IRM1501 MAY/JUNE PORTFOLIO
FOR SEMESTER 1 2025
FEND TUTORIALS
, QUESTION 1
Discuss the relevant aspects of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of
Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27
(15 marks)
Introduction
The case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT
121/21) [2022] ZACC 27 constitutes a landmark constitutional judgment that grapples
with the state's obligations to protect marginalized communities from violent crime and
uphold socio-economic rights through effective policing. It demonstrates the challenges
of enforcing equality and safety rights in informal settlements, reflecting broader themes
of accountability, socio-economic justice, and judicial oversight in South Africa’s
constitutional democracy.
Background and Facts
The applicants, including the Social Justice Coalition and Equal Education, represented
communities in informal settlements in the Western Cape who experienced high levels
of violent crime and police neglect. They sought enforcement of an earlier Equality
Court order requiring the South African Police Service (SAPS) to take reasonable
measures to protect these communities. The applicants contended that the state’s
failure to implement the order amounted to a “constructive refusal,” infringing their
constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and security of the person.
Legal Issues
The Constitutional Court was tasked with two central issues:
1. Whether SAPS’ failure to implement the Equality Court order constituted a
constructive refusal to comply.
2. What remedies the Court could grant to enforce constitutional obligations in
contexts of systemic state inaction.
The case thus foregrounded the extent of the state’s positive obligations under the
Constitution and the judiciary's role in ensuring compliance with equality-based court
orders.
The Court's Analysis
Justice Kollapen, writing for the minority, articulated a strong view that the continued
failure by SAPS to provide adequate policing in vulnerable communities constituted
constructive refusal, violating section 9 (equality), section 10 (dignity), and section 12
(freedom and security of the person) of the Constitution.^1 The judgment emphasized
FOR SEMESTER 1 2025
FEND TUTORIALS
, QUESTION 1
Discuss the relevant aspects of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of
Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27
(15 marks)
Introduction
The case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT
121/21) [2022] ZACC 27 constitutes a landmark constitutional judgment that grapples
with the state's obligations to protect marginalized communities from violent crime and
uphold socio-economic rights through effective policing. It demonstrates the challenges
of enforcing equality and safety rights in informal settlements, reflecting broader themes
of accountability, socio-economic justice, and judicial oversight in South Africa’s
constitutional democracy.
Background and Facts
The applicants, including the Social Justice Coalition and Equal Education, represented
communities in informal settlements in the Western Cape who experienced high levels
of violent crime and police neglect. They sought enforcement of an earlier Equality
Court order requiring the South African Police Service (SAPS) to take reasonable
measures to protect these communities. The applicants contended that the state’s
failure to implement the order amounted to a “constructive refusal,” infringing their
constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and security of the person.
Legal Issues
The Constitutional Court was tasked with two central issues:
1. Whether SAPS’ failure to implement the Equality Court order constituted a
constructive refusal to comply.
2. What remedies the Court could grant to enforce constitutional obligations in
contexts of systemic state inaction.
The case thus foregrounded the extent of the state’s positive obligations under the
Constitution and the judiciary's role in ensuring compliance with equality-based court
orders.
The Court's Analysis
Justice Kollapen, writing for the minority, articulated a strong view that the continued
failure by SAPS to provide adequate policing in vulnerable communities constituted
constructive refusal, violating section 9 (equality), section 10 (dignity), and section 12
(freedom and security of the person) of the Constitution.^1 The judgment emphasized
