Williams and Wilson/Dugard both argue that the South African court’s decision in Mazibuku was “inconsistent
with the project of transformative constitutionalism (Williams) and has “chosen not to consider the full
transformative potential of its role” (Wilson and Dugard) yet each author gives a different reason for why the
court has shied away from the role courts in other countries (like Germany or India) have embraced. Which
argument do you find more convincing? Why?
Sample Solution