From prisoners being able to use laptops in their cells to independent candidates getting easier entry to contest the national elections, 2023 was a tumultuous year for SA’s courts.
Here is an overview of some of biggest cases this year:
Imprisonment of foreigners without judicial oversight, minister to personally pay legal costs
In October, the Constitutional Court ordered the state to ensure suspected illegal immigrants appear before court within 48 hours. The court had heard that suspected illegal foreigners arrested by officials were effectively imprisoned without trial for days or weeks at a time. The October judgment tore into the conduct of home affairs’ top brass. The government had failed to implement a 2017 ruling that protected immigrants from such harsh treatment. The court called the government’s conduct an “egregious instance of neglect”, exhibiting “deplorable lethargy”.
Home affairs minister Aaron Motsoaledi and his director-general, Tommy Makhode, were ordered to personally pay some of the legal costs, which might run into millions of rand. In another dramatic move, the court denied all home affairs’ lawyers the right to claim any legal fees.
Zuma’s various private prosecution losses
Former president Jacob Zuma has sought to privately prosecute journalist Karyn Maughan and prosecutor Billy Downer in one case, and President Cyril Ramaphosa in another. Zuma claimed all three were involved in a so-called disclosure incident of his medical information, which was a doctor’s letter attached to public court papers.
Zuma has thus far lost at every turn, after all three over the year successfully argued before different courts that Zuma’s private prosecution was brought for an “ulterior purpose”. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), in October, ruled that “the central purpose of the private prosecution is to enable Mr Zuma to have Mr Downer removed as the prosecutor [in Zuma’s arms deal trial]”. With Maughan, judge Nathan Ponnan noted Zuma’s “animosity” towards her reporting. Meanwhile, in Ramaphosa’s case, a full bench dismissed Zuma’s case as unlawful and refused to grant him leave to appeal to the SCA.
It is expected he will approach the Constitutional Court on both matters next year.
Prisoners’ major win to use laptops in own cells
After a prisoner, Mbalenhle Ntuli, was refused the right by prison authorities to use his laptop in his cell after hours to continue his online education, he successfully challenged this national policy for all SA prisoners.
In November, the SCA ruled the policy was restrictive and infringed the right to education. The court said: “Encouraging prisoners to follow a course of formal education is not only a good in itself, but enhances the capabilities of prisoners, and their life chances upon release.” If he was not studying in his cell, he would be doing nothing. Using his laptop to finish classes was a better use of prison time and “may serve the broader aim of rehabilitation”.
The government has been given until November 2024 to change the policy. Meanwhile, prisoners enrolled in online courses can use their personal laptops in their cells.
Independent candidates contesting 2024 elections handed a minor victory
As a result of a new law, independent candidates can stand for election to parliament. Next year will be the first election in SA’s democratic history that this will happen. However, independent candidates urgently challenged aspects of election laws they said were restrictive.
They said the requirement that they needed 15% of their constituency region’s signatures was unfair: some provinces had larger populations than others and the bar was set too high just to enter the election.
In December, the Constitutional Court agreed and said the threshold should be 1,000 signatures for any new candidate.
However, the court was unconvinced by the independent candidates’ argument regarding parliament’s 400 seats. Currently, the law splits the 400 seats down the middle: 200 that are voted for on the regional ballot and 200 on the compensatory ballot. Independent candidates cannot be on the compensatory ballot, but political parties can be on both.
The court said no evidence had been shown that candidates’ rights were infringed by being kept off one of the ballots.
The apex court had been cautious in its two rulings, since there was a small chance of rulings affecting how the entire 2024 election process is run.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.