RONSAM
TUTORS
LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 02 SEMESTER 02 DUE
03 SEPTEMBER 2024
FOR EXAMS, PORTFOLIO, AND ASSIGNMENT ASSISTANCE
WHATSAPP 0671189059 EMAIL:
, 1. With reference to the judgment in Prince v President of the Law Society
of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794, discuss the philosophical
approaches the majority and minority decisions followed. Your answer
should not exceed 750 words.
In the case of Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002
(2) SA 794,1 the Constitutional Court of South Africa addressed whether the
prohibition on the use of cannabis was a violation of the right of a Rastafarian to
exercise his or her religion. The Court's decision featured distinct philosophical
approaches by the majority and minority opinions.
Majority Decision
The majority decision given by Chaskalson CJ reflected a legal positivist approach,
which entailed strict interpretation and application of law. Chaskalson CJ accepted
the freedom of religious rights; nevertheless, he maintained the prohibition basing his
arguments on the health and safety of the public. The majority contended that in
terms of section 36 of the constitution, there is a legitimate limitation of rights and the
restriction on religious practice is reasonable. The Court stated that “the limitation
was reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human
dignity, equality, and freedom.2
The majority relied heavily on precedent and statutory interpretation, emphasizing
the need for a consistent application of the law. They stressed the principle of
proportionality, which means that the benefits obtained from a certain law must be
greater than the rights violated by such law. 3 Chaskalson CJ stressed that the
recognition of the religious use of cannabis might undermine the legislative goal of
the prohibition, leading to challenges in enforcement, and posing various health-
related hazards4The majority reasoning can be considered as applying Dworkin’s
theory of law as integrity which prioritises coherence and consistency rather than
1
Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794.
2
Prince v President of the Law Society [2002] (2) SA 794, [31].
3
Prince v President of the Law Society [2002] (2) SA 794, [35].
4
Prince v President of the Law Society [2002] (2) SA 794, [39].
TUTORS
LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 02 SEMESTER 02 DUE
03 SEPTEMBER 2024
FOR EXAMS, PORTFOLIO, AND ASSIGNMENT ASSISTANCE
WHATSAPP 0671189059 EMAIL:
, 1. With reference to the judgment in Prince v President of the Law Society
of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794, discuss the philosophical
approaches the majority and minority decisions followed. Your answer
should not exceed 750 words.
In the case of Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002
(2) SA 794,1 the Constitutional Court of South Africa addressed whether the
prohibition on the use of cannabis was a violation of the right of a Rastafarian to
exercise his or her religion. The Court's decision featured distinct philosophical
approaches by the majority and minority opinions.
Majority Decision
The majority decision given by Chaskalson CJ reflected a legal positivist approach,
which entailed strict interpretation and application of law. Chaskalson CJ accepted
the freedom of religious rights; nevertheless, he maintained the prohibition basing his
arguments on the health and safety of the public. The majority contended that in
terms of section 36 of the constitution, there is a legitimate limitation of rights and the
restriction on religious practice is reasonable. The Court stated that “the limitation
was reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human
dignity, equality, and freedom.2
The majority relied heavily on precedent and statutory interpretation, emphasizing
the need for a consistent application of the law. They stressed the principle of
proportionality, which means that the benefits obtained from a certain law must be
greater than the rights violated by such law. 3 Chaskalson CJ stressed that the
recognition of the religious use of cannabis might undermine the legislative goal of
the prohibition, leading to challenges in enforcement, and posing various health-
related hazards4The majority reasoning can be considered as applying Dworkin’s
theory of law as integrity which prioritises coherence and consistency rather than
1
Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794.
2
Prince v President of the Law Society [2002] (2) SA 794, [31].
3
Prince v President of the Law Society [2002] (2) SA 794, [35].
4
Prince v President of the Law Society [2002] (2) SA 794, [39].
