South African Police Service v Barnard

Last updated

South African Police Service v Barnard
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameSouth African Police Service v Solidarity on behalf of Renate Barnard
Decided2 September 2014 (2014-09-02)
Docket nos.CCT 01/14
Citation(s) [2014] ZACC 23; 2014 (6) SA 123 (CC); [2014] 11 BLLR 1025 (CC); 2014 (10) BCLR 1195 (CC); (2014) 35 ILJ 2981 (CC)
Case history
Prior action(s)
Court membership
Judges sitting Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, van der Westhuizen J, Zondo J , Dambuza AJ and Majiedt AJ
Case opinions
Decision by
  • Moseneke ACJ (Skweyiya, Dambuza, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga and Zondo concurring)
Concurrence
  • Jafta J (Moseneke concurring)
Concur/dissent
  • Cameron J, Froneman J and Majiedt AJ
  • Van der Westhuizen J

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.

Contents

Background

Renate Barnard, a white woman and a captain in the South African Police Service (SAPS), applied for a promotion in May 2006. After she and the other candidates were interviewed, the hiring panel recommended her as the most suitable candidate for the promotion, and the Divisional Commissioner endorsed this recommendation. However, the National Commissioner of the SAPS, Jackie Selebi, declined to appoint her, taking the view that the panel's recommendation did not take sufficient account of employment equity considerations. Since it was not a critical post, he recommended that the post should not be filled and that the vacancy should be re-advertised the following year.

Court action

Aggrieved by the National Commissioner's decision, Barnard filed an internal complaint and later referred the dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration. Thereafter she approached the Labour Court for relief with the assistance of her trade union, Solidarity. She claimed that, in declining to promote her, the SAPS had unfairly discriminated against her on the ground of her race, in violation both of section 9(3) of the Constitution and of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act, 1998.

This argument was reprised in three different courts: the Labour Court of South Africa ruled in Barnard's favour in February 2010, but the Labour Appeal Court upheld the SAPS's appeal in November 2012, and then the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld Barnard's own appeal in November 2013. [1] [2] Thus the SAPS lodged a final appeal in the Constitutional Court of South Africa, which heard argument on 20 March 2014 and delivered judgment on 2 September 2014. The Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union was admitted as amicus curiae.

Majority judgment

The Constitutional Court's majority judgment was written by Acting Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke and was joined by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Thembile Skweyiya; Justices Chris Jafta, Sisi Khampepe, Mbuyiseli Madlanga, and Raymond Zondo; and Acting Justice Nambitha Dambuza. The majority upheld the SAPS's appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal, setting that decision aside. Instead, it restored and upheld the decision of the Labour Appeal Court, which was written by Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, subject only to an amendment of the costs order handed down by Mlambo.

The majority found that the Supreme Court of Appeal had erred in its approach to Barnard's claim. Judge of Appeal Mahomed Navsa had applied the test for unfair discrimination outlined in Harksen v Lane , finding that the SAPS's decision constituted discrimination on the basis of race in terms of section 9(3) of the Constitution and that SAPS had not rebutted the presumption of unfairness that attached to that discrimination in terms of section 9(5) of the Constitution. Contrary to this approach, the appropriate test was outlined in Minister of Finance v Van Heerden , in which the Constitutional Court had held that the state can defend against a claim of unfair discrimination by demonstrating that the maligned decision was taken in terms of a restitutionary affirmative action measure protected under section 9(2) of the Constitution. In the present case, the National Commissioner had made his decision in terms of an Employment Equity Plan, which was uncontroversially a lawful affirmative action measure. It was therefore authorised both by section 9(2) of the Constitution and by section 6(2) of the Employment Equity Act.

Indeed, Barnard had accepted as much in her argument before the court. Instead, Barnard had pressed a different argument, contending that – even though the employment equity policy itself was lawful and valid – the National Commissioner's decision had not been made within the bounds of that policy, had been unreasonable, and therefore stood to be overturned as unlawful. The majority acknowledged that the National Commissioner's decision could be reviewed on these grounds: at the least, the principle of legality requires that the National Commissioner should implement the affirmative action measure in a manner that is "rationally related to the terms and objects of the measure". However, it was impermissible for Barnard to lodge this new line of attack during her argument before the Constitutional Court. Moreover, even if the court were to entertain the argument, it would find it to be without merit, because the National Commissioner's decision had been rational and lawful given the objectives of the affirmative action policy.

Minority judgments

The full bench of the court was unanimous that SAPS's appeal should be upheld, but three additional judgments were filed. Justice Johann van der Westhuizen wrote separately on the grounds that, though he agreed with Moseneke's interpretation of section 9 of the Constitution, he disagreed that "an enquiry into the decision of the National Commissioner is not properly before us". Holding that such an enquiry stemmed naturally from Barnard's application to the court, he tested the National Commissioner's decision against the standard designed in Van Heerden. He concluded that the National Commissioner had adequate reasons for his decision and that the decision and underlying policy were lawful and consistent with the Constitution.

Justice Edwin Cameron, Justice Johan Froneman, and Acting Justice Steven Majiedt likewise filed a separate opinion, co-written between them, in which they, like van der Westhuizen, held that it was necessary to test the lawfulness of the National Commissioner's decision. They held that the decision must meet the standard of fairness, and they concluded that the National Commissioner's decision met this standard.

Finally, Justice Jafta, who had joined in Moseneke's judgment, also wrote a separate concurring judgment, in which Moseneke joined. He set out a detailed defence of Moseneke's finding that it was not necessary for the court to adjudicate Barnard's bid to review the lawfulness of the National Commissioner's decision, which he argued amounted to a new cause of action.

Reception

Barnard was the Constitutional Court's first encounter with the constitutionality of affirmative action in the context of employment equity and related statute. [3] Several commentators regarded it as a "missed opportunity" for the Constitutional Court to "reassert and refine" the Van Heerden test in that context. [4] [5] However, the Helen Suzman Foundation suggested that the limitations of the judgment were not due to any missteps by the court but instead were due to the misconceived litigation strategy of Solidarity on behalf of Barnard; in this view, the case should have been litigated from the outset as an application to review and set aside the National Commissioner's decision as a flawed implementation of the underlying employment equity policy. [6]

Related Research Articles

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

<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">Michigan Civil Rights Initiative</span> American ballot initiative

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2, was a ballot initiative in the U.S. state of Michigan that passed into Michigan Constitutional law by a 58% to 42% margin on November 7, 2006, according to results officially certified by the Michigan Secretary of State. By Michigan law, the Proposal became law on December 22, 2006. MCRI was a citizen initiative aimed at banning consideration of race, color, sex, or religion in admission to colleges, jobs, and other publicly funded institutions – effectively prohibiting some affirmative action by public institutions based on those factors. The Proposal's constitutionality was challenged in federal court, but its constitutionality was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

<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.

<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>Daniels v Campbell</i> South African legal case

Daniels v Campbell NO and Others, an important case in South African family law and law of succession, was heard in the Constitutional Court on 6 November 2003 and decided on 11 March 2004. The court was unanimous that the constitutional right to equality requires that rights of intestate inheritance and maintenance must be extended to the surviving partners of de facto monogamous Muslim marriages, even though such marriages are not recognised under the Marriage Act, 1961.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

<i>Hoffmann v South African Airways</i> South African legal case

Hoffmann v South African Airways is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of South African labour law and constitutional law. It concerned employment discrimination on the basis of HIV status and was decided on 28 September 2000.

<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.

Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

<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>Paulsen v Slip Knot</i> South African legal case

Paulsen and Another v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Limited is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. In a judgment delivered on 24 March 2015, a majority of the court overturned the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Standard Bank v Oneanate, which had established a pendente lite exception to the in duplum rule.

<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.

<i>Laugh It Off Promotions v South African Breweries</i> South African legal case

Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International and Another is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the intersection between freedom of expression and trademark law. The case concerned the proper interpretation of anti-trademark dilution provisions of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 in the context of the sale of T-shirts parodying established commercial brands. The court's unanimous judgment, delivered on 27 May 2005, was written by Justice Dikgang Moseneke.

<i>Khumalo v Holomisa</i> South African legal case

Khumalo and Others v Holomisa is a landmark decision in the South African law of delict. It was decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 21 May 2002. Handing down judgment for a unanimous court, Justice Kate O'Regan held that the existing common law of defamation is consistent with the Bill of Rights. The case emanated from a challenge by members of the press, who argued, in the main, that falsity should be an element of the delict of defamation in suits brought by public officials. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that existing common law does not impose an undue limitation on freedom of expression.

<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.

<i>Minister of Finance v Van Heerden</i> South African legal case

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.

<i>Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v SARIPA</i> South African legal case

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

  1. ↑ Malan, K. (2014). "Constitutional perspectives on the judgments of the Labour Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal in Solidarity (acting on behalf of Barnard) v South African Police Services". De Jure. 47 (1): 118.
  2. ↑ Pretorius, J. L. (28 June 2013). "The unresolved search for the proper standard of review of affirmative action: Solidarity obo Barnard v SAPS". Journal for Juridical Science. 38 (2): 128–141. doi:10.38140/jjs.v38i2.3043. ISSN   2415-0517.
  3. ↑ Gaibie, Shamima (2015). "The Constitutional Court Decision in Barnard: A Sequel to the Van Heerden Judgment". Industrial Law Journal (Juta). 36: 80.
  4. ↑ McConnachie, Chris (2015). "Affirmative action and intensity of review: South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard". Constitutional Court Review. 7 (1): 163–197. doi:10.2989/CCR/2015.0008. ISSN   2073-6215.
  5. ↑ Albertyn, C. H. (2015). "Adjudicating Affirmative Action Within a Normative Framework of Substantive Equality and the Employment Equity Act – An Opportunity Missed? South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard". South African Law Journal. 132 (4): 711–734.
  6. ↑ Premhid, Kameel (2014). "Barnard Case – a Missed Opportunity". Helen Suzman Foundation. Retrieved 9 March 2024.
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.