Ronald Lamola | Dear Lindiwe, most of our gains post -1994 are because of the Constitution

play article
Subscribers can listen to this article
Tourism Minister Lindiwe Sisulu. (Photo: Isabel) Venter
Tourism Minister Lindiwe Sisulu. (Photo: Isabel) Venter

Justice minister Ronald Lamola responds to Lindiwe Sisulu, writing that attacking the very institution that is to uphold the Constitution goes against the grain of everything that we wanted to change from before 1994. 

"The Constitution, calls for positive action to confront the apartheid legacy of poverty and disempowerment, and for building a truly non-racial society committed to social justice. Transformation contemplates an improvement in the lives of people."
- Former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson

In recent days we have seen heightened debates on the efficacy of the Constitution, propelled by Minister Lindiwe Sisulu in her personal capacity (or Chairperson of the African Nation Congress Sub-Committee on Social Transformation).

Several responses have come to the fore in print and on social media from ANC comrades, analysts, and members of the public. The acting Chief Justice has also responded.  

In a subsequent clarification, we are advised that Sisulu's piece should be read "as [a] contribution to a conversing South Africa where discourse, as guaranteed in the spirit and letter of the Constitution, is underscored as a crucial tenet of our democracy."

But there is "discourse" and then there is "attack".

Perhaps indeed, this is an opportune moment to debate our constitutional democracy further, especially as we have just marked the 25th anniversary of the adoption of our Constitution. But in so doing, we should be unequivocal about what passes as debate and what does not. 

Referring to judicial officers by using crude racial tropes cannot pass off as a debate. Attacking the very institution that is to uphold the Constitution goes against the grain of everything that we wanted to change from before 1994. 

Personal attack

Insinuating that judges who have assumed the high calling of judicial office in our democratic era are mentally colonised, is a personal attack that cannot be condoned under any circumstances. In addition, calling any Black person – whether a judge or not – a "house negro” is insulting. 

Judges are required to uphold and protect the Constitution and the human rights entrenched in it and administer justice to all persons alike without fear, favour, or prejudice.

In the second article, Minister Sisulu says by affording adequate protection of fundamental human rights, our society can ensure that we avoid the dilemma posed by those using the "rule of law" rhetoric to cover up oppression and injustice.  

The law can indeed be used in pursuit of evil – apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany are both cases in point, as their laws were technically legal because they were on the statute book, but they were morally wrong.  

READ | Fact Check: Sisulu copied from UK official's speech, reports  and other sources without references

This is exactly what our Constitution set out to change.

The Constitution removed parliamentary supremacy so that laws passed and any action by government is measured against the Constitution as a yardstick. The Constitution is the exact opposite of previously unjust laws, as it advances human dignity, freedom and the achievement of equality, non-racialism, and non-sexism.  

Both Sisulu's first and second articles do not cite a single judgment by our democratic courts in which oppressive or unjust laws in general or oppressive laws based on race and sexism are enforced. 

On the contrary, judgments by our courts have brought about a much more equal society, where human dignity places a central role. 

In what is possibly the best-known court judgment in our country, namely that of Makwanyane, which abolished the death penalty, the Court went to great lengths to introduce and infuse the notion of Ubuntu into our jurisprudence. 

It was no less than a black judge in Chief Justice Mohamed who said: "The need for ubuntu" expresses the ethos of an instinctive capacity for and enjoyment of love towards our fellow men and women; the joy and the fulfilment involved in recognising their innate humanity; the reciprocity this generates in interaction within the collective community; the richness of the creative emotions which it engenders and the moral energies which it releases both in the givers and the society which they serve and are served by.

It is against this historical background and ethos that the constitutionality of capital punishment must be determined. What could be more African than the spirit of Ubuntu? What then is the basis of criticising the very same court which has used Ubuntu as a beacon for all its future jurisprudence?

In addition, court judgments like the Bhe case come to mind, where the Constitutional Court found that the Black Administration Act violated the rights to equality and dignity under the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional.

Outdated and antiquated 

The court held that section 23 of the Black Administration Act of 1927 was an outdated and antiquated piece of legislation which solidified 'official' customary law and caused violations of the rights of black African people, mainly women and children. The section created a parallel system of succession for black Africans, without sensitivity to their wishes and circumstances.

The court then considered the African customary law rule of male primogeniture – the rule that allowed only men to inherit – and held that it discriminated against women and illegitimate children unfairly. It was thus declared unconstitutional. 

Furthermore, in the Constitutional Court cases of Grootboom and Soobramoney unequivocally set the tone that the Constitution is a document that needs to ensure and protect the rights to dignity and equality for all. 

Most of the gains we have made as a nation since 1994 has been because of the Constitution. The Constitution and the judiciary have been instrumental in changing the landscape. Much has been realised and still needs to be done and improved, specifically in terms of government policies and the actual implementation thereof for the betterment of the lives of our people.

In the Soobramoney case, it was stated that the duty of the courts is to test the reasonableness of laws in relation to the purpose of socio-economic rights. It is also within the court's broad review powers to interrogate the other measures that the state is obliged to take. It is with no doubt that the courts have done the best in this regard so far.

READ | Karyn Maughan: Zondo vs Sisulu - There are times judges should remain silent. This isn't one of them

Criticism and freedom of expression are some of the essential pillars of our democracy, but we need to exercise them with caution and responsibility so as to avoid destroying or paralysing important arms of state – arms of the democratic state that our stalwarts and those who came before gave up their lives. 

We may not always all agree with the courts' decisions, but any criticism against our courts should be on substance and with evidence. Sweeping statements or blanket attacks on our courts and judiciary are dangerous to our constitutional democracy. 

We cannot support the courts when they rule in our favour, but then attack them as "mentally colonised Africans" when they rule against us or hand down judgments which we don't like.

Section 165(4) of the Constitution obliges organs of state through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the courts to ensure the courts' independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility, and effectiveness. 

Aside from the attacks on judges, there is a pervasive narrative in our body politic which characterises the Constitution as a sell-out. 

Our Constitution is largely based on the Freedom Charter. Was the Freedom Charter then also a sell-out document? Surely not. 

This "sell out" argument is further devoid of any truth. In a historical discussion paper published by the ANC in August 1988 Constitutional Guidelines for a Democratic South Africa , the following guidelines, for instance, with regards to the economy, were set out:

1) The state shall ensure that the entire economy serves the interests and well-being of all sections of the population.

2) The economy shall be mixed one, with a public sector, a private sector, a co-operative and small -scale family sector.

On Land it sets out the following:

1) The state shall devise and implement a Land reform programme that will include and address the following issues:

i) Abolition of all racial restrictions on ownership and use of land.

ii) Implementation of land reforms in conformity with the principle of Affirmative Action, taking into account the status of victims of forced removals.

Minister Sisulu like many others who take issue with the Constitution, mentions the issue of land as one which has been stalled by the Constitution. One is reminded of when former President Kgalema Motlanthe was appointed by Parliament to chair the High Level Panel on the Assessment of Key Legislation and the Acceleration of Fundamental Change to investigate the impact of legislation since 1994. In its report, released in 2017, the panel found that land reform and restitution had been a failure, but, importantly, it found that the Constitution was not the reason for that failure. 

The failure was due to, among others, poor implementation of policy, budget allocation for land reform being "woefully inadequate to bring about structural change" and issues relating to institutional and political support.

The Report of the Panel went further to say that "the Constitution provides for positive land rights in Sections 25(5), (6), (7) and (9). These are the rights to equitable access (redistribution), tenure security and restitution. These rights are not being adequately promoted, enforced and protected. Instead, they appear to be under attack from policies and practices that redirect the benefits of land reform to potential political alliances with specific elites."

READ | Opinion: Chrispin Phiri - Lindiwe Sisulu's attack on Constitution a distortion of ANC policy

A careful reading of the Constitution today illustrates that the ANC's Constitutional Guidelines were duly incorporated into the Constitution's final draft. These guidelines are not of foreign input - indeed far from it. They are based on the fundamentals of the 1987 January 8 statement of the African National Congress on the 75th Anniversary which proclaimed:

"For us, it is of especial importance that that new reality should reinforce and entrench what we are accomplishing now, in struggle: the building of a nation of South Africans. It must reflect and enhance our oneness, breaking down the terrible and destructive idea and practice of defining our people by race, colour or ethnic group. The revolution will guarantee the individual and equal rights of all South Africans without regard to any of these categories, and include such freedoms as those of speech, assembly, association, language, religion, the press, the inviolability of family life and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. For all this, the victorious revolution demands and must ensure thorough-going democratic practice."

Some 35 years later the January 8 statement at the 110th Anniversary the governing party reminds us "the lodestars of our journey of social transformation are to be found in the Freedom Charter and our country's Constitution and the plans developed over the years to attain the lofty ideals they espouse."  Once we begin to distance ourselves from the Constitution, not only do we define ourselves outside a dialectical process of development, but we also negate history in an unsavoury fashion.   

In the words of the late stalwart Kader Asmal:

"The most important development making South Africa a better place to live in and to possibly love, is the Constitution, a guaranteed contract between South Africans as how to organise our public and private lives. The Constitution, the result of an unprecedented national conversation among South Africans, which together with the Bill of Rights, is the bedrock of our freedom."

As we mark this anniversary, let us heed the call of former Chief Justice Chaskalson and evaluate the positive actions taken to confront the apartheid legacy of poverty and disempowerment and build a truly non-racial society committed to social justice.  

Let us remember that transformation contemplates an improvement in the lives of people, households and communities, achieved over time by institutionalising policies, programmes and projects to that end. 

The best way to achieve this is, in all earnest, what we should really be debating – all the more so as it is the 25th anniversary of the adoption of our Constitution.

- Ronald Lamola is minister of justice and correctional services.

To receive Opinions Weekly, sign up for the newsletter here.

*Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to with your name and town or province. You are welcome to also send a profile picture. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers' submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.

Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.

We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
In times of uncertainty you need journalism you can trust. For only R75 per month, you have access to a world of in-depth analyses, investigative journalism, top opinions and a range of features. Journalism strengthens democracy. Invest in the future today.
Subscribe to News24
Lockdown For
Rand - Dollar
Rand - Pound
Rand - Euro
Rand - Aus dollar
Rand - Yen
Brent Crude
Top 40
All Share
Resource 10
Industrial 25
Financial 15
All JSE data delayed by at least 15 minutes Iress logo
Editorial feedback and complaints

Contact the public editor with feedback for our journalists, complaints, queries or suggestions about articles on News24.