Masters Degrees (Public Law)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/3636

Browse

Browsing Masters Degrees (Public Law) by browse.metadata.advisor "Kok, Anton"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An analysis of the Separation of Powers Doctrine in Housing Rights Remedies Jurisprudence
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2022-03) Weideman, Andrea Joy; Slade, Bradley V.; Kok, Anton; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The remedy issued by the Constitutional Court in Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others 2000 11 BCLR 1169 (CC), has been criticized for being overly deferential. In spite of the courts’ wide remedial powers, it made an order lacking specificity about the measures required to remedy the housing rights infringement in that case, overly deferring its remedial role to the executive and legislative branches of government. The basis of the court’s overly deferential approach was the separation of powers doctrine. Therefore, the question that this study aims to address is how the separation of powers doctrine impacts on the courts’ provision of remedies in South African housing rights remedies jurisprudence. To answer this question, this study contains an analysis of the separation of powers doctrine in the abstract and as understood in the South African context, as well as an analysis of the remedies issued by the courts in housing rights cases, with a specific focus on the remedies issued by the Constitutional Court (hereafter “the Court”). This study attempts to illustrate that the foundation for the Court’s strict understanding of the separation of powers doctrine was laid during the debate about the inclusion of socio-economic rights in the 1996 Constitution. During this debate, separation of powers concerns, judicial capacity, and judicial legitimacy, were raised by those against the inclusion of socio-economic rights in the 1996 Constitution. In this study it was found that the same separation of powers concerns raised during this debate are ritually invoked by the Court in housing rights cases during the remedy stage of adjudication. It is against this backdrop that the Court has traditionally adopted a deferential approach in relation to the provision of remedies in housing rights cases. However, despite the implications of the Court’s traditionally deferential approach, the Court post-Grootboom has shifted away from this approach. While the Court’s postGrootboom approach was necessary considering the failed interaction between a deferential Court and an incompetent government, and its implication for the victims of housing rights violations, it potentially raises separation of powers concerns. Despite these separation of powers concerns, it is argued in this thesis that the Court’s post-Grootboom approach is justified on the basis of a more contemporary understanding of the separation of powers doctrine. While the Court’s post-Grootboom approach was a step in the right direction, the transformative — coupled with the supreme — nature of the 1996 Constitution requires something more, a reconceptualization of the separation of powers doctrine. The reconceptualised doctrine that I have in mind encapsulates a separation of powers that is understood and applied by the Court with the achievement of the transformative aims of the 1996 Constitution in mind.