Quote of the week

Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.

Khampepe j
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
14 December 2006

CC drifting to the right?

In The Union of Refugee Woman and Others v The Director: the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others, handed down yesterday, the CC voted 6 votes to 4 to reject the argument that legislation which in effect banned non SA citizens or permanent residents from working in the security industry, constituted unfair discrimination against refugees.

This outcome seems to confirm the rightward drift of the Court in recent years.

The majority opinion (written by Acting Justice Kondile) confirms that refugees are a vulnerable group in our society, but finds that it is perfectly acceptable for the law to place an extra burden on refugees to show their trustworthiness.

That is not to say that foreign nationals, including refugees, are inherently less trustworthy than South Africans. In a country where xenophobia is causing increasing suffering, it is important to stress this. It is not that the Authority does not trust refugees. Rather, it requires everyone to prove his/her trustworthiness.

And refugees must prove their trustworthiness more than SA citizens or permanent residence….

The majority is quick to assume that the impact on refugees is not very serious (because they can get other kinds of jobs) and that the law achieves the important purpose of guaranteeing the trustworthiness of security guards. They probably have no idea how many refugees work as non-armed security guards around the streets of Cape Town. I guess not many of them hang out in Green Point late at night.

The minority opinion (written – again – by two women judges, Mokgoro and O’Regan) rightly rejects this line of reasoning and is not so quick to assume the exclusion of refugees is for an important purpose. They understand that the Court’s equality jurisprudence is based on a substantive notion of equality that looks at the actual impact of the different treatment on the complaining group.

The effect of the legislation, the minority argues, is to send a signal that refugees are less trustworthy than SA citizens or permanent residence. It says that we as a society do not need to treat them with equal concern and respect.

Excluding refugees from the right to work as private security providers simply because they are refugees will inevitably foster a climate of xenophobia which will be harmful to refugees and inconsistent with the overall vision of our Constitution. As a group that is by definition vulnerable, the impact of discrimination of this sort can be damaging in a significant way.

Analysing South Africa’s international law obligations, the minority recognise that refugees have a status closer to that of permanent residence than that of other non-citizens who are not living permanently in South Africa. Just like permanent residence refugees have a right to stay on in South Africa indefinitely. They have gone through a process of being declared refugees and are mostly not in a position to return to their countries of birth.

In effect the minority sees that the discrimination here is most sharply drawn when one compares the treatment of permanent residence with that of refugees. There is hardly a distinction between them, which suggest the fact that refugees are not treated the same as permanent residents, is based on stereotypes and prejudice.

The minority opinion clearly shows more empathy with the specific vulnerability of the refugees. The minority judgment is imbued with the spirit of ubuntu while the majority judgment probably expresses the spirit of so called hard-nosed realism.

2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest