WikiMili
| S v Makwanyane | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
| Full case name | State v Makwanyane and Another |
| Decided | 6 June 1995 |
| Citations | [1995] ZACC 3, 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC), 1995 (6) BCLR 665 (CC), [1996] 2 CHRLD 164, 1995 (2) SACR 1 (CC) |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Referral from Appellate Division [1994] ZASCA 76 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Chaskalson P, Ackermann, Didcott, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mahomed, Mokgoro, O'Regan & Sachs JJ, Kentridge AJ |
| Case opinions | |
| The death penalty is inconsistent with the Interim Constitution; the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, or any other law, sanctioning capital punishment are invalid. | |
| Decision by | Chaskalson (all judges wrote concurring opinions) |
| Keywords | |
| capital punishment, human rights, constitutional law | |
S v Makwanyane and Another (CCT 3/94) was a landmark 1995 judgment of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. It established that capital punishment was inconsistent with the commitment to human rights expressed in the Interim Constitution. The court's ruling invalidated section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which had provided for use of the death penalty, along with any similar provisions in any other law in force in South Africa. The court also forbade the government from carrying out the death sentence on any prisoners awaiting execution, [1] ruling that they should remain in prison until new sentences were imposed. [2] Delivered on 6 June, this was the newly established court's "first politically important and publicly controversial holding." [3]
Contents
- Chance
- Human rights
- Public opinion
- See also
- References
- External links
Chance
The Court held that, in practice, there was an element of chance at every stage of the process of implementing the death penalty:
The outcome may be dependent upon factors such as the way the case is investigated by the police, the way the case is presented by the prosecutor, how effectively the accused is defended, the personality and particular attitude to capital punishment of the trial judge and, if the matter goes on appeal, the particular judges who are selected to hear the case. Race and poverty are also alleged to be factors. [4]
Human rights
The Court held further that the rights to life and dignity were the most important of all human rights and the source of all the other personal rights detailed in Chapter 3 of the Interim Constitution. Having committed to a society premised on the recognition and realisation of human rights, the State was required to value these two rights above all others, and to demonstrate that valuation in everything it did, including the punishment of criminals. This would not be achieved by depersonalising and executing murderers, even as a deterrent to others. [5] Quite apart from the fact that vengeance or payback had not the same constitutional heft as the right to life and the right to dignity, the court was not satisfied that it had been shown that capital punishment would be more effective as a deterrent than a life sentence. [6] Chaskalson P, writing for the majority, concluded that
the death sentence destroys life, which is protected without reservation under section 9 of our Constitution, it annihilates human dignity which is protected under section 10, elements of arbitrariness are present in its enforcement and it is irremediable [...]. I am satisfied that in the context of our Constitution the death penalty is indeed a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. " [7]
The court also affirmed its commitment to the principle of constitutionalism, and more specifically constitutional values such as freedom, dignity and equality, by rejecting the "arbitrary and capricious" nature of the death penalty. [7] Ackermann J made this much clear in his judgment:
We have moved from a past characterised by much which was arbitrary and unequal in the operation of the law to a present and a future in a constitutional state where state action must be such that it is capable of being analysed and justified rationally. The idea of the constitutional state presupposes a system whose operation can be rationally tested against or in terms of the law. Arbitrariness, by its very nature, is dissonant with these core concepts of our new constitutional order. Neither arbitrary action nor laws or rules which are inherently arbitrary or must lead to arbitrary application can, in any real sense, be tested against the precepts or principles of the Constitution. [8]
He went on to cite Prof. Etienne Mureinik in this regard: "If the new Constitution is a bridge away from a culture of authority, it is clear what it must be a bridge to. It must lead to a culture of justification—a culture in which every exercise of power is expected to be justified [....] If the Constitution is to be a bridge in this direction, it is plain that the Bill of Rights must be its chief strut." [9]
Public opinion
Although it was widely believed that a majority of the population favoured retention of the death penalty, the court affirmed its commitment to its duties as an independent arbiter of the Constitution. [10] It would not act merely as a vector for public opinion:
The question before us, however, is not what the majority of South Africans believe a proper sentence for murder should be. It is whether the Constitution allows the sentence. [11]
If public opinion were to be decisive, Chaskalson reasoned, there would be no need for constitutional assessment and adjudication. Although popular sentiment could have some bearing on the court's considerations, "in itself, it is no substitute for the duty vested in the Courts to interpret the Constitution and to uphold its provisions without fear or favour." [12] This was consistent with South Africa's recent passage from parliamentary sovereignty to supremacy of the constitution.
See also
- Capital punishment in South Africa
- Mohamed v President of the Republic of South Africa
Related Research Articles
Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase in common law describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to the sanction. The precise definition varies by jurisdiction, but typically includes punishments that are arbitrary, unnecessary, or overly severe compared to the crime.
Arthur Chaskalson SCOB, was President of the Constitutional Court of South Africa from 1994 to 2001 and Chief Justice of South Africa from 2001 to 2005. Chaskalson was a member of the defence team in the Rivonia Trial of 1963.
The Constitutional Court of South Africa is the supreme constitutional court established by the Constitution of South Africa, and is the apex court in the South African judicial system, with general jurisdiction.
Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.
The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628, was a landmark case in the state of California that outlawed capital punishment for nine months until the enactment of a constitutional amendment reinstating it, Proposition 17.
Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa contains the Bill of Rights, a human rights charter that protects the civil, political and socio-economic rights of all people in South Africa. The rights in the Bill apply to all law, including the common law, and bind all branches of the government, including the national executive, Parliament, the judiciary, provincial governments, and municipal councils. Some provisions, such as those prohibiting unfair discrimination, also apply to the actions of private persons.
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution– and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation– the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
Pius Nkonzo LangaSCOB was Chief Justice of South Africa from June 2005 to October 2009. Formerly a human rights lawyer, he was appointed as a puisne judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa upon its inception in 1995. He was the Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa from November 2001 until May 2005, when President Thabo Mbeki elevated him to the Chief Justiceship. He was South Africa's first black African Chief Justice.
The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) is a human rights organisation based in South Africa with offices in Johannesburg (including a Constitutional Litigation Unit), Cape Town, Durban and Grahamstown. It was founded in 1979 by a group of prominent South African lawyers, including Arthur Chaskalson, Felicia Kentridge, and Geoff Budlender, under the guidance of American civil rights lawyers Jack Greenberg and Michael Meltsner, then Director-Counsel and former First Assistant Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund respectively.
John Mowbray Didcott was a South African judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa from February 1995 until his death in October 1998. He joined the bench in 1975 as a judge of the Natal Provincial Division, where he was known for defending human rights during the apartheid era.
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which dealt with the consequences of the Constitutional Court's ruling in S v Makwanyane in which capital punishment was declared to be unconstitutional. The act repealed the laws allowing for the death penalty and amended various other laws referring to death sentences or capital offences. It also established a procedure by which existing death sentences could be converted to prison sentences, and fixed minimum sentences for certain serious crimes. The act came into force on 13 November 1998, except for the minimum sentencing provisions, which came into force on 1 May 1998.
South African constitutional law is the area of South African law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa by the country's courts. All laws of South Africa must conform with the Constitution; any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.
South African jurisprudence refers to the study and theory of South African law. Jurisprudence has been defined as "the study of general theoretical questions about the nature of laws and legal systems."
Mohamed v President of the Republic of South Africa, [2001] ZACC 18, is a 2001 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa dealing with the legality of the South African government's actions in handing over Khalfan Khamis Mohamed to United States authorities. The court ruled that the South African government may not extradite a suspect who may face the death penalty without seeking an assurance from the receiving country that the suspect will not be sentenced to death.
Section Eleven of the Constitution of South Africa, part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees the right to life. This section has been interpreted to prohibit the death penalty, but not to prohibit abortion. It also has important implications for euthanasia, self-defence, the use of force by law enforcement, and the provision of life-saving healthcare.
S v Williams and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in which the court ruled that judicial corporal punishment of juveniles is unconstitutional. The decision was taken with respect to five different cases in which six juveniles were convicted by different magistrates and sentenced to receive a "moderate correction" of a number of strokes with a light cane.
In S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso, the Constitutional Court of South Africa established the unconstitutionality of a reverse onus provision applying to the offence of drug dealing under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, 1992. Under section 21(1)(a)(i) of the Act, accused persons found in possession of over 150 grams of dagga were presumed guilty of dealing in dagga unless their innocence was proved in court. Handing down a unanimous judgment on 29 November 1995, Justice Kate O'Regan held that this provision violated the presumption of innocence and therefore the constitutional right to a fair trial.
Harksen v Lane NO and Others is an important decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, delivered on 7 October 1997. The court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Insolvency Act, 1936, finding that it was consistent with the right to property and right to equality for the property of a solvent spouse to be attached to the insolvent estate of his or her partner. Justice Richard Goldstone wrote for the majority.
President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Hugo is a 1997 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. The court affirmed that the exercise of presidential prerogative powers is subject to judicial review, but it nonetheless found that President Nelson Mandela had acted fairly and lawfully in pardoning imprisoned mothers, but not imprisoned fathers, in a June 1994 presidential decree. The decision was among the first in the Constitutional Court's emerging jurisprudence on unfair discrimination and the right to equality.
Etienne Mureinik was a South African lawyer and legal scholar. He was an expert on administrative law and constitutional law. A professor at the University of the Witwatersrand, he was formerly the dean of the university's law school from 1991 to 1992.
References
- ↑ There were about 400 of them, a moratorium having been placed on executions since 1989 as part of the country's negotiated transition to democracy (Juta's Statutes Editors. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. 9th Edition, 3rd Impression. Cape Town: Juta & Company, Ltd, 2010, p. xxxiii).
- ↑ S v Makwanyane and Another [1995] ZACC 3 at 151, 1995 (3) S.A. 391
- ↑ Juta's Statutes Editors, p. xxxiii.
- ↑ S v Makwanyane at 48.
- ↑ S v Makwanyane at 144.
- ↑ S v Makwanyane at 146.
- 1 2 S v Makwanyane at 95.
- ↑ S v Makwanyane at 156.
- ↑ Mureinik, Etienne. "A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights." South African Journal of Human Rights, 1994: 31–48 at 32.
- ↑ S v Makwanyane at 89.
- ↑ S v Makwanyane at 87.
- ↑ S v Makwanyane at 88.
External links
- Text of the judgment at SAFLII
-
Works related to S v Makwanyane and Another at Wikisource
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.
