1. The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) is dedicated to upholding the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution). To this end, the CFCR seeks to promote the values, rights and principles provided for in the Constitution; to monitor developments including conduct, policy and draft legislation that might affect the Constitution and the values, rights or principles provided therein; to inform people and organisations of their constitutional rights; and to assist them in claiming their rights. We do so in the interest of every person in South Africa.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) welcomes today’s ruling by the North Gauteng High Court that the government’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) was unconstitutional and invalid in the absence of such approval by Parliament.

The ruling is an important affirmation of key principles which underpin South Africa’s constitutional democracy. Previously, the Constitutional Court has held that every exercise of public power – including Executive conduct – must abide by principles of legality, and further that the exercise of all public power is always subject to constitutional control. This is also true for the exercise of public power in respect of foreign affairs.

The President will tomorrow, in an address to South Africans at large, speak on the nation’s current affairs. As the head of the Executive, he is expected to speak frankly on the nation’s political, as well socio-economic status quo, while giving the nation hope that despite sluggish economic growth and other ills, there are still many things for which South Africans may be glad. As has come to be custom, the opposition benches will heckle the President while he speaks. The courts have ruled decisively that Members of Parliament may not be removed from the room for expressing themselves, however displeasing such expression may be to the presiding officer – so one does not expect a repeat of last year’s violent scenes. But this year, in the run-up to the Address, there are some unexpected developments, such as the deployment of members of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) to “maintain law and order”. Unexpected too, is the news that journalists will allegedly be placed in two “media squares”, with movement only permitted when accompanied by two police escorts.

The Western Cape High Court has dismissed the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s (SABC) leave to appeal last year’s ruling against Hlaudi Motsoeneng in Democratic Alliance v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others SOC Ltd; Democratic Alliance v Motsoeneng and Others. In the aforementioned case, the same Court found Motsoeneng’s appointment to Group Executive of Corporate Affairs (GECA) to be unconstitutional and thus, unlawful and invalid. The Court also held that Motsoeneng should not occupy any position at the SABC. The Board was found guilty of ignoring the findings and remedial action prescribed by the erstwhile Public Protector, in the report “When Governance and Ethics Fail”.

This is another nail in the beleaguered Broadcaster’s management coffin, following legal action being taken against the SABC by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) concerning the former’s failure to comply with the latter’s order to withdraw the ban on airing visuals of violent protests, which was implemented in May of 2016. The SABC stated that the ban had been a mere suggestion and had never actually been implemented, without giving a formal response ICASA. ICASA averred that despite numerous written demands to comply, the SABC failed to do so. The charge has since been escalated to the Police, to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI). 

On 31 January 2017, the Centre for Constitutional Rights (the CFCR) under the umbrella of the FW de Klerk Foundation (the Foundation), also added its voice to the introduction of the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill (the Bill).

There has already been much written on the Bill and many civil society organisations are deeply concerned with the inclusion of the offence of hate speech in this Bill. In brief, the Bill provides for criminal measures to combat hate crimes and hate speech and it is possible that a person could be held liable to imprisonment of three years on the first conviction on the wide-ranging offence of hate speech, and ten years on a subsequent offence. The CFCR drew a distinct line between the two offences in the Bill, while acknowledging the need to recognise hate crime as an offence. Nonetheless, the main concern was the constitutionality of the offence of hate speech. 

The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) initially developed a breakfast discussion series in partnership with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), who funded the series, and the Stellenbosch University’s School for Public Leadership (SPL).

On 27 January 2017, the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) and the School of Public Leadership (SPL) at Stellenbosch University (SU), supported by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), hosted the first dialogue in a series of breakfast discussions for 2017.  The discussions aim to create a platform for debate and dialogue about the Constitution and good public leadership.

This discussion focused on the connection between good governance and corruption within South Africa. The breakfast was attended by guests from across the spectrum including government, academia, civil society and the media. Both panel and audience members engaged in a dialogue that explored the multi-level implications of nepotism at the government level.

On 24 January 2017, the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) will address the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs (the Committee) on its main concerns regarding the Refugees Amendment Bill. The CFCR submitted written submissions on the Bill in October 2016, which can be accessed via the CFCR’s website: www.cfcr.org.za.

The Centre welcomes the opportunity to address the Committee on the CFCR’s concerns in relation to the impact of the proposed measures on the status of refugees. The proposed measures should not only adhere to international standards but also give effect to the constitutional right to human dignity, as well as fair administrative action – which is not only limited to citizens but also extends to non-citizens. The main contention that will be argued by the CFCR is that the anti-corruption objectives of the Bill might be completely defeated if grounds for exclusion of refugee status are not narrowly limited to internationally-recognised grounds. Furthermore, additional grounds for exclusion of refugee status – determined by one individual – raise questions about the subjectivity of decisions, as little guidance is provided on how to apply these additional grounds. It also creates an opportunity for abuse, as the Bill provides little independent procedural oversight.