These are comprehensive summaries of Constitutional Law 271 and includes class summaries, case law discussions as well as an indication of what is important to focus on. These summaries are a good point of departure and can be easily built upon.
Role players in a const democracy :
- National assembly
o = legislative branch – creates and promulgate legislation
o Elected by public + s.42 of Const (aim = to represent public)
o Elect president thus need to hold president accountable
- State president (head of state)
o And president as head of executive branch (2 roles + 2
functions)
- Courts (esp. CC)
o Judicial branch
o Appointed by G
o ? invalidates conduct inconsistent with constitution
o * CC = exclusive jurisdictional power iro certain cases –
especially iro to president / par duties and responsibilities
- PP (NB for EFF 1)
o Ch.9 > s.182 > afford PP authority to investigate any conduct
in state affairs + to take binding remedial action
o Ensure accountability
Consider the following Qs:
- Contemporary challenges iro holding the judiciary accountable :
o Corruption
o Nepotism
o Politics and the law – ground your answer in the law
- Democracy
o Both social and political factors = NB
o Not merely ability to vote but ability to actively partake in
system
- Accountability
o Need to ensure that G can be held accountable
- Judicial review – always compare to limits imposed on it during
Apartheid era
Constitutional crisis of the 1950s and the exclusion of judicial review :
Changes effected by the interim const of 1993:
- Political inequality > Political equality
- Parliamentary monopoly >> legislative and executive powers on
national + provincial level
- First-pass-the-post system >> proportional representation
- PS (parliamentary supremacy) > CS (constitutional supremacy)
Constitutionalism pre-1994 :
- Union const of 1910 , republic const of 1961 and tricameral const of
1983
, - PS > no court of law = competent to enquire or pronounce upon the
validity of any law passed by parliament
- No substantive constraints
- Par = monopoly of power
Formation of the SA union :
- 4 colonies – cape, natal, free-state and transvaal
- After brittan won war > plan to unify colonies under SA Act of 1909
– union parliament formed
- National convention –
o Agreed to racially exclusive const based on Westminster
system – based on PS
o Bifurcated stated of colonial rule – racially exclusive
- UC – 2 houses > house of assembly and the senate BUT colonial
validity act still applicable in some ways >>>
External constraints : (NB)
- EC on parliament iro Colonial Validity Act 1865
o 1) Union par couldn’t legislate extraterritorially
o 2) or in a manner contrary to the British law
o 2) all bills had to be sent to the governor-general for assent
(applicable ?)
- Statute of Westminster – repealed Colonial law validity act
- >> removal of external constraints by Statute of Westminster in
1931
Internal constraints (NB)
- Union par = free to amend the const by ordinary procedures except
for entrenched provisions :
- Entrenched provisions
o 1) s.35 > protected the non-racial franchise in the cape and
natal
o 2) s.137 > protected the equality of the 2 official languages
- Could be amended by a special procedure > s.152
o Only be valid if bill was passed by both houses sitting together
o And agreed to by a 2/3 majority
Firm establishment of PS in SA ?=
- 1950s cons crisis – Collins = definite win for PS
- Harris 1 and 2
Exclusion of judicial review in entirety
(these cases regarding the crisis will be asked atleast once !)
1950s const crisis commenced with the passing of ?=
Separate Representation of Voters Bill > Harris I and 2 + Collins
(HC of Parliament + SAAA)
Exclusion of Judicial review :
- Sachs v Minister of Justice :
, o Par may make any encroachment it chooses upon life, liberty
and property of any indiv subject to its sway … and it’s the
function of the court to enforce its will > know this quote
- This judicial perspective = justified by the doctrine of PS – and gave
the apartheid legislature free right to attack the basic principles of
equality and human dignity
- Didn’t enquire into substance merely procedure
- PS >
o “no court of law = competent to enquire into or pronounce
upon the validity of any law passed by parliament” – no
substantive ability
o S.39 – courts couldn’t challenge nor change legislature
- CS >
o This enquiry must crucially rest on the const of SA , it is
supreme not the par
o No parliament, president or official – can make any law that
cant be justified within the const
o This is expressly provided for in s.2 of the const
Constitutional revolution – negotiations and final constitution
Interim constitution:
- Purpose = to provide a historic bridge between a past that is
deeply divided and characterized by strife conflicts, until i suffering
and injustice
- AZAPO case app here –
o Truce and recon act
o Granting of amnesty = central
On the verge of revolution :
- Various groups `(AZAPO, CASATU, PAC, ANC etc) > resisting
apartheid
- 1952 – passive measures > resting especially pass laws and
immorality act
- 1955 – drafting freedom charter > said to basis for BoR
- 1960 – sharpville massacre
- 1963 – Rivonia trial
- 1976 – Soweto Uprising
- 1967 onwards > RESISTANCE INTENSIVES
- 1980s > heading towards disaster > tried to appease intern
pressure ?= Tripodal const
o 3 houses of parliament (whites, colored , Indians) , 4:2:1
proportion – white still has power – black majority still
excluded
Run up to 2-stage transition :
- CODESA = tasked with drafting interim const – June 1992 –
negotiations stall , ANC walks out
- Declaration of intent 1991 – common view for const
, - MPNF created to draft interim const > provided for a system of
power-sharing
Main differences betw ANC and NP :
- ANC > wanted const drafted by democratically elected parliament +
majority G created
- NP < unelected MNPF to draft , long transition G with power sharing
+ veto powers
- [did ask]
[will ask the 2 stage transition in some form]
Q – who can draft the final const ?=
- No one = elected to represent universal adult suffrage – no credible
body
- Need for a democratically elected body (citizen involvement)
- MPNF = not elected body – so couldn’t be credible either
- THUS to address concern and to accommodate conflicted ideas betw
political parties > 2 stage transition – interim then final const
2 stage transition:
1) Interim const
- Drafter by the MPNF in 1993
- Provided specifically for power sharing
- 34 const principles in schedule 4 = NB
o Regulate the adoption and certification of the const text
- Provides for a BoR
- Created CC
2) Final const
- Negotiated after the democratic election by the elected CA (1994)
- To be certified by new CC (if compliant with 34prin)
- Includes extensive BoR
*1 certification judgment = applicable here > NB case [FCJ]
st
Interim Final
- Negotiated but unelected - Negotiated by elected CA
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 nandinel1512. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R100,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
