Dear Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services,

I write to you to detail two cases that I have brought to every single court and it is dismissed without any possible reason whatsoever.

both cases deal with corruption and money laundering that has been allowed by the FSCA (Financial Service Conduct Authority) and various corporates including a JSE listed enterprise.

all respondents including the FSCA have failed to defend the allegations, failed to follow court rules, failed to present any evidence contrary to the ones brought in our court papers filed.

I am debarred fro working for a period of 10 years against my constitutional rights alongside this by the FSCA who cannot account for why they have taken such reckless steps.

The concourt dismissed the case, without any defence, stating a case of direct access has not been made. but this is incorrect as our papers highlight very clearly the various constitutional rights that we are deprived of. It was brought under rule 18 Direct access which reads, upon a person alleging that a constitutional right is infringed, a person may bring action directly to the constitutional court under rule 18 direct access.

the order dismissing it, even includes Justice Zondos name, but Justice Zondo could not have went through the case as he was busy with the Commission of Inquiry all along.

the two cases are CCT217/20 and most recent case CCT43/21

All i want is justice, I also have a small amendment to the Superior Courts Act which even though small change, it makes a huge difference in obtaining justice for the public.

The superior court act reads, upon application of a party to transfer a matter the court may transfer the matter to a court that has jurisdiction.

this must change to a more suitable and just law that protects people, as it costs people their entire savings to bring matters to a court, upon a court determining that it does not have jurisdiction, that court should not be able to dismiss a matter nor award costs against such applicant. If a court does not have jurisdiction, it must state it and reason why and then transfer the matter to the court that does have jurisdiction. This then preserves a party bringing action from all costs until the matter is rightfully heard by a court that does have jurisdiction to hear a matter.

the words "upon application" must be changed from the Superior courts act to be inline with sec 39 of the constitution.

my contact details are : Avinash Ramkistan
email : avinash@idesire.co.za
tel : 0661116304