Glenister v President (2011)

Last updated

Glenister v President
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameGlenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others
Decided17 March 2011 (2011-03-17)
Docket nos.CCT 48/10
Citation(s) [2011] ZACC 6; 2011 (3) SA 347 (CC); 2011 (7) BCLR 651 (CC)
Case history
Prior action(s) High Court of South Africa, Western Cape DivisionGlenister v President of South Africa and Others [2010] ZAWCHC 92
Related action(s)Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2013] ZACC 20 (costs)
Court membership
Judges sitting Ngcobo CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Mogoeng J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J and Brand AJ
Case opinions
Decision byMoseneke DCJ and Cameron J (Froneman, Nkabinde, and Skweyiya concurring)
DissentNgcobo CJ (Brand, Mogoeng, and Yacoob concurring)

Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, often known as Glenister II, is a 2011 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, in which the court held that the state is constitutionally obligated to establish and maintain an independent agency to combat corruption. It ruled that the Hawks were not sufficiently independent to fulfil this obligation and that the statutory provisions that created the Hawks were therefore, and to that extent, constitutionally invalid. The case was part of a series of litigation that sought to challenge the disbanding of the Scorpions.

Contents

Background

The case concerned the constitutional validity of two pieces of national legislation promulgated on 27 January 2009, which disbanded the Scorpions, a specialist anti-corruption unit of the National Prosecuting Authority. The laws were the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Act 56 of 2008 and the South African Police Service Amendment Act 57 of 2008. Among other things, the latter act amended the South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995 to insert a new chapter 6A, which established the Hawks (formally the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation) to replace the Scorpions; the Hawks were to be located within the South African Police Service, rather than within the National Prosecuting Authority.

The matter was a sequel to Glenister I , a 2008 case of the same name in which the applicant, businessman Hugh Glenister, had attempted unsuccessfully to challenge the legislation while it was still pending in draft form before Parliament. [1] His challenge to the enacted legislation was first heard in the Western Cape High Court, where it was dismissed; thereafter, Glenister applied both for leave to appeal the High Court's judgment and, alternatively, for direct access to the Constitutional Court to plead his constitutional challenge. The Constitutional Court heard the application on 2 September 2010, [2] and it delivered judgment on 17 March 2011. [3] [4]

Judgments

With the bench split five-to-four, the Constitutional Court filed two opinions. Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke and Justice Edwin Cameron co-wrote the majority opinion, in which Justices Johan Froneman, Bess Nkabinde, and Thembile Skweyiya concurred; they upheld Glenister's appeal in part. Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Acting Justice Fritz Brand and Justices Mogoeng Mogoeng and Zak Yacoob; the minority would have dismissed the appeal and Glenister's constitutional challenge in its entirety.

For reasons set out in Ngcobo's judgment, the Constitutional Court granted leave to appeal and dismissed Glenister's broad challenge, holding that it was not in itself unconstitutional for Parliament to abolish the Scorpions and establish the Hawks. However, as set out in Moseneke and Cameron's judgment, the majority held that the Constitution obligates the state "to establish and maintain an independent body to combat corruption and organised crime"; they also held that the Hawks were not sufficiently independent to fulfil this requirement. For that reason, the majority declared that Chapter 6A of the amended South African Police Service Act was inconsistent with the Constitution. The declaration of invalidity was suspended for 18 months in order to give Parliament the opportunity to remedy the defect.

2013 costs order

A related judgment of the same name was handed down by the Constitutional Court on 14 June 2013 after Glenister's attorney applied, in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court, for an amendment of the costs order handed down in Glenister II. [5] The costs judgment, written per curiam , refused this application.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scorpions (South Africa)</span> Specialised unit of the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa

The Directorate of Special Operations (DSO), commonly known as the Scorpions, was a specialised unit of the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa formed by President Thabo Mbeki, tasked with investigating and prosecuting high-level and priority crimes including organised crime and corruption. An independent and multidisciplinary unit with a unique methodology which combined investigation, forensic intelligence, and prosecution, the Scorpions were known as an elite unit, and were involved in several extremely high-profile investigations, especially into the Arms Deal and into high-ranking African National Congress (ANC) politicians including Jackie Selebi, Jacob Zuma, and Tony Yengeni.

Sandile Ngcobo is a retired South African judge who was the Chief Justice of South Africa from October 2009 to August 2011. He served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa from August 1999 until his retirement in August 2011. Before that, he was a judge of the Cape Provincial Division and the Labour Appeal Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dikgang Moseneke</span> South African judge

Dikgang Ernest Moseneke OLG is a South African jurist and former Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa.

The Judicial Service Commission is a body specially constituted by the South African Constitution to recommend persons for appointment to the judiciary of South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mogoeng Mogoeng</span> Chief Justice of South Africa

Mogoeng Thomas Reetsang Mogoeng is a South African jurist who served as the Chief Justice of South Africa from 8 September 2011 until his retirement on 11 October 2021.

Sisi Virginia Khampepe is a retired South African judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa between October 2009 and October 2021. Formerly a prominent labour lawyer, she joined the bench in December 2000 as a judge of the Transvaal Provincial Division. She was also a member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

<i>President v M&G Media</i> South African legal case

President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v M & G Media Ltd is 2011 decision in South African administrative law. Decided in the Constitutional Court of South Africa, it concerned access to information and the adjudication of disputes under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in South Africa</span>

The South African judiciary has broad powers of judicial review under the Constitution of South Africa. Courts are empowered to pronounce on the legality and constitutionality of exercises of public power, including administrative action, executive action, and the passage of acts of Parliament. Though informed by the common law principles that guided judicial review during the apartheid era, contemporary judicial review is authorised by and grounded in constitutional principles. In the case of administrative action, it is also codified in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000.

Rammaka Steven Mathopo is a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Before his elevation to that court in January 2022, he served in the Supreme Court of Appeal between June 2015 and December 2021. He was formerly a judge of the Gauteng High Court from January 2006 to May 2015, and he practised as an attorney for 17 years before then.

<i>Masetlha v President</i> South African legal case

Masetlha v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another is an important decision in the Constitutional Court of South Africa which held that procedural fairness was not a ground for the review of executive action. Upholding President Thabo Mbeki's decision to dismiss Billy Masetlha as the head of the National Intelligence Agency, a majority of the court held that, unlike legality and rationality, procedural fairness was not a requirement for the lawful exercise of the President's powers of appointment and dismissal, the exercise of which constituted executive rather than administrative action. The matter was heard on 10 May 2007 and decided on 3 October 2007, with Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke writing for the majority.

<i>Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly</i> (2017) South African legal case

Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another is a 2017 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Parliament's constitutional obligation to hold the President accountable for his conduct. In a majority judgment written by Justice Chris Jafta, the court ordered the National Assembly to make rules regulating presidential impeachment under section 89 of the Constitution and to use those rules to determine whether President Jacob Zuma had committed impeachable conduct in failing to comply with a report by the Public Protector. Arising from the Nkandlagate scandal, the case was politically sensitive, and critics held that the court's order transgressed the separation of powers.

<i>Doctors for Life v Speaker</i> South African legal case

In Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that Parliament and the provincial legislatures are constitutionally obliged to take reasonable steps to enable effective public participation in the legislative process in respect of every law passed. The court invalidated the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2004 and the Traditional Health Practitioners Act, 2004 on the basis that the National Council of Provinces had not solicited public submissions on the laws before passing them.

AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others is the name of three related decisions of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, handed down in 2013, 2014, and 2015 respectively. The decisions led to the invalidation of an irregular contract between the South African Social Security Agency and Cash Paymaster Services for the administration of social grants nationwide, precipitating the grants crisis of 2017. Litigation continued in Black Sash v Minister of Social Development.

<i>Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation</i> South African legal case

Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others is a 2010 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which concerned a special presidential dispensation to pardon the perpetrators of politically motivated crimes committed during the apartheid era. The Constitutional Court held that the President of South Africa had contravened the Constitution in deciding not to consult the victims of those crimes before granting the pardons. The unanimous judgment was written by Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo and delivered on 23 February 2010.

<i>Bwanya v Master of the High Court</i> South African legal case

Bwanya v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Others is an important decision in the South African law of succession and particularly the law of intestate succession. It was decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 31 December 2021 with a majority judgment written by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga. A majority of the court upheld a challenge to the constitutionality of the Intestate Succession Act, 1981 and Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, 1990, holding that it was unfairly discriminatory to exclude the survivors of permanent life partnerships from the protections the acts extend to the survivors of legal marriages. Bwanya therefore overturned the holding in Volks v Robinson.

<i>S v Thebus</i> South African legal case

S v Thebus and Another is a 2003 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal law and criminal procedure. The court unanimously affirmed that the doctrine of common purpose was compatible with the Constitution, upholding two murder convictions on that basis. However, the court was also called to determine whether it is compatible with the constitutional right to silence for courts to draw an adverse inference from a criminal defendant's failure to disclose an alibi before trial. On that further question, the court was divided.

References

  1. Krüger, Rosaan (2015). "The Ebb and Flow of the Separation of Powers in South African Constitutional Law – the Glenister Litigation Campaign". Verfassung und Recht in Übersee / Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America. 48 (1): 49–64. ISSN   0506-7286.
  2. "Court reserves judgement in Glenister's Scorpions bid". The Mail & Guardian. 2 September 2010. Retrieved 6 March 2024.
  3. "Court sends Hawks law back to Parliament". The Mail & Guardian. 17 March 2011. Retrieved 6 March 2024.
  4. "Scorpions disbanding unconstitutional". The Mail & Guardian. 18 March 2011. Retrieved 6 March 2024.
  5. Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 28/13) [2013] ZACC 20; 2013 (11) BCLR 1246 (CC) (14 June 2013).

Further reading