As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.
Somebody in government who actually read
How else to explain comments made by these two learned and honourable servants of the people on Tuesday regarding the disbanding/strengthening/phasing out/extermination (take your pick) of the Scorpions? Last week Minister Nqakula surprised many of us when he announced in Parliament that the Scorpions “will be dissolved” finish en klaar (as Jackie Selebi would say).
But at a briefing this week Minister Nqakula was at pains to emphasise that the disbanding of the Scorpions is only a proposal. According to him:
We want to place on the table a proposal. I never said that … this is going to happen…We are going to Parliament and there’s no way in which our systems are going to be short-circuited.
Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Brigitte Mabandla added that: “I am convinced we will do nothing stupid … nothing that cannot stand the muster of the Constitution.”
The reason for this new circumspection is perhaps based on a realisation that the South African Constitution does not establish a pure form of representative democracy in which us poor sods vote for a political party every five years and then have no further say in anything the government or Parliament decides to do.
In two ground breaking judgments handed down in 2006, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the inclusion of provisions in the Constitution that explicitly requires the various legislatures to “facilitate public involvement” in their work establish the principle that ordinary citizens have a right to have a say in the passing of important legislation by those legislatures.
This means Parliament must act reasonably in the circumstances but must at least provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to participate in the legislative process when an important issue like the disbanding of the Scorpions is at stake. This would include an opportunity to make written and oral submission to Parliament and would require the members of Parliament to engage with those submissions.
Parliament must, of course, have the final say in the kind of legislation it passes but a balance must be struck between the need to respect Parliaments institutional autonomy on the one hand, and the need to empower citizens to so that they will be able to effectively take part in the important debates in Parliament that would potentially affect their lives. There will be an effective participation by the public in this process if the process allows for a real dialogue between members of Parliament and the public.
As Justice Ngcobo said in the Doctors for Life International case, the need for public participation:
[E]ncourages citizens of the country to be actively involved in public affairs, identify themselves with the institutions of government and to become familiar with the laws as they are made. It enhances the civic dignity of those who participate by enabling their voices to be heard and taken account of. It promotes a spirit of democratic and pluralistic accommodation calculated to produce laws that are likely to be widely accepted and effective in practice. It strengthens the legitimacy of legislation in the eyes of the people. Finally, because of its open and public character it acts as a counterweight to secret lobbying and influence peddling. Participatory democracy is of special importance to those who are relatively disempowered in a country like ours where great disparities of wealth and influence exist.
This means Parliament – elected by almost 15 million South Africans – cannot merely rubber stamp a decision taken by 4000 delegates at Polokwane because this would subvert the participatory aspect of our democracy.
Where Parliament facilitates such a process of meaningful participation, its members are free to make an unpopular decision. It is then for civil society to put pressure on Parliament to make the “right” decision and where that fails, it is up the voters to eject the majority party from government at the next election.
The problem in
But even ANC voters do not have boundless patience and who knows, in five or ten years time those ANC leaders will wake up to the realisation that they have been rejected by the masses of our people in favour of a party (as yet to be formed) that would listen more closely to their needs.BACK TO TOP