Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom. Case No. CCT 11/00. 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 and Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign. Case No. CCT 8/02

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 669-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
David D. Caron ◽  
Joan Fitzpatrick ◽  
Ron C. Slye

Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom. Case No. CCT 11/00. 2000 (11) BCLR 1169. Constitutional Court of South Africa, October 4, 2000.Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign. Case No. CCT 8/02. At <http://www.concourt.gov.za>.Constitutional Court of South Africa, July 5, 2002.Two cases decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in 2000 and 2002 implement several economic, social, and cultural rights guaranteed by the Constitution of South Africa. The decisions illuminate the role in such reasoning of human rights treaties to which South Africa is a state party or a signatory. They also analyze General Comment No. 3 of die UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Committee). These cases, Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom, decided October 4,2000, and Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign, decided July 5, 2002, illuminate questions concerning both die jusdciability of economic, social, and cultural rights—at least as incorporated into Soudi Africa's Bill of Rights, sections 7 through 39 of its Constitution—and the concept of “minimum core obligations” as developed by the Committee.

Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aliyu Ibrahim

While most of the United Nations (UN) treaties have committees to monitor the implementation of their provisions among their States parties, one of the major challenges they encounter is their inability to independently verify the information provided by the States parties, on the level of fulfilling their obligations to the treaties. However, the establishment of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) by the majority of UN member states was meant to not only promote and protect human rights within the territories of States parties, but also to monitor the implementation of the provisions of treaties at the domestic level. This resulted in treaty bodies to encourage NHRIs, in monitoring and providing it with information on the level of implementation of the provisions of these treaties within the territories of respective States parties. This article examines whether these institutions in Africa have been able to discharge their mandates concerning the implementation of two treaties, namely, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which is monitored by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which is overseen by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). The NHRIs of South Africa, Morocco and Nigeria have been selected to test the effectiveness of these institutions. The study ultimately shows that the majority of these institutions are still far off from achieving their potential.


Author(s):  
Charles Ngwena

It is trite to say that the adjudication of socio-economic rights is a new enterprise in South African jurisprudence, as it is to the jurisprudence of many other jurisdictions. Professor van Rensburg’s paper seeks to analyse the influence of political, socio-economic and cultural considerations on the interpretation and application of socio-economic rights in the Bill of Rights. The pivots for discussion are the decisions of the Constitutional Court in the Soobramoney,1 Grootboom2 and Treatment Action Campaign3 cases which, thus far, are the only cases in which the Constitutional Court has substantively determined the nature and parameters of socio-economic rights and obligations under the South African Constitution. My response is somewhat deferential in that I largely concur with many of the observations that Professor van Rensburg makes. In some respects, however, I have attempted to bring into the analysis of Soobramoney, Grootboom and Treatment Action Campaign not so much new insights, but rather different emphases. Likewise, my response is constructed around the three cases. I begin with Soobramoney.


Author(s):  
D Horsten

The preamble of the Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) contains the commitment to, amongst other things, establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights, lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law and improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person.  One of the methods used to achieve these objectives is the inclusion of enforceable socio-economic rights in the Chapter 2 Bill of Rights. Despite numerous debates surrounding the issue of enforceability of socioeconomic rights, it has become evident that these rights are indeed enforceable.  Not only does section 7(2) of the Constitution place the state under an obligation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil all rights in the Bill of Rights, including socio-economic rights, but the Constitutional Court has in various decisions passed judgment on issues relating to socio-economic rights, underpinning the fact that these rights are indeed enforceable. The fact that socio-economic rights have been included in the Bill of Rights and are enforceable is, however, not sufficient to achieve the aims set out in the preamble.  In order for these rights to be of any value to the people they seek to protect, they need to be implemented. One of the ways in which the implementation of these rights is monitored is by means of the South African Human Rights Commission's annual Economic and Social Rights Reports.  The aim of this contribution is to assess these reports and to establish the degree to which they contribute to good governance in South Africa with reference to, inter alia, the constitutional mandate of the South African Human Rights Commission, the reporting procedure and the evaluation of reports.


2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manisuli Ssenyonjo

This article examines the domestic constitutional framework for protection and promotion of human rights in Uganda. It considers the historical evolution of Uganda's Bill of Rights in the context of Uganda's history, which has been characterised by gross human rights violations. It observes that in 1986 Museveni under his ‘Movement’ or ‘no-party’ government declared a period of ‘fundamental change’, but argues that despite some positive aspects, the change as related to the protection and promotion of human rights has been far from being ‘fundamental’. It contends that, although the 1995 Ugandan Constitution attempts to protect human rights, the constitutional restrictions on civil and political rights and the relegation of most economic and social rights as ‘directive principles' coupled with elastic executive powers together with the ‘no-party’ political system undermine the effective protection and promotion of civil, political as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The article concludes by calling for a democratic constitutional reform representative of all interest groups, judicial activism on the part of the Ugandan Judiciary and Human Rights Commission and developing a culture of constitutionalism in Uganda to give effect to the indivisible and interdependent nature of all human rights in accordance with Uganda's international human rights obligations as a State party to the two international human rights covenants on civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights.


Author(s):  
Başak Çalı

This chapter discusses regional systems of human rights protection. The complementary nature of these systems to the efforts of the UN is discussed. However, there is also competition. This chapter maps the regional human rights treaties and declarations in different parts of the world and compares their scope with the International Bill of Rights, composed of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The regional human rights institutions are also discussed. The interpretive tools adopted by regional human rights bodies are considered. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the future prospects for interaction between regional and UN human rights institutions, in particular, in light of the recent developments that have been undertaken by the League of Arab States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Mangu

After several decades of apartheid rule, which denied human rights to the majority of the population on the ground of race and came to be regarded as a crime against humanity, South Africa adopted its first democratic Constitution in the early 1990s. The 1996 Constitution, which succeeded the 1993 interim Constitution, is considered one of the most progressive in the world. In its founding provisions, it states that South Africa is a democratic state founded on human dignity, the achievement of equality, the advancement of human rights and freedoms. The Constitution enshrines fundamental human rights in a justiciable Bill of Rights as a cornerstone of democracy. Unfortunately, in the eyes of a number of politicians, officials and lay-persons, the rights in the Bill of Rights accrue to South African citizens only. Xenophobia, which has been rampant since the end of apartheid, seems to support the idea that foreigners should not enjoy these rights. Foreign nationals have often been accused of posing a threat to South African citizens with regard to employment opportunities. In light of the South African legislation and jurisprudence, this article affirms the position of the South African labour law that foreign nationals are indeed protected by the Constitution and entitled to rights in the Bill of Rights, including the rights to work and fair labour practices.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-175
Author(s):  
Abiodun Jacob Osuntogun

This article examines the existing statutory and institutional framework for corporate human rights accountability in South Africa. It considers the questions whether corporations are duty bearers and whether they have responsibilities or obligations to respect human rights and the mode of corporate governance model adopted to regulate them. It argues that although the Bill of Rights adequately provides for the culture and entrenchment of corporate accountability for human rights, the possibility of achieving its objective is not certain because there is a wide gap between the fulfilment of the vision of the Constitution and the mechanism adopted for its realisation.


Author(s):  
N Gabru

Human life, as with all animal and plant life on the planet, is dependant upon fresh water. Water is not only needed to grow food, generate power and run industries, but it is also needed as a basic part of human life. Human dependency upon water is evident through history, which illustrates that human settlements have been closely linked to the availability and supply of fresh water. Access to the limited water resources in South Africa has been historically dominated by those with access to land and economic power, as a result of which the majority of South Africans have struggled to secure the right to water. Apartheid era legislation governing water did not discriminate directly on the grounds of race, but the racial imbalance in ownership of land resulted in the disproportionate denial to black people of the right to water. Beyond racial categorisations, the rural and poor urban populations were traditionally especially vulnerable in terms of the access to the right.  The enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, brought the South African legal system into a new era, by including a bill of fundamental human rights (Bill of Rights). The Bill of Rights makes provision for limited socio-economic rights. Besides making provision for these human rights, the Constitution also makes provision for the establishment of state institutions supporting constitutional democracy.  The Constitution has been in operation since May 1996. At this stage, it is important to take stock and measure the success of the implementation of these socio-economic rights. This assessment is important in more ways than one, especially in the light of the fact that many lawyers argued strongly against 1/2the inclusion of the second and third generation of human rights in a Bill of Rights. The argument was that these rights are not enforceable in a court of law and that they would create unnecessary expectations of food, shelter, health, water and the like; and that a clear distinction should be made between first generation and other rights, as well as the relationship of these rights to one another. It should be noted that there are many lawyers and non-lawyers who maintained that in order to confront poverty, brought about by the legacy of apartheid, the socio-economic rights should be included in a Bill of Rights. The inclusion of section 27 of the 1996 Constitution has granted each South African the right to have access to sufficient food and water and has resulted in the rare opportunity for South Africa to reform its water laws completely. It has resulted in the enactment of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997 and the National Water Act 36 of 1998.In this paper the difference between first and second generation rights will be discussed. The justiciability of socio-economic rights also warrants an explanation before the constitutional implications related to water are briefly examined. Then the right to water in international and comparative law will be discussed, followed by a consideration of the South African approach to water and finally, a few concluding remarks will be made.


Author(s):  
M K Ingle

The Bill of Rights contained within South Africa’s Constitution features a number of ‘socio- economic rights’. Although these rights are justiciable they are subject to various limitations. They generally entail a positive onus on the part of the state to provide some good – not immediately, but ‘progressively’. Women have a direct interest in the realization of these rights and, where given effect to, they should exert a positive developmental impact. Some authorities are, however, of the opinion that socio-economic rights are not really enforceable. This article contends that the provision of social goods, by the state, should be the concomitant of the disciplined implementation of policy. Delivery should not therefore be contingent upon the legalistic vagaries of the human rights environment.Keywords: Socio-economic rights; justiciability; Bill of Rights; development; South African Constitution; womenDisciplines: Development Studies;Human Rights; Gender Studies; Political Science


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nomthandazo Ntlama

ABSTRACT The article examines the implications of the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Helen Suzman Foundation v Judicial Service Commission 2018 (7) BCLR 763 (CC) 8 on the functioning of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The judgment has brought to the fore a new lease of life relating to the JSC's post-interview deliberations as a disclosable record in terms of Rule 53(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The disclosure seeks to provide an insight into the decision-making process of the JSC in the appointment of judicial officers in South Africa. It is argued that the judgment is two-pronged: first, the disclosure of the post-interview record enhances the culture of justification for decisions taken, which advances the foundational values of the new democratic dispensation; secondly, it creates uncertainty about the future management and protection of the JSC processes in the undertaking of robust debates on the post-interview deliberations. It then questions whether the JSC members will be privileged in their engagement with the suitability of the candidates to be recommended for appointment by the President. The question is raised against the uncertainty about which decision of the JSC will be challenged that will need the disclosure of the record because the judgment does not entail the national disclosure of the record in respect of each candidate but applies only when there is an application for review of the JSC decision. Key words: Judicial Service Commission, appointments, discretion, judiciary, independence, rule of law, discretion, accountability, transparency, human rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document