Johannesburg
asks court to rule in its favour on municipal land use -
24 February
The City of Johannesburg will ask the Constitutional Court
today to confirm the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment which
ruled that the city, and not the Gauteng Development Tribunal,
had the power to make decisions in respect of land use,
including applications for township establishments and the
amendment of the town-planning schemes. In September last
year, the appeal court ruled that two chapters of the Development
Facilitation Act were invalid. - allAfrica
website
Watch
for :
CCT 89/09
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng
Development Tribunal and Others
24
February 2010
CCT
86/08 [2010] ZACC 5
Poverty Alleviation Network and Others v President of the
Republic of South Africa and Others
Relocation of Matatiele Municipality
Keyphrases :
Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Act
Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters
Amendment Act of 2007
| According
to Sections 59(1), 72(1), and 118(1)(a) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, the
National Assembly, COP and provincial legislature are
required to facilitate public involvement with them as
well as with their committees. It is imperative that
these bodies always exercise their legislative power
rationally and in accordance with the Constitution.
In
the matter of Poverty Alleviation Network &
others v President of the ROSA & others [2010] JOLT
25039 (CC) where judgment was handed down by the
Constitutional Court this morning, "the applicants
challenged the constitutional validity of the
Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Act" 23 of 2007,
on the grounds that this act did not "measure
up to the constitutional benchmark of facilitating
public involvement in terms of sections 59(1)(a), 72(1)
and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The
facts of the case pertained to provincial boundaries and
the regulation thereof.
One
of the main issues addressed by the court in its'
judgment was "whether the Thirteenth Amendment Act
is rationally connected to a legitimate governmental
purpose".
Source
: LexisNexis
|
Matatiele
to stay in E Cape - 24 February
Matatiele will stay in the Eastern Cape following a
Constitutional Court ruling on Wednesday that the legislation
used to transfer it from KwaZulu-Natal was not
unconstitutional. - News24
website
23
February 2010
CCT
54/09 [2010] ZACC 4
Albutt and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa
and Others
Power of the President to grant pardon under section 84(2)(j) of
the Constitution to people who
claim they were convicted of offences which they committed with
a political motive
Keyphrase :
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act,
2000
| According
to section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa, 1996, "the President is is
responsible for 'pardoning or reprieving offenders . .
." who claim that they had previously been
convicted of offences committed, which were politically
motivated.
In
the matter of Albutt v Centre for the Study of
Violence & Reconciliation & Others [2010] JOLT
25036 (CC) where judgment was handed down by the
Constitutional Court this morning, the court was faced
with the issue of whether or not, in instances such as
the above-mentioned, the President is required to afford
these alleged offenders a hearing.
In
its decision, the court also made reference to section
33 of the Constitution, which provides that
"everyone has the right to administrative action
that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair".
Source
: LexisNexis
|
Apartheid
victims must be heard before presidential pardons - 23
February
Victims of apartheid-era atrocities are entitled to make
representations before the president grants pardon to
perpetrators, the country's highest court ruled today. In a
unanimous decision, Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo said "victims
must be given the opportunity to be heard in order to
determine the facts on which pardons are based, namely,
whether the offence was committed with a political motive".
- City Press website
Pardons
decision upheld - 23 February
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday upheld a high court
decision interdicting the president from granting pardons to
perpetrators of political violence without first consulting
victims. Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) member Ryna Albutt
appealed against the decision in the Constitutional Court
after it was handed down in the North Gauteng High Court in
Pretoria on April 29, 2009. - News24
website
What
now for Shaik and De Kock? - 23 February
The judgment makes it clear that it would not necessarily
require the President to afford the victims of Eugene de Kock
or Schabir Shaik a hearing before pardoning them. However, it
confirms that the President does not have an unfettered
discretion to pardon prisoners. The President is bound by the
principle of legality, which is part of the rule of law, when
exercising his power to pardon prisoners. - Pierre de Vos on
the Constitutionally
Speaking blog
Zuma
cannot grant pardons - 24 February
Former president Thabo Mbeki has effectively prevented
President Jacob Zuma from unilaterally pardoning a number of
racist, religious and political killers. At least, not
without consulting their victims. This was the unanimous
decision of the Constitutional Court, which was faced with the
president, ministers and Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) on
one side and the victims and NGOs on the other. Among those
who applied for pardons were AWB members Ryan Albutt,
Gerhardus Taljaard, Alexander Whitehead, Arend de Waal, Willem
Jacobs, Hans Wessels, and Ryno Rossouw, who attacked black
workers in Kuruman in 1995. "It is difficult to
fathom how the president can establish the truth about the
motive with which a crime was committed without hearing the
victim of that crime," noted Judge President Sandile
Ngcobo. - IOL website
Political
pardons, political parties and the President - 28 February
The Constitutional Court’s judgment on political pardons is
important to the rule of law. Gross violations of human
rights, torture, arbitrary detention, extra-judicial killings,
ethnic cleansing and hate crimes should never go unpunished.
This judgment reinforces the rule of law by limiting the power
of the President and the ability of political parties to evade
justice. - Article by Zackie Achmat on the Writing
Rights blog
See
also :
North Gauteng High Court
29 April 2009
15320/09
[2009] ZAGPPHC 35
Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and
Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others
Billiton
v Khanyile and others (Concourt) - 18 February
The issue presented in this matter is whether there is a
constitutional duty on an appellate or review court to fashion a
just and equitable remedy by having regard to facts that
occurred after the decision appealed against or taken on review.
This issue has arisen only because of systemic delays in the
dispute resolution system under the provisions of the Labour
Relations Act. - Polity
website
See
:
18
February 2010
CCT 72/09 [2010] ZACC 3
Billiton Aluminium SA Ltd trading as Hillside Aluminium v
Khanyile and Others