This document is a case note, i.e., a critique of a case called AZAPO v President of South Africa. The structure of this case note is as follows: The context or background information about the case is set out first. Thereafter the document considers the significance of the case (which is the reaso...
structure context of case significance of case thesis statement road map argument 1 questioning the independence of the judiciary argument 2 conclusion
This case, adjudicated in the Constitutional Court, pertains to the establishment of the TRC,
more particularly, the granting of amnesty for perpetrators of gross human rights violations,
and the granting of reparation for victims of gross human rights violations under the
apartheid regime. The epilogue of the interim constitution made provision for amnesty to
be granted to perpetrators and for reparation to be granted to victims. Subsequently, the
Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1994 (“the Act” henceforth) was
enacted by Parliament to give effect to the aforementioned provision for amnesty and
reparation.
AZAPO challenged the constitutionality of s 20(7) of the Act on four grounds. First, it
contended that s 20(7) of the Act was inconsistent with chapter 22 of the interim
constitution. Second, it contended that international law placed an obligation on the state
to prosecute perpetrators of gross human rights violations, and therefore s 20(7) of the Act
breached international law. Third, it conceded that the postamble’s provision of amnesty
may have granted perpetrators immunity from criminal prosecution but contended that it
did not grant them immunity from civil liability. And finally, it contended that the enactment
of the Act, particularly s 20(7) of the Act by Parliament constituted the state indemnifying
itself from civil liability, therefore making s 20(7) of the Act unconstitutional.
Significance
Surely there is nothing closer to the hearts of the majority of (non-white) South Africans
than obtaining social justice. The case does point to the fact that disadvantaged groups
within South Africa want retributive justice regarding the crimes of perpetrators under
apartheid, but more than that, it points to the fact that social justice is more important
(restitution or reparation). Surely, we’ve managed to dismantle ‘political apartheid’, but we
are still in an ongoing struggle against ‘economic apartheid’. Therefore, this case is
significant in that it addresses the issue of social justice within South Africa more than
anything else.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller jodyvanbridges. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R82,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
