Johannesburg: Just as birthdays are traditionally marked with celebration and some reflection, South Africa's Constitutional Court recently blew out the candles in celebration of its 30th birthday, having continued to make a positive impact on society. Few can envision a democratic South Africa without the apex court birthed by the country's world-famous Constitution.
According to South African Government News Agency, most people associate the court with the human rights contained in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. As the highest court in the land on constitutional matters, it exclusively addresses issues that raise questions about the application or interpretation of the Constitution. Given South Africa's painful history of torture and the threat of death under apartheid, the populace deeply values human rights.
The Constitutional Court is integral to South African life, dealing with matters of life and death. In the landmark S v Makwanyane (1995) case, the court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, as it violated the right to life in Section 11 of the Bill of Rights. This ruling demonstrated that laws previously used for oppression could now serve all South Africans.
Despite the years since that ruling, its impact resonates through democratic South Africa's evolution. Even when calls for a referendum to reinstate the death penalty arose, the Ministry of Justice and Correctional Services reiterated that the Constitution seeks to eradicate past injustices, protect from whims, advance the rule of law, and guarantee equality.
Section 74 of the Constitution mandates that amending its founding provisions requires a 75% vote in the National Assembly and support from six provinces in the National Council of Provinces. Thus, the government stated that a referendum on the death penalty was legally untenable. The public outcry in 2019 over violent crimes, including the murder of student Uyinene Mrwetyana, illustrated societal demands, but the Constitution's supremacy remained.
The government highlighted that conduct inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid and that its obligations must be met. This principle was evident in the August v Electoral Commission (1999) case, affirming prisoners' right to vote. Since then, opportunities for inmate voter registration and voting align with this constitutional right.
Such judgments, along with the Government of the RSA v Grootboom (2000) case on housing rights, cited by President Cyril Ramaphosa at the court's 30th-anniversary ceremony, demonstrate the court's commitment to upholding the Constitution's integrity rather than serving any sect.
These decisions educate the public on constitutional matters and enhance law-making and democracy in South Africa. Despite changing government faces, the court maintains its independent stance. However, the Grootboom case, where Irene Grootboom died without a decent house, underscores ongoing government challenges in implementing rights.
President Ramaphosa remarked that deepening respect for constitutionalism must begin with the state and acknowledged Grootboom's unrealized dream as a blight on democracy. While the Constitution is supreme, it allows for necessary amendments.
Recently, Parliament's Joint Constitutional Review Committee assessed the feasibility of amending the Constitution, considering legacy submissions from the previous Parliament. Public hearings and ten legal opinions informed the committee's evaluation of amendment proposals.
Ultimately, constitutional amendments require resolutions from both Houses of Parliament. The Constitutional Court, more than a building, is a living element of South Africa's present and future, continuing to thrive despite imperfections. May it endure long into the future.