, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
QUESTION 1
1. Discuss the relevant aspects of the case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of
Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27; 2022 (10) BCLR 1267 (CC) (19 July 2022),
which is available under ‘Additional resources’.
The Constitutional Court case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others
addressed important issues of systemic discrimination and access to justice, focusing on the unequal
allocation of police resources in the Western Cape. The applicants, representing marginalised
communities, sought to challenge not only the discriminatory practices of the South African Police
Service (SAPS) but also the failure of the Equality Court to grant a remedy timeously¹. This
discussion outlines the origins, findings, and implications of the case, with emphasis on
constitutional principles of equality, judicial accountability, and access to courts.
Background and Origins of the Dispute
The dispute arose from the Safety and Justice Campaign launched in 2003 by the Treatment Action
Campaign (TAC), later joined by the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), Equal Education (EE), and the
Nyanga Community Policing Forum. Their advocacy highlighted the unequal burden of violent
crime and under-policing in poor, predominantly Black communities like Khayelitsha².
In response to public pressure, the Khayelitsha Commission of Inquiry was established in 2012 by
Premier Helen Zille. Its findings in 2014 revealed systemic failures within SAPS and highlighted the
discriminatory impact of the Total Human Resource Requirement (THRR) system, which distributed
police personnel based on criteria that disadvantaged high-crime, low-income areas³. The
Commission’s report was instrumental in prompting litigation.
Equality Court Proceedings and Findings
In 2016, the applicants instituted proceedings in the Equality Court, alleging that SAPS's resource
allocation amounted to unfair discrimination on the basis of race and poverty⁴. The Women's Legal
Centre Trust (WLCT), admitted as amicus curiae, argued that the under-resourcing of police services
in vulnerable communities exacerbated gender-based violence⁵.
In 2018, the Equality Court found in favour of the applicants. Relying on the expert evidence of
criminologist Jean Redpath, the Court held that poverty could constitute an analogous ground of
discrimination under section 9(3) of the Constitution, especially given its systemic impact on human
dignity⁶. The Court declared the allocation system discriminatory but deferred its ruling on the
appropriate remedy pending further submissions⁷.
1: Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others [2022] ZACC 27, para 2.
2: Ibid para 10; Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Police Inefficiency in Khayelitsha (2014).
3: Ibid paras 12–15.
4: Ibid para 16.
5: Ibid para 17; Women's Legal Centre Trust submissions.
6:Ibid para 20.
7:Ibid para 22.
QUESTION 1
1. Discuss the relevant aspects of the case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of
Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27; 2022 (10) BCLR 1267 (CC) (19 July 2022),
which is available under ‘Additional resources’.
The Constitutional Court case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others
addressed important issues of systemic discrimination and access to justice, focusing on the unequal
allocation of police resources in the Western Cape. The applicants, representing marginalised
communities, sought to challenge not only the discriminatory practices of the South African Police
Service (SAPS) but also the failure of the Equality Court to grant a remedy timeously¹. This
discussion outlines the origins, findings, and implications of the case, with emphasis on
constitutional principles of equality, judicial accountability, and access to courts.
Background and Origins of the Dispute
The dispute arose from the Safety and Justice Campaign launched in 2003 by the Treatment Action
Campaign (TAC), later joined by the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), Equal Education (EE), and the
Nyanga Community Policing Forum. Their advocacy highlighted the unequal burden of violent
crime and under-policing in poor, predominantly Black communities like Khayelitsha².
In response to public pressure, the Khayelitsha Commission of Inquiry was established in 2012 by
Premier Helen Zille. Its findings in 2014 revealed systemic failures within SAPS and highlighted the
discriminatory impact of the Total Human Resource Requirement (THRR) system, which distributed
police personnel based on criteria that disadvantaged high-crime, low-income areas³. The
Commission’s report was instrumental in prompting litigation.
Equality Court Proceedings and Findings
In 2016, the applicants instituted proceedings in the Equality Court, alleging that SAPS's resource
allocation amounted to unfair discrimination on the basis of race and poverty⁴. The Women's Legal
Centre Trust (WLCT), admitted as amicus curiae, argued that the under-resourcing of police services
in vulnerable communities exacerbated gender-based violence⁵.
In 2018, the Equality Court found in favour of the applicants. Relying on the expert evidence of
criminologist Jean Redpath, the Court held that poverty could constitute an analogous ground of
discrimination under section 9(3) of the Constitution, especially given its systemic impact on human
dignity⁶. The Court declared the allocation system discriminatory but deferred its ruling on the
appropriate remedy pending further submissions⁷.
1: Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others [2022] ZACC 27, para 2.
2: Ibid para 10; Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Police Inefficiency in Khayelitsha (2014).
3: Ibid paras 12–15.
4: Ibid para 16.
5: Ibid para 17; Women's Legal Centre Trust submissions.
6:Ibid para 20.
7:Ibid para 22.
