Mariha ke nako e loketseng ea ho fofa. Ho na le litsela tse sa tšoaneng tse tsejoang, ba bangata ba tla khona ho iphumanela se tla tlisetsa thabo. Ho phaella moo, koetliso ea ntle e na le melemo e sa tšoaneng ea motho. Har'a litlaleho tse ncha, li ntle haholo qgis y gvSIG Re entse qeto ea ho kena ho bona ka tekanyo ea bohlokoa eo ba nang le eona bakeng sa lihlooho tsa rona. Re li behile bohareng ba moo Esri_Ba hona, ho ba litlaleho tse tharo feela tse amanang le software. This brings us to another even more emotive concept while still tracing Nugent dismissal. Basically, justice requires us to give to others what they are due or entitled to. Like democracy, the concept of justice is analogously challenging. There is social and procedural justice. Let’s recall that, politics is about equitable distribution of resource. Politics according to Lawson, it’s about who get what? How? When? And where, in order to provide such resource to arrive at what is justifiable or justice. John Rawls quickly comes to mind to solve this conundrum. He seeks to devise a method for arriving at the principles of justice to which everyone can consent. For him, each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties contemplated with a similar system of liberty for all. Every person must be granted fair opportunity under similar conditions in any office he or she is occupying. That means the liberty principle must take precedence over the fair opportunity and so on. The question is? Did our government considered all these principles before firing Justice Nugent? For Rawls, any act to an individual must not be inimical to the essential well-being of others. That is, if he was release without being heard, what example would this give to our jurisprudence?