A wolf in sheep’s clothing

2011-11-26 09:59

First freedom of speech, now the courts. Is the executive really targeting our intelligence?

Cabinet’s decision on the judiciary, announced on Thursday, seemed like a sweet offering to be mistaken perhaps even for a conciliatory gesture after the rancour of the “secrecy bill” fight.

Cabinet spokesperson Jimmy Manyi spoke of the independence of the judiciary by enhancing the ­integrity of the Judicial Service ­Commission, the development of a mechanism that would promote the constitutionally enjoined obligation of cooperative government.

But all this was sugar coating because at its heart there was poison for our ­democracy.

The core of the decision is that the role of the judiciary is to be assessed by an institute appointed by government and that even Constitutional Court decisions are to be subject to such assessment.

This assessment of the judiciary, at the instigation of the executive, invites the assumption that the role of the courts, and the Constitutional Court in particular as ultimate ­arbiters of our Constitution, is to be usurped.

And so there can be no ­escaping the impression that for all the talk of ­enhancing the respective arms of government, Cabinet’s crosshairs are firmly pointed at the judiciary’s independence.

I know only too painfully well what it means when the judicial arm of government is cowed and subjugated before the executive.

The official state inquest into Steve Biko’s death was held this month 34 years ago. Despite the extensive and overwhelming evidence that Biko had been abused and murdered by the Security Branch, Pretoria’s chief magistrate delivered a verdict that exonerated each and every one of the murderers.

Counsel for the family, Sidney Kentridge, argued in his closing ­address that such a verdict would give licence to abuse helpless people with impunity. And it did. Scores died in detention in the years that ­followed.

A journalist wrote at the time: “There’s no word of sorrow or anger by the authorities, not even a ­suggestion detainees in future won’t suffer the same treatment. They just don’t care.

And that is what South ­Africa voted for.” And of course, that is what the small, white electorate voted for.

Had the judiciary not been under the thumb of the executive, there was no guarantee that the chief magistrate would have reached a different verdict.

But if the magistrate had the assurance that finding the state ­culpable – that exercising the functions of his office properly by assessing fairly and independently – would have earned him no recrimination from the executive, there is a greater likelihood he would have delivered a just verdict.

Thankfully, we now live in different times. And yet the importance of strong, independent courts able to check government folly when it
occurs remains.

In the Treatment Action ­Campaign case, the Constitutional Court famously held that the government’s then policy of distributing ­Nevirapine, medication reducing the transmission of HIV from mother to child, to pregnant mothers living with HIV at only two clinics per ­province was in breach of the Constitution’s right of access to healthcare.

Government’s policy was held to be unreasonable given that Nevirapine manufacturers had offered it to ­government free of charge for two years, and that the World Health ­Organisation had concluded that ­Nevirapine was an appropriate intervention to prevent mother-to-child transmission.

Who knows how many lives have been saved as a result of that decision. A cowed court could not have made such judgment. That the ­Constitutional Court did is a ­reflection of the health of our ­democracy, a tribute not only to our courts but to our executive and legislative branches as well.

From our past to our near past, to our near future, the Constitutional Court is almost certain to be the next staging ground in the fight over the secrecy bill.

Recent pronouncements by the ­executive highlight the fear that ­policies decided by a government elected by the popular vote will be countermanded through the courts. And our president is not wrong when he says “political battles must be fought on political platforms”.

Those in the minority who simply don’t like a particular law will have to learn to live with it. That is the ­nature of democracy. But majorities in Parliament – here in South Africa and elsewhere – are not determinative of the constitutionality of laws made.

Where there is concern for the legality or constitutionality of a law, courts must make the appropriate determination.

And even to the ruling party it must appear that ­constitutional concerns regarding the secrecy bill are validly made, and not merely an attempt to thwart the representatives of the majority.

Members of Parliament are likely to refer the secrecy bill, once signed by the president into law, to the Constitutional Court. But the president has an opportunity, long before that, to act as the head of our country and not just as that of the ruling party, and refer the bill back to the National Assembly for reconsideration of its constitutionality.

Either this or to refer it to the Constitutional Court.

In so doing, he would realise the vision of our Constitution.

In many respects, the Constitutional Court is the bellwether of our democracy. It was the most significant institution created at the time of our Constitution’s enactment.

Our Constitution reaches back to our past, the inequitable legacies of which are still too much with us, in an attempt to address these.

But it also reaches forward to a promised, common future most concretely ­realised by the Constitutional Court which, with its international stature and resources seems almost an anomaly in our young democracy.

Interference with the Constitutional Court, implicit in the suggestion that its judgments and record are to be assessed, sets us back on the path to our constitutionally envisaged future.

And the sleight of hand – Cabinet’s talk of the need to “affirm the independence of the judiciary” through an assessment that cannot but create the impression that the ­independence of even our very highest court is at risk – undermines our intelligence. As if we, who have been fighting for democracy all our lives, would not know.

» Ramphele is an academic, businesswoman and medical doctor 

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.