ACDP Questions timing and need for assessment given 17th Constitutional Amendment and Superior Courts Bills presently before Parliament
ACDP MP and member of the Justice and Constitutional Development Portfolio Committee, Steve Swart, today, while welcoming the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development's commitment to uphold the independence of the judiciary, questioned the timing of and need for an assessment of the judgements of the Constitutional Court
"The ACDP welcomes today's commitment by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to uphold the independence of the judiciary as the cornerstone of South Africa's constitutional democracy. We, like others, were concerned with statements by President Zuma and others regarding Constitutional Court judgements. We will be studying the Discussion Document tabled by the Minister today, particularly regarding the proposed assessment of the impact of the decisions of the Constitutional Court. We are unclear as to the exact outcome of such an assessment, with the Minister no excluding the possibility of constitutional amendments being proposed following such assessment.
However, any honest assessment of the judgementsof the Constitutional Court could not conclude otherwise than that the court has been progressive and transformative in extending socio-political rights, such as in the Grootboom (access to housing) and Treatment Action Campaign (access to anti-retroviral treatment) judgements.
The ACDP is somewhat perplexed by the timing of the proposed assessment of the Constitutional Court, given that Parliament is presently dealing with the 17th Constitutional Amendment and Superior Courts Bills. These Bills inter alia seek to enhance the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and one would have expected such an assessment to have preceded their tabling.
It is also unclear what the minister meant when he referred to "recommendations, including the assessment of the decisions of the Constitutional Court", which,"are with a view to developing clear and concise recommendations that are necessary to unlock challenges that have the potential to undermine the transformative goals that are intended to nourish our constitutional democracy."
In any event, should any proposals to change the powers of the Constitutional Court result from this assessment, such constitutional amendments will have to be passed by Parliament with, in certain cases, the required super-majority, which is 75%, and which the majority party does not enjoy.
On the other hand, the Discussion Document covers a broad range of issues affecting the judiciary, and not only the assessment of the Constitutional Court. We will be studying the document, but on face value, welcome the proposals to monitor the implementation of court decisions by all state departments, as well as the reconsideration of the usage, efficiency and capacity of the Judicial Service Commission, the Magistrate's Commission, the South African Law Reform Commission and the Rules Board for Courts of Law."
Statement issued by Steve Swart, MP, ACDP, February 28 2012
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
