,CSL2601 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester
1 2025 - DUE March 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete,
trusted solutions and explanations.
Question 1 At paragraph 218 of the judgment in Economic
Freedom Fighters & Others v Speaker of the National Assembly
& Others 2018 (3) BCLR 259 (CC); 2018 (2) SA 571 (CC),
Jafta J states: The divergence of views in this matter flows
solely from different interpretations assigned to section 89 of the
Constitution. This is not novel. It happens frequently in courts
presided over by panels of Judges. But what is unprecedented is
the suggestion that the construction of the section embraced by
the majority here constitutes “a textbook case of judicial
overreach.” 2.1 What concept or doctrine is being referred to in
the context of “judicial overreach”? Discuss fully, with
reference to appropriate case law to justify your answer. Provide
your own opinion on whether the judgment in this case does
constitute judicial overreach. (18)
Understanding Judicial Overreach
The concept of judicial overreach refers to situations where the
judiciary goes beyond its proper role in interpreting and
applying the law, engaging in activities or making decisions that
are seen as encroaching on the authority or functions of the
legislature or the executive. Judicial overreach is often invoked
in the context of courts making decisions that seem to overstep
their constitutional boundaries, effectively legislating from the
bench or deciding issues that fall outside their remit or expertise.
, In a democracy, the separation of powers doctrine is
fundamental: each branch of government—executive,
legislative, and judicial—should operate within its
constitutionally assigned scope of authority. Courts are tasked
with interpreting the law, ensuring that the government operates
within constitutional bounds, and upholding fundamental rights.
However, when courts take on roles more appropriately
belonging to the legislature or the executive, they may be
accused of judicial overreach.
Case Law on Judicial Overreach
1. President of the Republic of South Africa v South
African Rugby Football Union (2000) - This case
demonstrated concerns over judicial overreach when the
Constitutional Court intervened in matters related to the
appointment of individuals and institutional functioning
within a government body. The Court clarified that while it
could review executive decisions, it had to be cautious not
to engage in matters that were purely within the executive's
discretion, underlining the importance of judicial restraint.
2. Minister of Finance v Van Heerden (2004) - In this case,
the Constitutional Court recognized that courts must be
careful when making decisions on social policy,
particularly in areas where they do not have expertise, and
where such decisions could be seen as assuming legislative
functions.
3. The Speaker of the National Assembly v Economic
Freedom Fighters (2018) - In the present case, the Court
interpreted Section 89 of the Constitution relating to the
removal of the President. The disagreement between the
1 2025 - DUE March 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete,
trusted solutions and explanations.
Question 1 At paragraph 218 of the judgment in Economic
Freedom Fighters & Others v Speaker of the National Assembly
& Others 2018 (3) BCLR 259 (CC); 2018 (2) SA 571 (CC),
Jafta J states: The divergence of views in this matter flows
solely from different interpretations assigned to section 89 of the
Constitution. This is not novel. It happens frequently in courts
presided over by panels of Judges. But what is unprecedented is
the suggestion that the construction of the section embraced by
the majority here constitutes “a textbook case of judicial
overreach.” 2.1 What concept or doctrine is being referred to in
the context of “judicial overreach”? Discuss fully, with
reference to appropriate case law to justify your answer. Provide
your own opinion on whether the judgment in this case does
constitute judicial overreach. (18)
Understanding Judicial Overreach
The concept of judicial overreach refers to situations where the
judiciary goes beyond its proper role in interpreting and
applying the law, engaging in activities or making decisions that
are seen as encroaching on the authority or functions of the
legislature or the executive. Judicial overreach is often invoked
in the context of courts making decisions that seem to overstep
their constitutional boundaries, effectively legislating from the
bench or deciding issues that fall outside their remit or expertise.
, In a democracy, the separation of powers doctrine is
fundamental: each branch of government—executive,
legislative, and judicial—should operate within its
constitutionally assigned scope of authority. Courts are tasked
with interpreting the law, ensuring that the government operates
within constitutional bounds, and upholding fundamental rights.
However, when courts take on roles more appropriately
belonging to the legislature or the executive, they may be
accused of judicial overreach.
Case Law on Judicial Overreach
1. President of the Republic of South Africa v South
African Rugby Football Union (2000) - This case
demonstrated concerns over judicial overreach when the
Constitutional Court intervened in matters related to the
appointment of individuals and institutional functioning
within a government body. The Court clarified that while it
could review executive decisions, it had to be cautious not
to engage in matters that were purely within the executive's
discretion, underlining the importance of judicial restraint.
2. Minister of Finance v Van Heerden (2004) - In this case,
the Constitutional Court recognized that courts must be
careful when making decisions on social policy,
particularly in areas where they do not have expertise, and
where such decisions could be seen as assuming legislative
functions.
3. The Speaker of the National Assembly v Economic
Freedom Fighters (2018) - In the present case, the Court
interpreted Section 89 of the Constitution relating to the
removal of the President. The disagreement between the
