CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY AND EVENTS

The FW de Klerk Foundation noted with grave concern the statement on expropriation without compensation (EWC), by ANC president Ramaphosa after the NEC Lekgotla last night. There are two main problems with the statement, procedurally and substantively.

Speaking as leader of a political party, he abused the platform of the national broadcaster to make a party-political announcement, as if it were an announcement as President of the country. This shows the same dangerous conflation of party and State as we have seen during the Zuma years. The statement also pre-empts the outcome and makes a mockery of the parliamentary process that is underway, as if the ANC is the only party in Parliament. The incidental reference to the “parliamentary process” does not hide the apparent disdain the majority party has for the Legislature and its processes. In addition, the announcement short-circuited the public hearings, thus rendering public participation in the legislative process obsolete. This means that any future amendments are open to a legal challenge on grounds of lack of procedural fairness.

The FW de Klerk Foundation welcomes yesterday’s decision involving former Zimbabwean first lady, Dr Grace Mugabe, which was handed down by the Gauteng High Court. It is of concern that the decision makes apparent that the government of South Africa lacked the authority to either confer or grant immunity to Mugabe, in a bid to protect her against the allegations of wrongdoing. In doing so, the South African Government failed to protect its own citizen and further undermined the Constitution in unlawfully granting immunity to Mugabe.

As was the case in the Al Bashir matter, the South African government has shown that it lacks the political will and inclination to abide by the Rule of Law when faced with thorny political questions. This failure by the government to abide by the spirit and letter of its own laws, while cynically circumventing due process, chips away at South Africa’s foundational values. Yet again, the Judiciary finds itself having to adjudicate a matter in which the Executive has failed in its constitutional obligations.