CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY AND EVENTS

If news reports are to be believed – then the newly-appointed Minister of Energy – fresh from a not-without-controversy stint as Intelligence Minister, is steaming ahead with nuclear plans. This, in spite of the Finance Minister having recently stated that nuclear energy was neither affordable nor immediately necessary. Reading from the same script as the Energy Minister, President Zuma, at the OR Tambo Memorial Lecture in Kagiso, yesterday stated that “attempts to scupper plans to pursue nuclear power are part of a Western plot to control South Africa”, as a seeming endorsement of the Energy Minister’s plans.

News reports further suggest that the Minister of Energy plans to finalise South Africa’s reviewed Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) as early as 14 November 2017. Should this be case, then the judgment handed down by the Western Cape High Court in April, (in which Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute successfully challenged the government’s decisions in respect of the procurement of nuclear new generation capacity) serves as the backdrop through which the nation’s nuclear procurement process should occur. Ultimately, the decisions pertaining to South Africa’s energy policies rest with the Executive, with the Court’s role limited to reviewing such decisions.

Recently, the South Gauteng High Court ruled in a landmark case concerning a contentious matter – that of children and corporal punishment. The judgment found its roots in the constitutionally-protected principle of the best interests of the child, as articulated in section 28(2). This section provides that “[a] child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child”. The Court effectively proscribed corporal punishment of children by parents, and removed “reasonable chastisement” as a valid defence.

The appellant in this matter (YG) is the father of a 13-year-old boy (M). YG was tried and found guilty in the Johannesburg Regional Court, on two charges of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The charges related to two separate assaults – the first against M and the second against his (YG) wife. M was examined by a medical doctor who testified regarding the gravity of the injuries sustained. The testimony disproved YG’s allegations that he used open palms to assault the child, versus fists that left the bruising in question. YG used “reasonable chastisement” as a defence and said that he was merely exercising his right as a parent to do so. Until this judgment, this was an accepted defence to the charge of common law assault.

1. 1. The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) is a unit of the FW de Klerk Foundation – a non-profit organisation dedicated to upholding the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution). To this end, the CFCR seeks to promote the Constitution and the values, rights and principles enshrined in the Constitution; to monitor developments including legislation and policy that may affect the Constitution or those values, rights and principles; to inform people and organisations of their constitutional rights and to assist them in claiming their rights. The CFCR does so in the interest of everyone in South Africa.
   2. Accordingly, the CFCR endeavours to contribute positively to the promotion and protection of our constitutional democracy. This includes the achievement of real and substantive equality and equitable access to land and other resources, but with due regard for those rights concerning property and administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, as provided for in the Constitution.