Glenister v President (2008)

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
Decided22 October 2008 (2008-10-22)
Docket nos.CCT 41/08
Citation(s) [2008] ZACC 19; 2009 (1) SA 287 (CC); 2009 (2) BCLR 136 (CC)
Case history
Prior action(s)Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2008] ZAGPHC 143 in the High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division
Court membership
Judges sitting Langa DCJ, Moseneke DJC, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J, Sachs J, van der Westhuizen J, and Yacoob J
Case opinions
Courts may not intervene in a pending legislative process unless the absence of intervention would result in material and irreversible harm that could not be remedied once the legislation has been enacted.
Decision byLanga CJ (unanimous)

Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, often known as Glenister I, is a 2008 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the separation of powers and the scope of judicial review. The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed an application by businessman Hugh Glenister, who challenged Cabinet's decision to introduce draft legislation that would disband the Scorpions.

Contents

In his judgment, handed down on 22 October 2008, Chief Justice Pius Langa held that judicial intervention in pending legislation is not appropriate except in exceptional cases in which immediate intervention is required to prevent material and irreversible harm.

Background

The Directorate of Special Operations, commonly known as the Scorpions, was an elite multi-disciplinary unit located within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and mandated to investigate high-level and priority crimes, including organised crime and political corruption. In December 2007, in the aftermath of a series of high-profile investigations into politicians, South Africa's governing party, the African National Congress (ANC), passed a policy resolution under which its 52nd National Conference held that the Scorpions should be disbanded and incorporated into the South African Police Service (SAPS). [1]

In February 2008, the Minister of Safety and Security, Charles Nqakula, announced that the government would seek to implement the ANC resolution. [2] [3] In April, Cabinet approved draft legislation which would amalgamate the Scorpions into the SAPS; the bills were the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill of 2008, an amendment to the National Prosecuting Authority Act of 1998, and the General Law Amendment Bill of 2008, subsequently renamed the South African Police Service Amendment Bill of 2008. This policy was extremely controversial and was opposed publicly by a number of opposition parties. [4] [5] [6] However, because the ANC had won a supermajority in the 2004 general election, opposition parties had little legislative recourse to oppose the amendments in the Parliament of South Africa.

Court action

High Court

In March 2008, Hugh Glenister, a retired businessman, approached the High Court of South Africa on an urgent basis, seeking to challenge the government's policy. He said in a public statement that he was acting as "a concerned citizen". [7] Because the bills had not yet been finalised, he initially sought a final order, alternatively an interim order, interdicting the President, the Minister of Safety and Security (custodian of the SAPS), and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (custodian of the NPA) from initiating legislation to disband the Scorpions. Once Cabinet approved the draft legislation in April, Glenister amended his notice of motion to seek an order interdicting the respondents "from persisting with the passage of legislation" to disband the Scorpions. Five opposition parties – the African Christian Democratic Party, the Democratic Alliance, the Independent Democrats, the Inkatha Freedom Party, and the United Democratic Movement (UDM) – were admitted as amici curiae and supported Glenister's application. [8]

On 27 May 2008, Judge Willem van der Merwe of the Pretoria High Court dismissed Glenister's application, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it due to separation of powers concerns. However, van der Merwe suggested that the Constitutional Court of South Africa might be competent to consider the matter.

Constitutional Court

Glenister indeed approached the Constitutional Court, seeking urgent leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment and order. In addition, he applied for direct access to the Constitutional Court to challenge the constitutionality of the decision to initiate the impugned legislation and compel the government to withdraw the legislation. In July 2008, the Constitutional Court agreed to hear the application, [9] but the parties received directions to file argument only on the narrow question of whether it was appropriate for the court to intervene at the current stage of the legislative process – that is, to intervene before the draft legislation had been passed or enacted. In other words, the court sought to decide "whether, in the light of the doctrine of the separation of powers, it is appropriate for this court, in all the circumstances, to make any order setting aside the decision of the national executive that is challenged in this case". [10]

Glenister's application was opposed by the Minister of Safety and Security and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; President Kgalema Motlanthe abided the decision of the court. [11] Of the political parties who had joined the High Court action as amici curiae, only the UDM appeared in the Constitutional Court to support Glenister's application; however, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, a unit of the F. W. de Klerk Foundation, was newly admitted as amicus curiae and broadly supported the arguments of Glenister and the UDM.

Argument

The Constitutional Court heard the matter on 20 August 2008. [12] On the narrow legal question posed by the Constitutional Court, the UDM contended that the separation of powers doctrine should be adapted to the prevailing political conditions, including the ANC's dominance and a putative power imbalance between the branches of government which resulted in the marginalisation of the legislature and the opposition parties therein. Moreover, the UDM argued that Cabinet's decision to initiate the legislation, insofar as it emanated directly from a party-political resolution, amounted to an abdication of constitutional responsibility and therefore stood to be overturned as a violation of the principle of legality.

Meanwhile, Glenister's counsel, David Unterhalter, [13] relied on the court's remarks in Doctors for Life v Speaker , an earlier judgment on the separation of powers, to argue that there are exceptional cases in which an aggrieved litigant should be permitted to challenge a statute before it has been enacted, because effective redress would become impossible after the statute's enactment. In this respect, Glenister pointed to evidence that many employees had resigned or planned to resign from the Scorpions as a result of the initiation of the draft legislation, thus substantially undermining the unit's capacity.

Judgment

On 22 October 2008, delivering judgment on behalf of a unanimous court, Chief Justice Pius Langa dismissed Glenister's application on the basis that it shared the High Court's separation of powers concerns. [14] The court was willing to accept, "for the purposes of argument", Glenister's contention that courts are permitted to intervene in pending legislation in exceptional circumstances. However, were this contention true, it would permit such intervention only in an extraordinarily narrow range of cases. In particular, the minimum test for intervention is the requirement that the applicant:

can show that there would be no effective remedy available to him or her once the legislative process is complete, as the unlawful conduct will have achieved its object in the course of the process. The applicant must show that the resultant harm will be material and irreversible.

According to Langa, this test, borrowed from Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong, a 1970 decision of the Privy Council, accords proper respect to the separation of powers. In doing so, it places "a formidable burden" on the applicant seeking intervention:

Cases that would warrant intervention on this approach will be extremely rare. As acknowledged in an Australian case, Cormack v Cope, it is not the introduction of a Bill that affects rights; it is the making of a law that does that. Thus, before the law has been enacted, it would be extremely unusual to be able to demonstrate harm.

The court concluded that this test had not been met in the case of the disputed legislation, because the applicant had not established that material and irreversible harm would result in the absence of intervention. Because judicial intervention was not justifiable in the circumstances, both Glenister's application for leave to appeal and his application for direct access stood to be dismissed.

Reception and aftermath

While the Constitutional Court case was pending, the National Assembly continued to process the draft legislation, and the Speaker of the National Assembly called a vote on the bills for 23 October 2008. Thus, the week before the Constitutional Court judgment was handed down, Glenister lodged a separate urgent application in the Cape High Court seeking to interdict the National Assembly's vote. [15] The High Court dismissed that application the same day that the Constitutional Court dismissed the original application. [16] [17] Glenister's lawyer said that he had known the campaign would be "a long shot". [18] The day after the judgments were handed down, the National Assembly passed the impugned legislation, [19] and two years later, Glenister returned to the Constitutional Court to challenge the enacted legislation's constitutionality in Glenister II . [1]

Theunis Roux later complimented Chief Justice Langa's judgment in Glenister for having "neatly defused the politics of the case" and "taking the political heat out of the questions presented to [the court]". [20]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of South Africa</span> Supreme court of South Africa

The Constitutional Court of South Africa is a supreme constitutional court established by the Constitution of South Africa, and is the apex court in the South African judicial system, with general jurisdiction.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edwin Cameron</span> South African judge

Edwin Cameron is a retired judge who served as a Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He is well known for his HIV/AIDS and gay-rights activism and was hailed by Nelson Mandela as "one of South Africa's new heroes". President Ramaphosa appointed him as Inspecting Judge of Correctional Services from 1 January 2020 and in October 2019 he was elected Chancellor of Stellenbosch University.

Brigitte Sylvia Mabandla is a South African politician, lawyer and former anti-apartheid activist who served in the cabinet of South Africa from 2003 to 2009, including as the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development from 2004 to 2008. She became the South African Ambassador to Sweden in January 2020. A veteran of the African National Congress (ANC), she was an elected member of party's National Executive Committee between 1997 and 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Congress of the People (South African political party)</span> Political party in South Africa

The Congress of the People (COPE) is a South African political party formed in 2008 by former members of the African National Congress (ANC). The party was founded by former ANC members Mosiuoa Lekota, Mbhazima Shilowa and Mluleki George to contest the 2009 general election. The party was announced following a national convention held in Sandton on 1 November 2008, and was founded at a congress held in Bloemfontein on 16 December 2008. The name echoes the 1955 Congress of the People at which the Freedom Charter was adopted by the ANC and other parties, a name strongly contested by the ANC in a legal move dismissed by the Pretoria High Court.

Baaitse Elizabeth "Bess" Nkabinde-Mmono is a South African retired judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa from January 2006 to December 2017. During that time, she was acting Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa from 23 May 2016 to 7 June 2017. She joined the bench in November 1999 as a judge of the Bophuthatswana Provincial Division.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pius Langa</span> South African lawyer and judge (1939–2013)

Pius Nkonzo LangaSCOB was Chief Justice of South Africa from June 2005 to October 2009. Formerly a human rights lawyer, he was appointed as a puisne judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa upon its inception in 1995. He was the Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa from November 2001 until May 2005, when President Thabo Mbeki elevated him to the Chief Justiceship. He was South Africa's first black African Chief Justice.

<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.

<i>Womens Legal Centre Trust v President</i> South African legal case

Women's Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others is a 2009 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. The court dismissed an application for direct access lodged by the Women's Legal Centre, which sought an order directing the President and Parliament to pass legislation to provide for the recognition of Muslim marriages. The court did not express a view on the merits of the dispute but instead held that the application did not engage its exclusive jurisdiction in terms of section 167 of the Constitution. Justice Edwin Cameron delivered judgment on behalf of a unanimous court on 22 July 2009.

Christopher Nyaole Jafta is a retired South African judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa from October 2009 to October 2021. Formerly an academic and practising advocate in the Transkei, he joined the bench in November 1999 as a judge of the Transkei Division. Thereafter he served in the Supreme Court of Appeal from November 2004 to October 2009.

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>Thint v NDPP</i> South African legal case

Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others is a 2008 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal procedure. It concerns the lawfulness of search and seizure warrants issued in terms of section 29 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998 in the course of an investigation into serious economic crime. The court implemented several tests for the lawfulness of such warrants and confirmed that the state was not required to provide notice to the subjects of such warrants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hawks (South Africa)</span> National intelligence agency of South Africa

The Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), commonly known as the Hawks, is the branch of the South African Police Service which investigates organised crime, economic crime, corruption, and other serious crime referred to it by the President or another division of the police. The unit was established in 2008 by President Jacob Zuma to replace the disbanded Scorpions.

General elections will be held in South Africa on 29 May 2024 to elect a new National Assembly as well as the provincial legislature in each province. This will be the seventh general election held under the conditions of universal adult suffrage since the end of the apartheid era in 1994. The new National Council of Provinces will be elected at the first sitting of each provincial legislature. Since the inaugural post-apartheid election in 1994, the African National Congress (ANC) has consistently secured a majority of seats in the National Assembly.

David Unterhalter is a South African jurist and judge of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa. He is also professor of law at the University of Cape Town. Before he was appointed to the bench in January 2018, Unterhalter was a prominent advocate, specialising in public law, competition law, and trade law. He was called to the Johannesburg Bar in 1990 and took silk in 2002.

<i>UDM v Speaker of the National Assembly</i> South African legal case

United Democratic Movement v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others is a 2017 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the purpose and procedure of parliamentary motions of no confidence in the President of the Republic of South Africa. In a unanimous judgment written by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, the court held that the Speaker of the National Assembly was empowered to prescribe a secret ballot in votes of no confidence.

<i>Ramakatsa v Magashule</i> South African legal case

Ramakatsa and Others v Magashule and Others is a 2012 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the internal governance of political parties and the section 19 right to participate in political party activities. The court reviewed and overturned an internal elective conference held by the African National Congress (ANC) in Parys, Free State in June 2012. This had the effect of invalidating the election of the Free State ANC's provincial leadership, including the election of Ace Magashule as ANC Provincial Chairperson.

<i>Glenister v President</i> (2011) South African legal case

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.

References

  1. 1 2 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. ↑ "S Africa to shut anti-crime agency". Al Jazeera. 22 February 2008. Archived from the original on 30 April 2008. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
  3. ↑ "Battle over future of the Scorpions". Mail & Guardian. 10 February 2008. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  4. ↑ "Scorpions 'not part of police'". News24. 2008-05-07. Retrieved 2021-12-13.
  5. ↑ "Scorpions disbanding unconstitutional". The Mail & Guardian. 2011-03-18. Retrieved 2021-12-13.
  6. ↑ "Scorpions support grows". IOL. 2008-05-21. Retrieved 2021-12-13.
  7. ↑ "DA backs bid to save Scorpions". News24. 18 March 2008. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  8. ↑ "Parties unite to keep Scorpions". News24. 15 May 2008. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  9. ↑ "Date set for Scorpions application". News24. 21 July 2008. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  10. ↑ "Scorpions case in ConCourt". News24. 19 August 2008. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  11. ↑ "Mbeki withdraws from Scorpions case". The Mail & Guardian. 2008-07-25. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  12. ↑ "Court hears argument in Scorpions case". The Mail & Guardian. 2008-08-20. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  13. ↑ "Scorpions battle: Concern over separation of powers". The Mail & Guardian. 2008-08-20. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  14. ↑ "Glenister fails in Scorpions court appeal". The Mail & Guardian. 2008-10-22. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  15. ↑ "Glenister launches new court action on Scorpions Bills". The Mail & Guardian. 2008-10-21. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  16. ↑ "Glenister's Scorpions crusade dealt double blow". The Mail & Guardian. 2008-10-23. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  17. ↑ "Glenister calls halt to Scorpions challenge". The Mail & Guardian. 2008-10-23. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  18. ↑ "Scorpions: Glenister gives up". News24. 23 October 2008. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  19. ↑ "Assembly approves Scorpions Bills". The Mail & Guardian. 2008-10-24. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  20. ↑ Roux, Theunis (2015). "The Langa Court: Its distinctive character and legacy". Acta Juridica. 2015 (1): 33–74.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.