, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
1. Discuss the ill-conceived announcement by the Head of the Executive responsible for
International Relations that South Africa was withdrawing from the Rome Statute and filing a
notice to this effect with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The announcement that South Africa was withdrawing from the Rome Statute was ill-conceived
because the executive did not have the power to unilaterally withdraw South Africa from an
international agreement that had been approved by Parliament. Section 231 of the Constitution
regulates international agreements and requires parliamentary involvement where an international
agreement has been approved by Parliament.¹
The executive's decision to submit the notice of withdrawal without first obtaining parliamentary
approval was therefore inconsistent with the Constitution. The decision also violated the principle
of the separation of powers because the executive effectively attempted to exercise a power that
required Parliament's participation.²
The High Court held that the decision to give notice of withdrawal was unconstitutional and invalid.
The case demonstrates that the executive is subject to the Constitution and the rule of law and
cannot simply disregard constitutionally prescribed procedures when exercising public power.³
¹ CSL2601, Study Guide, p. 11.
² Pierre De Vos & Freedman, 2014/2021, p. 151.
³ Pierre De Vos & Freedman, 2014/2021, pp. 151–153.
1. Discuss the ill-conceived announcement by the Head of the Executive responsible for
International Relations that South Africa was withdrawing from the Rome Statute and filing a
notice to this effect with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The announcement that South Africa was withdrawing from the Rome Statute was ill-conceived
because the executive did not have the power to unilaterally withdraw South Africa from an
international agreement that had been approved by Parliament. Section 231 of the Constitution
regulates international agreements and requires parliamentary involvement where an international
agreement has been approved by Parliament.¹
The executive's decision to submit the notice of withdrawal without first obtaining parliamentary
approval was therefore inconsistent with the Constitution. The decision also violated the principle
of the separation of powers because the executive effectively attempted to exercise a power that
required Parliament's participation.²
The High Court held that the decision to give notice of withdrawal was unconstitutional and invalid.
The case demonstrates that the executive is subject to the Constitution and the rule of law and
cannot simply disregard constitutionally prescribed procedures when exercising public power.³
¹ CSL2601, Study Guide, p. 11.
² Pierre De Vos & Freedman, 2014/2021, p. 151.
³ Pierre De Vos & Freedman, 2014/2021, pp. 151–153.
