it. So I want to clarify this. And so as was founded, not on a social justice vision, I want to be clear, it was founded as a place to train colonial administrators for the colonies. Hopefully, over the last 100 years, we've shifted some of that vision. And we are trying to address that. And I do think that the audience that is in so as today in many ways, at least especially its students, do reflect an advanced social justice agenda. But we are born as an institution that was meant to advance the colonial project. And I do want to clarify that upfront. And I do think it's a history that we want to unravel. So with that, let me see some hands. I know we've got hands coming from there. Let's start with the question from online. And then I can come here, because I can see people here. OK, so I might read out three questions that have come in online, because then you might be able to address these questions. So we've got a question about how best to address social justice in education. There's also a question about giving examples of good results that you might have seen from the approach to social change that you've recommended. And there's also a question about understanding the role of the state. How can we see the state's role in terms of its promotion of rights and respect for citizens' access to their socioeconomic rights when there's loss of disillusionment with states in the world at the moment? OK. And then I just want to take two years. So there's a young woman right there with the white jacket. And then the person right in front of you. Thank you so much. Thank you for such a fascinating lecture. My name is Samuel Bano. I'm a lawyer and legal academic in the School of Law. I really enjoyed your lecture. But I wanted to play the devil's advocate and say one of the problems with social justice is all the outcomes of social justice is law. I'll be putting too much hope in law. And also that the underpinnings, you talked about John Rawls and Bentham and others, the liberal principles of fairness and justice never played out in a level playing field. So there is a very important critical legal critique that you will never find socially just outcomes as long as liberal law operates the way it does. And secondly, I just wondered what your insights or your thoughts were about Chile and the constitution that actually it has been overwhelmingly rejected when it's one of the most progressive constitutions. So again, it raises the question that I'll be putting too much hope into law. And that's the problem. And the person in front of you. Good evening. My name is Ankit. And I am second generation SOAS. My father had his LLM here 38 years ago. And I am testament to the fact that the university has gone leaps and bounds. But while preparing to come to SOAS, I read about Thiruvallayur, who has a famous quote. He said, the worlds of peace are built in the war on the roof of understanding. And professor, to you, my question is under the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514, which spurs from the South African cases in the International Court of Justice, do you as an advocate see any utility and viability in international law today? And perhaps if I have to give a context, we can look at the case of the British Empire's last African colony and the case of Shargos. And perhaps it's true, as professor said, it is Benton who came up with the word international law after all. So is there any utility in law in the 21st century? Thank you. Can I come back to you? Marvelous questions. That's one of the reasons I came back to academia, because I knew that this is where the Marxists, Bentons, Obesses, et cetera of our time align. Just to the question about some young people rejecting Mandela, a lot of it has to do with rejecting the South African constitution, where they say it's a liberal constitution. But those people who reject the constitution have not read constitutional court judgments. Check government decision-making in South Africa against constitutional court decision-making in South Africa. There's a running theme in the Constitution where ultimately they ask the question, is this just and equitable? And yet when laws are made, that question is not always asked. That's why we've come up with something called the social justice impact assessment matrix. And we're working on a social justice explorer using gaming to inculcate a culture of tailoring law for all. Because you always have to ask yourself, will this work for older persons, or will it push them further away from opportunity and more into the black hole of burdens? Will it work for domestic workers, rural people, et cetera? And I think that I'm not saying that the judges ask the questions all the time. One of my gripes is a case called NEF versus the Pup Protector, where I thought a former Zimbabwean woman was treated deplorably by being sent from pillar to post, and then eventually being told, oh, you don't qualify under the black empowerment laws, because you were not black by April 27, 1994, which is a given. But you can't send her on a run-around over a period of three years, and then come back and say, oh, I was sending you to get this, that, and that, because I just failed to do my job to find out, do you qualify, et cetera. And then it went to a judge, and the judge decided I was irrational by asking government to act properly. So I'm not suggesting that the law always acts right. I do think, though, that the law has enormous potential for social change. The Somerset case that I quoted earlier did make a difference to Somerset. And the judge knew that there would be implications. In fact, there's even arguments that the Somerset case somehow triggered the anti-slavery thing. Because the decision here was that in England, there was no law authorizing slavery. And the court then said, slavery is so odious. So lawyers, that's a judge teaching people, because it's embedded in your head. It's so odious that the only way we can allow it to happen is if there's positive law that introduces it. So meaning law can change. Coming from South Africa, I know that even in the darkest days of apartheid, administrative law was one of the areas where some inroads were created to push back against the excesses of apartheid. And there was even one case when the whole concept of judicial scrutiny was introduced for the first time in South Africa in the Hoffman case. And the judges said, this has not complied with the clauses that had allowed South Africa from, well, semi-decolonization, where South Africa was still a semi-colony, but was now the Union of South Africa. And it had to comply with certain requirements, constitutional requirements. So that's a judge using whatever is available. But at the end of it, they're just trying to ensure justice. It's the same as Lord Somerset. I'm certain, I mean, not Lord Somerset. In the Somerset case, it's the same that the judge was just finding a way within the law to ensure justice. And therefore, I do think that if we have lawyers that have been trained in respecting justice and not sacrificing law at the altar, sacrificing justice at the altar of justice, we can do better. And what is the guardrail that can assist lawyers to lean towards justice, as opposed to law? It is the constitution. If you have a constitution like South Africa, Kenya, or India, or it is international instruments, it's the one you cite, I'd say. We, again, if I look at, I think, justice Reagan, forgive me if I'm wrong, but when the court had to find that the state has a duty to prevent gender-based violence, or to prevent violence, there wasn't a verb or team statute that says, you have a duty to prevent violence. There was no, the Constitution didn't say that. They court used CEDA, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. So it takes judges that understand that, ultimately, everyone deserves to live in a just society. And you, as a judge, have a duty, of course, within the principles of the law to advance justice. But I do know that in our country, again, there is a tendency to respect the common law a little bit more than it should be respected, even when it is against the rules. And then, say, you're asking, how do we address justice in education? The starting point is the law. And we've come up with this instrument that is called the Social Justice Impact Assessment Matrix, which will make sure that when they design laws, they have to think about, will they do the things that Prof Adam Habib spoke about? And it's two tests, really. One, will this exacerbate existing inequalities? The second one, will this reduce existing inequalities? And by adding the second test, we are building in the case of South Africa, we are building in Minister of Finance, Mrs. Fankirin, et cetera. But globally, you're building in CEDA, because it does require positive measures. You're building in said convention of the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the ICPD, the International Convention on the Rights of People Disabilities, the CRC, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and then, of course, regional instruments, such as the EU, et cetera. So you can make a difference, but you need conscious justice. And lastly, yeah, I think I've answered the question that law is like any other thing. It can be weapon of destruction. It can be a shield. It can be a sword that advances justice. In the right hands, it can do a lot of good. In South Africa, we've seen the law achieve much devastation under the Black Administration Act and many exes. You can see that in the book from Sampi Templudge. But in my lifetime, I've also seen the law being used to create breaches of hope. Thank you.