1|Pa ge
Benjamin Lloyd Von Weichardt - 28065972
Constitutional Law 214 – Prescribed Reading Summaries
DISCLAIMER:
These Constitutional Law case summaries have been compiled for academic support and
personal study purposes. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, clarity, and
completeness, I do not guarantee any specific academic results or performance. Users are
encouraged to consult their prescribed materials, lecture content, and relevant case law for a
full understanding of the subject matter.
Please note:
Some content appears more than once in these notes. This is intentional, as certain cases are
relevant to multiple topics or themes within the course. Although a case may be repeated, the
summary may highlight different legal issues or principles depending on the context. It
remains your responsibility to read and study each occurrence of the case carefully, as
the emphasis and relevance may differ.
By using these notes, you acknowledge that they are a supplementary resource and not a
replacement for your own study or legal analysis.
, 2|Pa ge
Benjamin Lloyd Von Weichardt - 28065972
Table of Contents
Case (A to Z) Page Number(s)
Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA v Premier of the 55
Province of KwaZulu-Natal 2010 (2) SA BCLR 99 (CC)
Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and 29
Reconciliation 2010 3 SA 293 (CC)
Corruption Watch (RF) NPC v President of the RSA; 27
Council for the Advancement of the South African
Constitution v President of the RSA 2018 1 SACR 317 (GP)
Democratic Alliance v President of the RSA 2013 1 SA 248 28
(CC)
Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly 3-4
2016 (3) SA 487 (CC)
Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of 7-10, 31-34
the National Assembly and Another 2018 (2) SA 571
(CC) [EFF Impeachment]
Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker, National 6, 44-45, 48
Assembly and Others 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC) [EFF Nkandla]
Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa: In re 15-16, 54
Constitutionality of Liquor Bill 2000 (1) SA 732 (CC)
Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature v 21-22
President of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (4) SA 877
(CC)
Judicial Service Commission v Cape Bar Council 2013 (1) 40-41
SA 170 (SCA)
Justice Alliance of South Africa v President of the 42-43
Republic of South Africa; Freedom under Law v President
of the Republic of South Africa; Centre for Applied Legal
Studies v President of the Republic of South Africa 2011
(5) SA 388 (CC)
Masetlha v President of the Republic of South Africa 2008 30
(1) SA 566 (CC)
Mazibuko v Sisulu 2013 (6) SA 249 (CC) 13-14
Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign 2002 10 39
BCLR 1033 (CC)
Mogale v Speaker of the National Assembly 2023 (6) SA 5
58 (CC)
Mwelase v Director-General for the Department of Rural 37-38
Development and Land Reform 2019 11 BCLR 1358 (CC)
Oriani-Ambrosini, MP v Sisulu, MP Speaker of the 17-18
National Assembly 2012 6 SA 588 (CC)
President of the Republic of South Africa v Public 25-26
Protector 2018 2 SA 100 (GP)
Secretary of the Commission [Zondo / State Capture 46
Commission] v Zuma June 2021 (CC)
Slade BV ‘Clarifying the power of the South African 52-53
Human Rights Commission to take steps to redress the
violation of human rights: A discussion of South African
Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC [2022]
ZAMPMBHC 58] 2023’
South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC 51
(39/2023) [2024] ZASCA 121
Speaker of the National Assembly v Public Protector and 49-50
Others; Democratic Alliance v Public Protector and
Others 2022 (3) SA 1 (CC)
Tongoane v National Minister for Agriculture and Land 19-20
Affairs 2010 (6) 214 (CC)
United Democratic Movement v Speaker of the National 11-12, 23-24, 35-36, 47
Assembly 2017 (5) SA 300 (CC)
, 3|Pa ge
Benjamin Lloyd Von Weichardt - 28065972
Unit 2: Separation of Powers and the National Legislature
RULES REGARDING THE OPERATION OF PARLIAMENT:
Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly 2016 (3) SA 487 (CC); as
discussed in the prescribed textbook:
Core Legal Issue:
• Whether s11 of PPI Act violates Parliamentary freedom of speech, protected by
s58(1)(a) of the Const, by allowing Speaker NA to order arrest/removal of MPs for
creating a “disturbance”, and if such regulation must be governed by Parliament’s
internal rules rather than legislation involving the Executive branch.
Facts:
• 2015 State of the Nation Address, EFF members kept interrupting Zuma, demanding
accountability for public funds spent on non-security upgrades to Nkandla.
• Speaker ordered EFF MPs to leave chamber. When they refused, she invoked s11 of
PPI to have them forcibly removed by police.
• DA challenged constitutionality of s11, arguing it infringed MPs’ freedom of speech.
▪ WC HC declared s11 unconstitutional, matter referred to CC for
confirmation .
Court’s Reasoning:
• Freedom of speech vital for robust debate, enabling MPs to hold executive
accountable w/out fear of arrest or external interference.
• Parliament = deliberative body; debate is central to its constitutional role.
• Privilege not absolute: MPs may not disrupt proceedings or prevent Parliament from
functioning.
• Restrictions must be imposed via internal rules, not legislation which involves the
executive.
• Unconstitutionality of Section 11:
▪ SOP: PPI encroached on Parliament’s exclusive authority under s57(1) to
regulate internal affairs.
▪ Section 11, read with 7 and 27 (criminalises “disturbances”) deterred MPs
from free speech.
▪ Term “disturbance” too vague → court narrowly defined it as conduct that
irreparably halts parliamentary business, couldn’t save s11.
• Discipline must come from internal rules, preserving legislative independence.
• Allowing executive involvement undermined Parliament’s constitutional autonomy.
, 4|Pa ge
Benjamin Lloyd Von Weichardt - 28065972
Final Judgment:
• CC confirmed HC order → declared s11 of PPI unconstitutional and invalid.
• Parliamentary privilege can’t be limited by legislation; only Parliament’s internal
rules may regulate MP conduct.
• Robust debate is protected unless it stops Parliament’s functioning.
• SOP requires Parliament to self-regulate w/out Executive interference (police).
Benjamin Lloyd Von Weichardt - 28065972
Constitutional Law 214 – Prescribed Reading Summaries
DISCLAIMER:
These Constitutional Law case summaries have been compiled for academic support and
personal study purposes. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, clarity, and
completeness, I do not guarantee any specific academic results or performance. Users are
encouraged to consult their prescribed materials, lecture content, and relevant case law for a
full understanding of the subject matter.
Please note:
Some content appears more than once in these notes. This is intentional, as certain cases are
relevant to multiple topics or themes within the course. Although a case may be repeated, the
summary may highlight different legal issues or principles depending on the context. It
remains your responsibility to read and study each occurrence of the case carefully, as
the emphasis and relevance may differ.
By using these notes, you acknowledge that they are a supplementary resource and not a
replacement for your own study or legal analysis.
, 2|Pa ge
Benjamin Lloyd Von Weichardt - 28065972
Table of Contents
Case (A to Z) Page Number(s)
Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA v Premier of the 55
Province of KwaZulu-Natal 2010 (2) SA BCLR 99 (CC)
Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and 29
Reconciliation 2010 3 SA 293 (CC)
Corruption Watch (RF) NPC v President of the RSA; 27
Council for the Advancement of the South African
Constitution v President of the RSA 2018 1 SACR 317 (GP)
Democratic Alliance v President of the RSA 2013 1 SA 248 28
(CC)
Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly 3-4
2016 (3) SA 487 (CC)
Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of 7-10, 31-34
the National Assembly and Another 2018 (2) SA 571
(CC) [EFF Impeachment]
Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker, National 6, 44-45, 48
Assembly and Others 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC) [EFF Nkandla]
Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa: In re 15-16, 54
Constitutionality of Liquor Bill 2000 (1) SA 732 (CC)
Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature v 21-22
President of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (4) SA 877
(CC)
Judicial Service Commission v Cape Bar Council 2013 (1) 40-41
SA 170 (SCA)
Justice Alliance of South Africa v President of the 42-43
Republic of South Africa; Freedom under Law v President
of the Republic of South Africa; Centre for Applied Legal
Studies v President of the Republic of South Africa 2011
(5) SA 388 (CC)
Masetlha v President of the Republic of South Africa 2008 30
(1) SA 566 (CC)
Mazibuko v Sisulu 2013 (6) SA 249 (CC) 13-14
Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign 2002 10 39
BCLR 1033 (CC)
Mogale v Speaker of the National Assembly 2023 (6) SA 5
58 (CC)
Mwelase v Director-General for the Department of Rural 37-38
Development and Land Reform 2019 11 BCLR 1358 (CC)
Oriani-Ambrosini, MP v Sisulu, MP Speaker of the 17-18
National Assembly 2012 6 SA 588 (CC)
President of the Republic of South Africa v Public 25-26
Protector 2018 2 SA 100 (GP)
Secretary of the Commission [Zondo / State Capture 46
Commission] v Zuma June 2021 (CC)
Slade BV ‘Clarifying the power of the South African 52-53
Human Rights Commission to take steps to redress the
violation of human rights: A discussion of South African
Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC [2022]
ZAMPMBHC 58] 2023’
South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC 51
(39/2023) [2024] ZASCA 121
Speaker of the National Assembly v Public Protector and 49-50
Others; Democratic Alliance v Public Protector and
Others 2022 (3) SA 1 (CC)
Tongoane v National Minister for Agriculture and Land 19-20
Affairs 2010 (6) 214 (CC)
United Democratic Movement v Speaker of the National 11-12, 23-24, 35-36, 47
Assembly 2017 (5) SA 300 (CC)
, 3|Pa ge
Benjamin Lloyd Von Weichardt - 28065972
Unit 2: Separation of Powers and the National Legislature
RULES REGARDING THE OPERATION OF PARLIAMENT:
Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly 2016 (3) SA 487 (CC); as
discussed in the prescribed textbook:
Core Legal Issue:
• Whether s11 of PPI Act violates Parliamentary freedom of speech, protected by
s58(1)(a) of the Const, by allowing Speaker NA to order arrest/removal of MPs for
creating a “disturbance”, and if such regulation must be governed by Parliament’s
internal rules rather than legislation involving the Executive branch.
Facts:
• 2015 State of the Nation Address, EFF members kept interrupting Zuma, demanding
accountability for public funds spent on non-security upgrades to Nkandla.
• Speaker ordered EFF MPs to leave chamber. When they refused, she invoked s11 of
PPI to have them forcibly removed by police.
• DA challenged constitutionality of s11, arguing it infringed MPs’ freedom of speech.
▪ WC HC declared s11 unconstitutional, matter referred to CC for
confirmation .
Court’s Reasoning:
• Freedom of speech vital for robust debate, enabling MPs to hold executive
accountable w/out fear of arrest or external interference.
• Parliament = deliberative body; debate is central to its constitutional role.
• Privilege not absolute: MPs may not disrupt proceedings or prevent Parliament from
functioning.
• Restrictions must be imposed via internal rules, not legislation which involves the
executive.
• Unconstitutionality of Section 11:
▪ SOP: PPI encroached on Parliament’s exclusive authority under s57(1) to
regulate internal affairs.
▪ Section 11, read with 7 and 27 (criminalises “disturbances”) deterred MPs
from free speech.
▪ Term “disturbance” too vague → court narrowly defined it as conduct that
irreparably halts parliamentary business, couldn’t save s11.
• Discipline must come from internal rules, preserving legislative independence.
• Allowing executive involvement undermined Parliament’s constitutional autonomy.
, 4|Pa ge
Benjamin Lloyd Von Weichardt - 28065972
Final Judgment:
• CC confirmed HC order → declared s11 of PPI unconstitutional and invalid.
• Parliamentary privilege can’t be limited by legislation; only Parliament’s internal
rules may regulate MP conduct.
• Robust debate is protected unless it stops Parliament’s functioning.
• SOP requires Parliament to self-regulate w/out Executive interference (police).
