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
25 March 2022

Sections 46(1)(d) and 105(1)(d) respectively provide that the National Assembly and Provincial Legislatures consist of women and men elected in terms of an electoral system that “results, in general, in proportional representation”.  The respondents argued that this refers to an exclusive party proportional representation system.  OUTA argued, correctly in my view, that proportionality does not equal exclusive party proportional representation.  The idea of proportional representation is not inconsonant with independent candidate representation.  These sections make no reference to party proportional representation, let alone exclusive party proportional representation.  The focus of the sections is on the “result”: whoever the participants may be, the system must be one that “results, in general, in proportional representation”.

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