Mr Sengezo
Doctors for Life v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others
Factual Background:
Applicants complained that during the legislative process leading to the enactment of four health statutes, the NCOP and provincial legislatures did not comply with their constitutional obligations to facilitate public involvement in their legislative processes as required by the provisions of s72(1)(a) and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution respectively. The respondents maintain that the NCOP and provincial legislatures complied with the duty to facilitate public involvement and also argue that the scope of involvement envisaged by the applicants was too wide.
Judgement of Ngcobo J
Issues Presented:
(a)Whether the CC had exclusive jurisdiction over the present dispute under section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution.
(b) Can a court grant relief in respect of the proceedings of parliament?
(c) The nature and scope of the duty to facilitate public involvement?
(d) Did NCOP and the provincial legislatures comply with their obligations to facilitate public involvement?
(e) What is the appropriate relief if the NCOP and Provincial legislatures failed to comply with this obligation?
(a) Did CC have exclusive jurisdiction over the present matter?
The question whether Parliament has fulfilled an obligation is pre-eminently a ‘political’ question and is reserved by 167(4)(e) solely for the CC to decide. This ensures that only the highest court in constitutional matters intrudes into the domain of the other branches of government. The closer the issues are to the area of separation of powers the more likely it is that the issues will fall within s 167(4)(e).
Thus, the CC had competence to decide the issue.
(b) What do the public involvement provisions require?
The question is what is the nature and scope of the duty comprehended by these provisions and to what extent is it justiciable. The duty to facilitate public involvement must be understood in light of (a) the
Factual Background:
Applicants complained that during the legislative process leading to the enactment of four health statutes, the NCOP and provincial legislatures did not comply with their constitutional obligations to facilitate public involvement in their legislative processes as required by the provisions of s72(1)(a) and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution respectively. The respondents maintain that the NCOP and provincial legislatures complied with the duty to facilitate public involvement and also argue that the scope of involvement envisaged by the applicants was too wide.
Judgement of Ngcobo J
Issues Presented:
(a)Whether the CC had exclusive jurisdiction over the present dispute under section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution.
(b) Can a court grant relief in respect of the proceedings of parliament?
(c) The nature and scope of the duty to facilitate public involvement?
(d) Did NCOP and the provincial legislatures comply with their obligations to facilitate public involvement?
(e) What is the appropriate relief if the NCOP and Provincial legislatures failed to comply with this obligation?
(a) Did CC have exclusive jurisdiction over the present matter?
The question whether Parliament has fulfilled an obligation is pre-eminently a ‘political’ question and is reserved by 167(4)(e) solely for the CC to decide. This ensures that only the highest court in constitutional matters intrudes into the domain of the other branches of government. The closer the issues are to the area of separation of powers the more likely it is that the issues will fall within s 167(4)(e).
Thus, the CC had competence to decide the issue.
(b) What do the public involvement provisions require?
The question is what is the nature and scope of the duty comprehended by these provisions and to what extent is it justiciable. The duty to facilitate public involvement must be understood in light of (a) the