Quote of the week

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.

Khampepe J
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
3 July 2008

Public hearings on Scorpions

I see public hearings will be held  at Parliament on the 5, 6, & 7 August 2008 about the draft legislation that will be abolish the Scorpions. There will also be public hearings in the provinces from Monday 11 August to Friday, 15 August 2008.

It is clear that these hearings will aim to give effect to the recent Constitutional Court judgment in the Merafong case in which the Constitutional Court confirmed again that meaningful public participation was required when Parliament passed important legislation. Parliament will therefore have to manage this process very carefully to vaccinate the legislation against a constitutional challenge.

As the majority pointed out in the Merafong case – following previous precedent – meaningful participation did not require Parliament to follow the suggestions of the public, but merely that it had to be open to be persuaded by such submissions. What was required was for the public hearings not to be “a cynical charade”, but “held in good faith”. There must be “a possibility of change” in the position of the legislature.

There is no authority for the proposition that the views expressed by the public are binding on the legislature if they are in direct conflict with the policies of Government. Government certainly can be expected to be responsive to the needs and wishes of minorities or interest groups, but our constitutional system of government would not be able to function if the legislature were bound by these views. The public participation in the legislative process, which the Constitution envisages, is supposed to supplement and enhance the democratic nature of general elections and majority rule, not to conflict with or even overrule or veto them.

When public hearings are held on the abolition of the Scorpions Parliament will therefore have to listen to a wide range of opinions and if the ANC does its work, it will ensure that some of these opinions will support the abolition of the Scorpions and when they eventually pass the legislation it will be very difficult to challenge on the grounds that there was no meaningful public participation in the adoption of this legislation.

So, farewell Scorpions. Just another institution destroyed to serve the short-term political interest of what Xolela Mangcu calls the new fascists. The only way to deal with this kind of short-sighted and destructive arrogance on the part of the ruling party is to vote them out of office. But this will not happen next year because there is no credible party to vote for.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest