INTRODUCTION:
In this Journal entry, the aim is to provide brief information about The Traditional
Courts Bill [B1D-2017]. In doing so, the controversy caused by the passing of this bill
by the Legislature will also be included in this Journal entry. This Journal entry will
also discuss the opinions of those supporting and opposing the Bill.
The Traditional Courts Bill [B1D-2017] was passed by Parliament to ensure a
consistent legal foundation for the organisation and operation of traditional courts in
South Africa. It was introduction in 2008 and has been amended consistently. It was
withdrawn in 2011 as a result of public criticism. It repealed the provisions of the Black
administration Act of 1927 that were unconstitutional. The bill was passed for, inter
alia, the Customary Courts. The bill has however caused some controversy, with some
parties supporting and some opposing it.
Parties that support it claim that it enables justice accessible to the marginalised
groups of South Africa. They also claim that citizens who would not have access to
justice due to financial constraints are no longer deprived of their constitutional right
to access to justice as the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 states.
They claim that the bill ensures that South Africa still considers Customary law as a
primary source of law.
Parties that oppose it claim that the Traditional Courts Bill does not consider the role
that community councils play in traditional dispute- resolution procedures at the local
levels where the system functions optimally. They claim that more authority is granted
to senior traditional leaders who are mostly men, which deprives the minority of their
constitutional right to equality as they are partially considered by the bill. They further
claim that the bill grants the courts sole jurisdiction in handling extreme charges, for
instance when one is banished without considering the community’s opinions, which
in their regard infringes on historical customary protection.
One of the provisions transmitted in the bill that contradicts with reality is Section 5(1)
of The Traditional Courts Bill [B1D-2017] which states that, members of the traditional
courts must comprise of both men and woman In accordance with section 9 of the
In this Journal entry, the aim is to provide brief information about The Traditional
Courts Bill [B1D-2017]. In doing so, the controversy caused by the passing of this bill
by the Legislature will also be included in this Journal entry. This Journal entry will
also discuss the opinions of those supporting and opposing the Bill.
The Traditional Courts Bill [B1D-2017] was passed by Parliament to ensure a
consistent legal foundation for the organisation and operation of traditional courts in
South Africa. It was introduction in 2008 and has been amended consistently. It was
withdrawn in 2011 as a result of public criticism. It repealed the provisions of the Black
administration Act of 1927 that were unconstitutional. The bill was passed for, inter
alia, the Customary Courts. The bill has however caused some controversy, with some
parties supporting and some opposing it.
Parties that support it claim that it enables justice accessible to the marginalised
groups of South Africa. They also claim that citizens who would not have access to
justice due to financial constraints are no longer deprived of their constitutional right
to access to justice as the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 states.
They claim that the bill ensures that South Africa still considers Customary law as a
primary source of law.
Parties that oppose it claim that the Traditional Courts Bill does not consider the role
that community councils play in traditional dispute- resolution procedures at the local
levels where the system functions optimally. They claim that more authority is granted
to senior traditional leaders who are mostly men, which deprives the minority of their
constitutional right to equality as they are partially considered by the bill. They further
claim that the bill grants the courts sole jurisdiction in handling extreme charges, for
instance when one is banished without considering the community’s opinions, which
in their regard infringes on historical customary protection.
One of the provisions transmitted in the bill that contradicts with reality is Section 5(1)
of The Traditional Courts Bill [B1D-2017] which states that, members of the traditional
courts must comprise of both men and woman In accordance with section 9 of the
