11 In a way, the court's message to the president is that she/he is the torchbearer of the South African constitutional normative values both within and outside the Republic. 10 The President does not suddenly mutate into a Leviathan once she/he enters the international relations arena. 9 The President is a public servant who should always act within the prescriptions and proscriptions of the Constitution. ![]() It resonates with the South African constitutional scheme, both in letter and in spirit. While remarkable and refreshing, the position taken by the Constitutional Court is not surprising. 8 The court then ordered the president to withdraw his signature from the 2014 Tribunal Protocol. Consequentially, the South African President's participation in the decision-making processes and his own decisions to suspend the operations of the SADC Tribunal, and his signature on the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the Southern African Development Community (2014 Tribunal Protocol) were, by reason of sections 7(1) and (2) and section 8(1) of the South African Constitution, unconstitutional, unlawful and irrational. The Constitutional Court has held that in disbanding the SADC Tribunal and purporting to replace it with a weaker one and doing so contrary to the provisions of the SADC Treaty, the Summit acted unlawfully and irrationally. The case of Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, 6is refreshingly disruptive of the classical view which seem to be still part of the jurisprudence of some constitutional democracies, that give too much deference to the executive when it comes to the conduct of international relations 7 where the executive reigns supreme with very limited, if any, judicial and parliamentary oversight. In a landmark decision that has far reaching implications for South African constitutional law and South Africa's international relations, the South African Constitutional Court has announced, confirming a High Court decision, that the constitutional prescription that the President must always act rationally and lawfully is not only valid in the domestic arena, but follows the President even when conducting international relations. 3 For all this, thanks to the intervention of South Africa's domestic courts. There is also the likelihood that SADC citizens might again have the opportunity to bring their cases, be they of commercial, human rights or of any other nature, to the regional judicial institution when they believe that they have been failed by domestic courts of SADC Member States. Having been disbanded by the Summit of the Heads of State or Government (Summit) of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), 2 there is now a possibility, at least in theory, that the SADC Tribunal might be revived. Ultimately, the paper discusses the reasoning of the minority judgment to try to make sense of it. It further provides a broader legal-historical context of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) decision-making processes and the SADC region's general relationship to the rule of the law. 1 The article analyses the decision and its implications on South African constitutional law and the future conduct of international relations by the South African executive. This article provides a critical analysis of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others. IILLB LLM LLD Independent Researcher, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe ![]() IDip Human Rights, LLB LLM LLD Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, University of Johannesburg Moses Retselisitsoe Phooko I Mkhululi Nyathi II ![]() The revival of the SADC Tribunal by South African courts: A contextual analysis of the decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |