CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CSL2601 EXAMINATION
NAME(S) AND SURNAME : NSOVO LEVIN KHOSA
STUDENT NUMBER : 62588532
UNIQUE NUMBER : 654976
SEMESTER : 02
YEAR : 2020
Question 1
1.FAISE
2.FAISE
3.FAISE
4.FAISE
5.FAISE
6.FAISE
7.FAISE
8.FAISE
9.FAISE
10.FAISE
11.FAISE
12.FAISE
13.FAISE
14.FAISE
15.FAISE
16.FAISE
17.FAISE
18.FAISE
19.FAISE
20.FAISE
21.FAISE
22.FAISE
23.FAISE
24.FAISE
25..FAISE
SECTION B
QUESTION 1
1.1 The president is elected by people.
People are complaining about the selling of liquor and tobacco was banned,
individuals were not allowed to leave their homes except under strictly controlled
circumstances, which include the seeking of medical care, buying food or the
collection of social grants. They questioned how the sale of liquor during controlled
and limited hours, and buying packs of cigarettes while grocery shopping, would
sabotage efforts to flatten the spread of Coronavirus. Angered by the total ban on the
sale of liquor, the Gauteng Liquor Forum (GLF) sent the president a letter demanding
, that the regulations banning the sale of alcohol be amended. They also question the
authority of the court, an unelected institution, to review the decision of the president,
who is democratically elected by the people of the country.
According to the constitution an unelected institution cannot combat the decision of
the president.
Thus GLF Does not have power combat the president since
Lawyers v Heath and Others 2001 (1) SA 883 (CC).
In the Heath case, at Para 34, the CC pointed out that ‘[i]n appropriate circumstances
judicial officers can no doubt preside over commissions of inquiry without infringing
the separation of powers contemplated by our Constitution.’ The court, however, was
careful to point out that ‘[i]t is undesirable … to lay down rigid tests for determining
whether or not the performance of a particular function by a judge is or is not
incompatible with the judicial office
1.2 The Constitution establishes a democratic system of government with both
representative and participatory elements. This view is affirmed in the case of
Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly 2006 (6) SA 416
(CC) para 115 , where it was held that “ in the overall scheme of our constitution
the representative and participatory elements of our democracy should not be seen
as being in tension with each other as they are mutually supportive”. Participatory
democracy entails that individuals or institutions must be given an opportunity to take
part in the making of decisions that affect them. The National Assembly ( NA) and
National Council of Provinces ( NCOP) are required to facilitate public involvement
in the legislative and other processes of Parliament ( S59 (a) and 72 (a) of the
Constitution). The democratic government that is contemplated in the constitution
is thus both representative and participatory. It is also one that is accountable,
responsive and transparent, and makes provision for the public to participate in the
law- making process. Public participation is an activity by which members of the
public directly or indirectly engage with members of the legislature to provide input
to the legislature during the law-making process. Therefore, Parliament can not pass
legislation without considering the need to facilitate some form of public participation.
Where Parliament failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate public involvement in
law-making processes, it would have failed to comply with the provisions of the
Constitution. Any law enacted in such a procedurally flawed way would then be null
and void and of no effect. The legislature will have considerable discretion in
determining how best to achieve public participation, but the discretion is not
unfettered. The requirements will vary from case to case but the test will be whether
the legislature had acted reasonably or not. Reasonableness is an objective standard
which is sensitive to the facts and circumstances of a particular case ( Doctors for Life
International Case para 127) . This means that Parliament has a duty; firstly, to
provide meaningful opportunities for public participation in the law- making process
and, secondly, to take measures to ensure that people have the ability to take
advantage of the opportunities provided. Parliament must provide notice of and
information about the legislation under consideration and the opportunities for
participation that are available to ensure citizens have an opportunity for effective
participation in the process.
CSL2601 EXAMINATION
NAME(S) AND SURNAME : NSOVO LEVIN KHOSA
STUDENT NUMBER : 62588532
UNIQUE NUMBER : 654976
SEMESTER : 02
YEAR : 2020
Question 1
1.FAISE
2.FAISE
3.FAISE
4.FAISE
5.FAISE
6.FAISE
7.FAISE
8.FAISE
9.FAISE
10.FAISE
11.FAISE
12.FAISE
13.FAISE
14.FAISE
15.FAISE
16.FAISE
17.FAISE
18.FAISE
19.FAISE
20.FAISE
21.FAISE
22.FAISE
23.FAISE
24.FAISE
25..FAISE
SECTION B
QUESTION 1
1.1 The president is elected by people.
People are complaining about the selling of liquor and tobacco was banned,
individuals were not allowed to leave their homes except under strictly controlled
circumstances, which include the seeking of medical care, buying food or the
collection of social grants. They questioned how the sale of liquor during controlled
and limited hours, and buying packs of cigarettes while grocery shopping, would
sabotage efforts to flatten the spread of Coronavirus. Angered by the total ban on the
sale of liquor, the Gauteng Liquor Forum (GLF) sent the president a letter demanding
, that the regulations banning the sale of alcohol be amended. They also question the
authority of the court, an unelected institution, to review the decision of the president,
who is democratically elected by the people of the country.
According to the constitution an unelected institution cannot combat the decision of
the president.
Thus GLF Does not have power combat the president since
Lawyers v Heath and Others 2001 (1) SA 883 (CC).
In the Heath case, at Para 34, the CC pointed out that ‘[i]n appropriate circumstances
judicial officers can no doubt preside over commissions of inquiry without infringing
the separation of powers contemplated by our Constitution.’ The court, however, was
careful to point out that ‘[i]t is undesirable … to lay down rigid tests for determining
whether or not the performance of a particular function by a judge is or is not
incompatible with the judicial office
1.2 The Constitution establishes a democratic system of government with both
representative and participatory elements. This view is affirmed in the case of
Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly 2006 (6) SA 416
(CC) para 115 , where it was held that “ in the overall scheme of our constitution
the representative and participatory elements of our democracy should not be seen
as being in tension with each other as they are mutually supportive”. Participatory
democracy entails that individuals or institutions must be given an opportunity to take
part in the making of decisions that affect them. The National Assembly ( NA) and
National Council of Provinces ( NCOP) are required to facilitate public involvement
in the legislative and other processes of Parliament ( S59 (a) and 72 (a) of the
Constitution). The democratic government that is contemplated in the constitution
is thus both representative and participatory. It is also one that is accountable,
responsive and transparent, and makes provision for the public to participate in the
law- making process. Public participation is an activity by which members of the
public directly or indirectly engage with members of the legislature to provide input
to the legislature during the law-making process. Therefore, Parliament can not pass
legislation without considering the need to facilitate some form of public participation.
Where Parliament failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate public involvement in
law-making processes, it would have failed to comply with the provisions of the
Constitution. Any law enacted in such a procedurally flawed way would then be null
and void and of no effect. The legislature will have considerable discretion in
determining how best to achieve public participation, but the discretion is not
unfettered. The requirements will vary from case to case but the test will be whether
the legislature had acted reasonably or not. Reasonableness is an objective standard
which is sensitive to the facts and circumstances of a particular case ( Doctors for Life
International Case para 127) . This means that Parliament has a duty; firstly, to
provide meaningful opportunities for public participation in the law- making process
and, secondly, to take measures to ensure that people have the ability to take
advantage of the opportunities provided. Parliament must provide notice of and
information about the legislation under consideration and the opportunities for
participation that are available to ensure citizens have an opportunity for effective
participation in the process.
