I am concerned that the media appears to be ignoring the highly significant second dissenting judgment on Phala Phala by four Constitutional Court judges. It hardly seems “slam dunk” if a significant number of judges dssented from Maya’s ruling. It seems to me the second (out of three) judgment contains substantial and compelling arguments. Obviously the main judgment is the enforceabe one, but the others do tell us it was not inevitable? Could a DM journalist delve into it? @StephenGrootes @Rebecca_Davis @Ferial @Thammenator