President v Hugo

President v Hugo
President v Hugo
Court	Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case name	President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Hugo
Decided	18 April 1997
Docket nos.	CCT 11/96
Citations	[1997] ZACC 4; 1997 (6) BCLR 708; 1997 (4) SA 1
Case history
Prior actions	Supreme Court of South Africa, Durban and Coast Local Division – Hugo v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another 1996 (4) SA 1012 (D)
Court membership
Judges sitting	Chaskalson P, Mahomed DP, Ackermann, Didcott, Goldstone, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan and Sachs JJ
Case opinions
	The provisions of the Presidential Act No. 17 of 27 June, 1994, relating to the remission of sentences of mothers in prison, are not inconsistent with the Interim Constitution.
Decision by	Goldstone J (Chaskalson, Mahomed, Ackermann, Langa, Madala and Sachs concurring)
Concurrence	O'Regan J (Chaskalson, Mahomed, Ackermann, Goldstone, Langa, Madala and Sachs concurring)
Concur/dissent	Mokgoro J
Dissent	Didcott J
Dissent	Kriegler J

Last updated July 21, 2024

President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Hugo is a 1997 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. The court affirmed that the exercise of presidential prerogative powers is subject to judicial review, but it nonetheless found that President Nelson Mandela had acted fairly and lawfully in pardoning imprisoned mothers, but not imprisoned fathers, in a June 1994 presidential decree. The decision was among the first in the Constitutional Court's emerging jurisprudence on unfair discrimination and the right to equality.

Background

Section 82(1)(k) of the Interim Constitution of South Africa empowered the President of South Africa to pardon or reprieve criminal offences and to remit criminal penalties. Acting in terms of this power, on 27 June 1994, newly elected President Nelson Mandela signed a decree styled Presidential Act No. 17, which granted special remission of the prison sentences of certain categories of offenders, including imprisoned mothers who had minor children under the age of 12 years.

John Phillip Peter Hugo, who had served two-and-a-half years of an effective fifteen-and-a-half year prison sentence, was the only living parent of an 11-year-old son born in December 1982. He therefore would have qualified for remission had he been the child's mother, not his father. Hugo applied to the Supreme Court of South Africa to challenge the constitutionality of the Presidential Act. He contended that the Presidential Act discriminated against him unfairly on the ground of sex or gender – and therefore indirectly discriminated against his son on the ground of his parent's sex or gender – and therefore that it contravened sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Interim Constitution, which guaranteed the right to equality.

Magid J of the Supreme Court's Durban and Coast Local Division upheld Hugo's application, finding that the Presidential Act discriminated unfairly against Hugo and his son. The President was ordered to correct the Presidential Act accordingly. The President and his co-respondent, the Minister of Correctional Services, appealed the Supreme Court's decision to the Constitutional Court of South Africa, where the matter was heard on 12 November 1996 and decided on 18 April 1997.

Majority judgment

Unfair discrimination

The Constitutional Court's majority judgment was written by Justice Richard Goldstone, who overturned the Supreme Court's finding and upheld the President's appeal. His judgment opened with an exposition of the constitutional right to equality, including an oft-cited description of the purpose of the section 8(2) protection from unfair discrimination:

The prohibition on unfair discrimination in the interim Constitution seeks not only to avoid discrimination against people who are members of disadvantaged groups. It seeks more than that. At the heart of the prohibition of unfair discrimination lies a recognition that the purpose of our new constitutional and democratic order is the establishment of a society in which all human beings will be accorded equal dignity and respect regardless of their membership of particular groups. The achievement of such a society in the context of our deeply inegalitarian past will not be easy, but that that is the goal of the Constitution should not be forgotten or overlooked.

Thus, though men were not a disadvantaged group, they could nonetheless be victims of unfair sex discrimination. Indeed, the majority judgment agreed with the court a quo that the Presidential Act did discriminate against male prisoners – in fact, discrimination was inevitable in such a directive, because, "The line has to be drawn somewhere, and there will always be people on one side of the line who do not benefit and whose positions are not significantly different to those of persons on the other side of the line who do benefit." Moreover, because the Presidential Act discriminated on the ground of gender, section 8(4) of the Interim Constitution entailed that such discrimination was presumptively unfair unless the contrary was proved in court. Goldstone held that:

To determine whether that impact was unfair it is necessary to look not only at the group who has been disadvantaged but at the nature of the power in terms of which the discrimination was effected and, also at the nature of the interests which have been affected by the discrimination.

He concluded that the President had indeed proved that the discrimination was not unfair in these terms. In particular, the public interest and the administration of justice required that the scope of the presidential remission must be limited. Male prisoners outnumbered female prisoners almost fiftyfold, so the release of imprisoned fathers would mean the release of a very large number of prisoners. Moreover, the President had intended for the remission to serve the interests of children, and, because men were generally not their children's primary caretakers, the release of male prisoners "would not have contributed as significantly" to the achievement of this purpose as the release of mothers had. Finally, the impact of the discrimination on imprisoned male fathers was not severe: "The Presidential Act may have denied them an opportunity it afforded women, but it cannot be said that it fundamentally impaired their rights of dignity or sense of equal worth." Thus the Presidential Act was not unfairly discriminatory and Hugo had no justified complaint under section 8(2) of the Constitution.

Presidential prerogatives

Goldstone's judgment was also notable for its defence of the applicability of judicial review to the exercise of a presidential prerogative. The section 82(1)(k) power to pardon offenders was one of a list of powers granted by the Interim Constitution to the President in his capacity as head of state (rather than head of the executive). Like the others, it was historically a prerogative power of the English monarch. Goldstone found that, under South Africa's new constitutional dispensation, such prerogative powers flow directly from the Constitution and constitute executive powers – that is, their exercise constitutes an exercise of executive authority. Under constitutional supremacy, the court therefore had jurisdiction to review the exercise of any presidential power under section 82(1), and such exercise must comply with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Other judgments

Goldstone's judgment was joined by Justices Arthur Chaskalson, Ismail Mahomed, Laurie Ackermann, Pius Langa, Tholie Madala, and Albie Sachs. The same group, with Goldstone, also joined a separate concurrence written by Justice Kate O'Regan, which primarily elaborated on Goldstone's argument in response to a dissent by Justice Johann Kriegler. Kriegler dissented on the majority's finding of fairness, holding instead that the sex discrimination perpetrated by the Presidential Act was unfair.

In addition, Justice Yvonne Mokgoro wrote in a separate judgment that there was unfair discrimination, in violation of section 8(2), but that the violation was justifiable in terms of section 33(1); she therefore supported the majority's order upholding the appeal. Finally, in his own separate judgment, Justice John Didcott held that the matter was moot and that, per JT Publishing v Minister of Safety and Security, the court should not answer moot constitutional questions.

Significance

Along with Prinsloo v Van der Linde (delivered on the same day) and Harksen v Lane , Hugo is regarded as one of the Constitutional Court's most influential early judgments on the right to equality (later enshrined in Section Nine of the Constitution of 1996).^[1]^[2]^[3] In Harksen v Lane (also written by Goldstone), the court confirmed and elaborated on Hugo's contention that the unfairness of discriminatory conduct must be determined with reference to the impact of the discrimination on its victims, and particularly with reference to its impact on the victims' dignity.^[4]

Related Research Articles

A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be relieved of some or all of the legal consequences resulting from a criminal conviction. A pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [2005] ZACC 19, is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in which the court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The judgment, authored by Justice Albie Sachs and delivered on 1 December 2005, gave Parliament one year to pass the necessary legislation. As a result, the Civil Union Act came into force on 30 November 2006, making South Africa the fifth country in the world to recognise same-sex marriage.

Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa contains the Bill of Rights, a human rights charter that protects the civil, political and socio-economic rights of all people in South Africa. The rights in the Bill apply to all law, including the common law, and bind all branches of the government, including the national executive, Parliament, the judiciary, provincial governments, and municipal councils. Some provisions, such as those prohibiting unfair discrimination, also apply to the actions of private persons.

The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 is a comprehensive South African anti-discrimination law. It prohibits unfair discrimination by the government and by private organisations and individuals and forbids hate speech and harassment. The act specifically lists race, gender, sex, pregnancy, family responsibility or status, marital status, ethnic or social origin, HIV/AIDS status, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth as "prohibited grounds" for discrimination, but also contains criteria that courts may apply to determine which other characteristics are prohibited grounds. Employment discrimination is excluded from the ambit of the act because it is addressed by the Employment Equity Act, 1998. The act establishes the divisions of the High Court and designated Magistrates' Courts as "Equality Courts" to hear complaints of discrimination, hate speech and harassment.

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

Johann Vincent van der Westhuizen is a South African who served on the Constitutional Court of South Africa from February 2004 to January 2016. He was a professor of law at the University of Pretoria from 1980 to 1999, when he joined the bench as a judge of the High Court of South Africa.

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down as unconstitutional a law which set the age of consent at 19 for homosexual sex but only 16 for heterosexual sex.

Section Nine of the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equality before the law and freedom from discrimination to the people of South Africa. This equality right is the first right listed in the Bill of Rights. It prohibits both discrimination by the government and discrimination by private persons; however, it also allows for affirmative action to be taken to redress past unfair discrimination.

Hassam v Jacobs NO and Others, an important case in South African family law and law of succession, was heard in the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 19 February 2009 and decided on 15 July 2009. It concerned the proprietary consequences of polygynous Muslim marriage in the context of intestate succession.

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.

Volks NO v Robinson and Others is an important decision in South African family law and law of succession. In a majority judgment written by Justice Thembile Skweyiya, the Constitutional Court of South Africa dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, 1990. The court held that it is not discriminatory for the Act to exclude the survivors of permanent life partnerships from the protections it extends to the survivors of legal marriages. Married couples are entitled to claim maintenance from their deceased spouse's estate because the institution of marriage creates unique reciprocal duties of support which do not exist between permanent life partners.

Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others, Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which established that it is unconstitutional to exclude permanent residents from the social welfare system on the grounds that they lack South African citizenship. The court found that provisions of the Social Assistance Act, 1992 were unconstitutional on that basis.

S v Jordan and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which confirmed the constitutionality of statutory prohibitions on brothel-keeping and prostitution. It was handed down on 9 October 2002 with a majority judgment by Justice Sandile Ngcobo.

Harksen v Lane NO and Others is an important decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, delivered on 7 October 1997. The court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Insolvency Act, 1936, finding that it was consistent with the right to property and right to equality for the property of a solvent spouse to be attached to the insolvent estate of his or her partner. Justice Richard Goldstone wrote for the majority.

Du Plessis and Others v De Klerk and Another is a 1996 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Though arising from a defamation case in the law of delict, it had broad significance for the application of the Interim Constitution both to pre-constitutional conduct and to private disputes. The majority judgment was written by Acting Justice Sydney Kentridge and the leading dissent by Justice Johann Kriegler.

Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and Others is a 2002 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal law. It concerned the constitutionality of criminalising cannabis given Rastafaris' constitutional right to freedom of religion. A majority of the court held that the Constitution did not obligate the state to exempt bona fide religious uses from statutory prohibitions against cannabis use and possession.

Minister of Finance and Another v Van Heerden is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the constitutionality of affirmative action. Delivered in July 2004, it marked the court's first application of the affirmative action clause in section 9(2) of the Bill of Rights. In a majority judgment written by Justice Dikgang Moseneke, the court held that section 9(2) precludes claims of unfair discrimination against any affirmative action measures pursued in conformance with that provision.

South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard is a 2014 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. It marked the first time that the Constitutional Court considered the constitutionality of employment equity measures. In a majority judgment written by Justice Dikgang Moseneke, the court upheld as lawful a decision by the South African Police Service not to promote a white woman on the basis that her elevation would not promote to the achievement of employment equity targets.

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another v South African Restructuring and Insolvency Practitioners Association and Others is a 2018 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. The court struck down provisions of the government's Policy on the Appointment of Insolvency Practitioners, an affirmative action measure for the appointment of insolvency practitioners by the Master of the High Court. Justice Chris Jafta wrote the court's majority judgment and a three-person minority joined a dissent written by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga.

References

↑ Dlamini, C.R.M. (1 March 2004). "Equality or justice? Section 9 of the Constitution revisited – Part II". Journal for Juridical Science. 27 (2). doi:10.4314/jjs.v27i2.27117. ISSN 0258-252X.
↑ Sachs, Albie (2000). "Equality Jurisprudence: The Origin of Doctrine in the South African Constitutional Court". Review of Constitutional Studies. 5: 76.
↑ Carpenter, Gretchen (2001). "Equality and Non-Discrimination in the New South African Constitutional Order (2): An Important Trilogy of Decisions". Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg (Journal for Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law). 64: 619.
↑ Grant, Evadne; Small, Joan G. (2000). "Disadvantage and Discrimination: The Emerging Jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court". Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly. 51: 174.

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.

[1] Dlamini, C.R.M. (1 March 2004). "Equality or justice? Section 9 of the Constitution revisited – Part II". Journal for Juridical Science. 27 (2). doi:10.4314/jjs.v27i2.27117. ISSN 0258-252X.

[2] Sachs, Albie (2000). "Equality Jurisprudence: The Origin of Doctrine in the South African Constitutional Court". Review of Constitutional Studies. 5: 76.

[3] Carpenter, Gretchen (2001). "Equality and Non-Discrimination in the New South African Constitutional Order (2): An Important Trilogy of Decisions". Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg (Journal for Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law). 64: 619.

[4] Grant, Evadne; Small, Joan G. (2000). "Disadvantage and Discrimination: The Emerging Jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court". Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly. 51: 174.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]