Constitutionalism and separation of powers in South Africa after the promulgation of the 1996 constitution : a comparative perspective
- Authors: Ramatsekisa, Tsietsi Given
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Separation of powers -- South Africa Constitutional law -- South Africa Democracy -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/12642 , vital:39295
- Description: Constitutionalism and separation of powers is the most dynamic topic worldwide. Montesquieu, the French philosopher is credited with the doctrine of separation of powers. Various countries adopted the doctrine and modified it, in order to fit their systems of governments. The reason behind is that there is no universally recognized model of separation of powers or one size fit all. Countries apply this doctrine differently in a fashion that fits their domestic laws and constitutional requirements. Montesquieu gave a classic exposition and the rationale for separation of powers in one of his well-celebrated work “The Spirit of Laws”. The concept of separation of powers emerged premised on the theory that the arms of state namely, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, should operate within their providence without one interfering with the other. From the South African perspective, the Constitution of South Africa of 1996 requires separation of powers even though it is not explicitly so stated in the text. This research examines the unique South African model of separation of powers and how the courts have navigated through it from the time the Constitution was promulgated. It seeks to establish whether or not a South African model of separation of powers has come to the fore. The research further examines the problem of interference amongst the arms of state and mechanism of checks and balances which can be applied to prevent or minimise such interference. In doing so, the study pursued a desktop survey of primary and secondary materials, including scientific literature, legislation, courts’ jurisprudence, and official documents. A comparative perspective was also made in order to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions where the doctrine is applied. The findings reveal that South Africa has a unique model of separation of powers. The model was learned and enriched from various foreign jurisdictions. The courts have contributed enormously to this model, which contrive to be fluid and living.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Ramatsekisa, Tsietsi Given
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Separation of powers -- South Africa Constitutional law -- South Africa Democracy -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/12642 , vital:39295
- Description: Constitutionalism and separation of powers is the most dynamic topic worldwide. Montesquieu, the French philosopher is credited with the doctrine of separation of powers. Various countries adopted the doctrine and modified it, in order to fit their systems of governments. The reason behind is that there is no universally recognized model of separation of powers or one size fit all. Countries apply this doctrine differently in a fashion that fits their domestic laws and constitutional requirements. Montesquieu gave a classic exposition and the rationale for separation of powers in one of his well-celebrated work “The Spirit of Laws”. The concept of separation of powers emerged premised on the theory that the arms of state namely, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, should operate within their providence without one interfering with the other. From the South African perspective, the Constitution of South Africa of 1996 requires separation of powers even though it is not explicitly so stated in the text. This research examines the unique South African model of separation of powers and how the courts have navigated through it from the time the Constitution was promulgated. It seeks to establish whether or not a South African model of separation of powers has come to the fore. The research further examines the problem of interference amongst the arms of state and mechanism of checks and balances which can be applied to prevent or minimise such interference. In doing so, the study pursued a desktop survey of primary and secondary materials, including scientific literature, legislation, courts’ jurisprudence, and official documents. A comparative perspective was also made in order to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions where the doctrine is applied. The findings reveal that South Africa has a unique model of separation of powers. The model was learned and enriched from various foreign jurisdictions. The courts have contributed enormously to this model, which contrive to be fluid and living.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
Hate speech as a limitation to freedom of expression
- Authors: Botha, Joanna Catherine
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Freedom of speech -- South Africa , Hate speech -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/9054 , vital:26460
- Description: Hate speech in South Africa creates a tension between the right to freedom of expression and the rights to human dignity and equality. The challenge is to achieve a balance between these competing rights in the context of the divisive past and the transformative constitutional ideal, in which reconciliation and respect for group difference are promoted. Freedom of expression, an individual right, must be construed in light of its underlying values, but regard must also be given to communitarian interests. The constitutional standard draws the initial line. The advocacy of hatred on four grounds and which constitutes incitement to cause harm is not constitutionally protected speech. Such speech undermines nation building, causes acrimony, and is not tolerated in the egalitarian society envisaged by the Constitution. The thesis formulates a principled legislative hate speech framework for South Africa at both human rights and criminal levels within the parameters of the constitutional mandate, as guided by the standard for hate speech restrictions in international law, and the Canadian regulatory model. An essential premise is that regulation requires a multi-faceted balancing enquiry. A holistic approach is proposed where factors such as respect for the dignity of the victims, autonomy for speakers, listeners and the wider community; the causal link between hate speech and hatred in a community; and the desire to achieve a diverse and harmonious society; amongst others, are considered. Failure to regulate hate speech constructively endorses hatemongers and promotes damaging speech at the expense of vulnerable groups. Regulation ensures that law sets the normative benchmark, affirms the protection of vulnerable groups within the social fabric and upholds social cohesion, inclusiveness and the equal citizenship of all individuals in society. The thesis contains a proposal for the enactment of legislation creating a self-standing hate speech crime for the advocacy of extreme hatred, shaped in accordance with international requirements and comparative foreign law, and structured in light of the distinction between hate crime and hate speech. The existing legal framework is unable to provide consistent and fitting redress for the severe harm caused by such speech, namely the fostering of an environment in which the stigmatisation of groups is promoted, their exclusion from society justified and intervention is needed to remedy the escalated levels of hatred and violence between different groups in society. PEPUDA, a remedial statute aimed at promoting transformation and substantive equality, is valuable, but its speech prohibitions are broad and imprecise. Consequently, their effectiveness is compromised and their constitutionality questioned. The thesis proposes recommendations for amendments to sections 7(a), 10(1) and 12 of PEPUDA. The aim is to ensure compliance with the international standard and to foster the optimal regulation of hate speech and other forms of damaging speech, including derogatory racial epithets, which undermine human dignity and equality and threaten national unity. It is intended for the two systems to complement one another and to create a legal framework aimed at addressing hate speech constructively and in context, promoting tolerance, respect for difference, reconciliation and transformation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Botha, Joanna Catherine
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Freedom of speech -- South Africa , Hate speech -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/9054 , vital:26460
- Description: Hate speech in South Africa creates a tension between the right to freedom of expression and the rights to human dignity and equality. The challenge is to achieve a balance between these competing rights in the context of the divisive past and the transformative constitutional ideal, in which reconciliation and respect for group difference are promoted. Freedom of expression, an individual right, must be construed in light of its underlying values, but regard must also be given to communitarian interests. The constitutional standard draws the initial line. The advocacy of hatred on four grounds and which constitutes incitement to cause harm is not constitutionally protected speech. Such speech undermines nation building, causes acrimony, and is not tolerated in the egalitarian society envisaged by the Constitution. The thesis formulates a principled legislative hate speech framework for South Africa at both human rights and criminal levels within the parameters of the constitutional mandate, as guided by the standard for hate speech restrictions in international law, and the Canadian regulatory model. An essential premise is that regulation requires a multi-faceted balancing enquiry. A holistic approach is proposed where factors such as respect for the dignity of the victims, autonomy for speakers, listeners and the wider community; the causal link between hate speech and hatred in a community; and the desire to achieve a diverse and harmonious society; amongst others, are considered. Failure to regulate hate speech constructively endorses hatemongers and promotes damaging speech at the expense of vulnerable groups. Regulation ensures that law sets the normative benchmark, affirms the protection of vulnerable groups within the social fabric and upholds social cohesion, inclusiveness and the equal citizenship of all individuals in society. The thesis contains a proposal for the enactment of legislation creating a self-standing hate speech crime for the advocacy of extreme hatred, shaped in accordance with international requirements and comparative foreign law, and structured in light of the distinction between hate crime and hate speech. The existing legal framework is unable to provide consistent and fitting redress for the severe harm caused by such speech, namely the fostering of an environment in which the stigmatisation of groups is promoted, their exclusion from society justified and intervention is needed to remedy the escalated levels of hatred and violence between different groups in society. PEPUDA, a remedial statute aimed at promoting transformation and substantive equality, is valuable, but its speech prohibitions are broad and imprecise. Consequently, their effectiveness is compromised and their constitutionality questioned. The thesis proposes recommendations for amendments to sections 7(a), 10(1) and 12 of PEPUDA. The aim is to ensure compliance with the international standard and to foster the optimal regulation of hate speech and other forms of damaging speech, including derogatory racial epithets, which undermine human dignity and equality and threaten national unity. It is intended for the two systems to complement one another and to create a legal framework aimed at addressing hate speech constructively and in context, promoting tolerance, respect for difference, reconciliation and transformation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »