scholarly journals Raamwerkwetgewing ter Verwesenliking van die Reg op Toegang tot Voldoende Voedsel

Author(s):  
Anél Terblanche ◽  
Gerrit Pienaar

Various South African government reports list food security as a development priority. Despite this prioritisation and despite the fact that South Africa is currently food self-sufficient, ongoing food shortages remain a daily reality for approximately 35 percent of the South African population. The government's commitment to food security to date of writing this contribution manifests in related policies, strategies, programmes and sectoral legislation with the focus on food production, distribution, safety and assistance. A paradigm shift in the international food security debate was encouraged during 2009, namely to base food security initiatives on the right to sufficient food. During a 2011 visit to South Africa, the Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food of the United Nations, accordingly confirmed that a human rights-based approach to food security is necessary in the South African legal and policy framework in order to address the huge disparities in terms of food security (especially concerning geography, gender and race). A human rights-based approach to food security will add dimensions of dignity, transparency, accountability, participation and empowerment to food security initiatives. The achievement of food security is further seen as the realisation of existing rights, notably the right of access to sufficient food. The right of access to sufficient food, as entrenched in section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 will accordingly play a central role within a human rights-based approach to food security. Section 27(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 qualifies section 27(1)(b) by requiring the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of the section 27(1) rights. The South African government's commitment to food security, as already mentioned, currently manifests in related policies, strategies and programmes, which initiatives will qualify as other measures as referred to in section 27(2) mentioned above. This contribution, however, aims to elucidate the constitutional duty to take reasonable legislative measures as required by section 27(2) within the wider context of food security. This contribution is more specifically confined to the ways in which a human rights-based approach to food security can be accommodated in a proposed framework law as a national legislative measures. Several underlying and foundational themes are addressed in this contribution, amongst others: (a) the relationship between food security and the right of access to sufficient food; (b) food security as a developmental goal; and (c) the increasing trend to apply a human rights-based approach to development initiatives in general, but also to food security.


2006 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVADNÉ GRANT

In the joined cases of Bhe v. Magistrate Khayelitsha and Others; Shibi v. Sithole and Others; South African Human Rights Commission and Another v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (2005(1) B.C.L.R. 1 (CC)), the South African Constitutional Court held unanimously that the male primogeniture rule according men rights to inheritance not enjoyed by women enshrined in the South African Customary Law of Succession violated the right to equality guaranteed under section 9 of the South African Constitution. On one level, the decision can be seen as a triumph for the universality of human rights norms. On another level, however, the case raises difficult questions about the relationship between human rights and culture. The aim of this paper is to assess the judgment critically in the context of the ongoing debate about the application of international human rights standards in different cultural settings.



Author(s):  
N Gabru

Human life, as with all animal and plant life on the planet, is dependant upon fresh water. Water is not only needed to grow food, generate power and run industries, but it is also needed as a basic part of human life. Human dependency upon water is evident through history, which illustrates that human settlements have been closely linked to the availability and supply of fresh water. Access to the limited water resources in South Africa has been historically dominated by those with access to land and economic power, as a result of which the majority of South Africans have struggled to secure the right to water. Apartheid era legislation governing water did not discriminate directly on the grounds of race, but the racial imbalance in ownership of land resulted in the disproportionate denial to black people of the right to water. Beyond racial categorisations, the rural and poor urban populations were traditionally especially vulnerable in terms of the access to the right.  The enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, brought the South African legal system into a new era, by including a bill of fundamental human rights (Bill of Rights). The Bill of Rights makes provision for limited socio-economic rights. Besides making provision for these human rights, the Constitution also makes provision for the establishment of state institutions supporting constitutional democracy.  The Constitution has been in operation since May 1996. At this stage, it is important to take stock and measure the success of the implementation of these socio-economic rights. This assessment is important in more ways than one, especially in the light of the fact that many lawyers argued strongly against 1/2the inclusion of the second and third generation of human rights in a Bill of Rights. The argument was that these rights are not enforceable in a court of law and that they would create unnecessary expectations of food, shelter, health, water and the like; and that a clear distinction should be made between first generation and other rights, as well as the relationship of these rights to one another. It should be noted that there are many lawyers and non-lawyers who maintained that in order to confront poverty, brought about by the legacy of apartheid, the socio-economic rights should be included in a Bill of Rights. The inclusion of section 27 of the 1996 Constitution has granted each South African the right to have access to sufficient food and water and has resulted in the rare opportunity for South Africa to reform its water laws completely. It has resulted in the enactment of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997 and the National Water Act 36 of 1998.In this paper the difference between first and second generation rights will be discussed. The justiciability of socio-economic rights also warrants an explanation before the constitutional implications related to water are briefly examined. Then the right to water in international and comparative law will be discussed, followed by a consideration of the South African approach to water and finally, a few concluding remarks will be made.



2011 ◽  
Vol 51 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 521-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Humby ◽  
Maryse Grandbois

The right of access to sufficient water in the South African Constitution has for long been regarded as progressive in a global context where the human right to water is still a subject of contention. In its recent decision handed down in the Mazibuko matter, the South African Constitutional Court interpreted the right of access to sufficient water for the first time and clarified the nature of the State’s obligations which flow from this right. It also commented upon the role of the courts in adjudicating the human right to water. This article describes the passage of the Mazibuko matter and the manner in which the lower courts interpreted the right of access to “sufficient water” as well as outlining the Constitutional Court’s decision in the context of access to water services provision in South Africa.



Politeia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Qasaymeh ◽  
Jo-Ansie Karina Van Wyk

The provision and distribution of and access to electricity are not only technical and economic matters. Access to electricity is a highly political and ideological issue and has consequences for public policy and human development. Since 2000, South Africa has experienced power outages (euphemistically called load-shedding) and the country has not kept up with increased electricity and socio-economic demands. Globally, access to electricity is increasingly regarded as a basic human right and an important contributor to socio-economic development. However, the position towards and the practice regarding access to electricity by the post-apartheid South African government are contradictory. Although both the South African Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 refer to fundamental human rights, the matter of access to electricity as a human right is not clearly spelled out in these documents. This article outlines international and African norms in respect of the right of access to electricity in the context of the international socio-economic development debate. It proceeds to examine the South African context, policies, legislation and constitutional court judgments in respect of socio-economic development with a special focus on access to electricity—a matter which is closely linked to political, public policy and development issues such as housing and the environment in South Africa. The article calls for the right of access to electricity to be declared a basic human right and to be legislated as such in the South African legal regime.



Author(s):  
Haneen McCreath ◽  
Raymond Koen

This contribution was intended as a defence of section 25(1) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959. However, the Supreme Court Act was repealed in August 2013 and replaced by the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, and in the process section 25(1) of the former gave way to section 47(1) of the latter. Both sections concern the doctrine of leave to sue judges in South Africa. Both prescribe that any civil litigation against a judge requires the consent of the court out of which such litigation is to be launched. Both apply to civil suits against judges for damage caused by either their judicial or their non-judicial conduct.Although section 25(1) had been one of the more inconspicuous sections of the Supreme Court Act, it was contested on occasion. Both curial and extra-curial challenges to section 25(1) assailed its constitutionality, alleging essentially that its provisions violated the right of access to courts enshrined in section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and that such violation did not meet the limitation criteria contained in section 36. It may be anticipated with considerable confidence, given its legal continuity with section 25(1), that any serious assault upon section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act also will focus upon its relationship to section 34 of the Constitution.This contribution is a pre-emptive defence of section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act and, by extrapolation, a belated justification of section 25(1) of the Supreme Court Act. An attempt will be made to demonstrate, contrary to conventional wisdom, that section 47(1) does not limit section 34 and passes constitutionalmuster at the first level of enquiry, thereby obviating the need for advancing to the second level of enquiry contained in section 36 of the Constitution.The jurisprudential crux of section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act is embedded in the nature of the judicial office and its core value of judicial impartiality. The procedural immunity which the section affords South African judges is a mechanism for sparing them the nuisance of having to deal with frivolous litigation, either as defendant or as adjudicator. Every specious suit against a judge, per definitionem, represents an incursion into judicial impartiality by urging that the court give credence to a claim which does not qualify for curial adjudication. In this regard, the doctrine of leave to sue seeks to ensure that judges do not have to adjudicate claims which resort beyond the compass of their judicial capacity. It is a doctrine which operates to protect and advance the unimpeachable principle of judicial impartiality.



2021 ◽  
pp. 72-84
Author(s):  
Shaka Yesufu

Unarguably, the South African Police during the apartheid era was characterised by brutality and state repression, including the political executions of several South African citizens who dared oppose the apartheid regime. The post-apartheid era has also witnessed deaths of citizens at the hands of the police during demonstrations, demanding better service delivery, higher wages, improved working conditions, and an end to marginalisation and poverty. The author presents some cases of police human rights violations concerning policing citizen’s protests. This is a qualitative study, relying on extensive literature review by previous researchers. The findings of this study are: The South Africa Police Service continues to violate citizen's right to protest, which is enshrined in the Republic of South Africa’s constitution under chapter 2 “Bill of Rights” and other international legal jurisprudence. The South African police have failed to perform their duties professionally and effectively when it comes to policing protests. Crown management remains an elusive issue both during the apartheid and post-apartheid eras. The author recommends a demilitarization of the police consistent with the South African government policy recommendation, found in the National Development Plan 2030.



2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Mubangizi

AbstractA significant gain of the new political and constitutional dispensation ushered in South Africa in 1994 was a commitment to the protection of human rights. However, protecting human rights in a country where the gap between the rich and the poor is among the largest in the world was always going to be a daunting challenge. The challenge is even more daunting with the protection of socio-economic rights such as the right of access to adequate housing. This article explores the challenges that South Africa faces in protecting human rights in the face of persistent poverty of over half of the country's population, vast economic disparities and gross inequality. Focusing on the right of access to adequate housing, the author explores some prospects arising from the roles played by the constitution; domestic courts; other state institutions as well as non-state actors. The article concludes that although the challenges are real, the prospects are promising. However, a lot must be done if the democratic miracle that has characterized South African society over the last fifteen years is to be maintained.



Author(s):  
Ropafadzo Maphosa ◽  
Nomathole Nhlapo

The late former Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa, Pius Langa, opined that a truly transformative South Africa requires a new approach that places the Constitutional dream at the very heart of legal education. This view is consistent with section 29 of the Constitution which guarantees everyone the right to further education. However, the state has failed to make further (or tertiary) education progressively available and accessible. We believe this can be attributed to the fact that the South African legal education is still riddled with inequalities from the apartheid/colonial era. This article argues that decolonisation of legal education will begin when teachers of the law become cognizant of the reality that their teaching models will shape the future legal landscape, thus it is imperative for law schools to birth law graduates with an unwavering appreciation and willingness to implement constitutional values, such as human dignity and equality in practice. The advancement of these values is enhanced by the Africanisation of legal education which will ultimately legitimize the legal order so that it mirrors the society in which it exists.



Author(s):  
Taryn Lee Vos

South Africa has become a magnet to a larger group of foreign migrants than the global average. This is due to the fact that it is a front-runner, economically speaking, in Sub-Sahara Africa with a reputation of political stability. The South African Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic, to which all other law is subject. South Africa’s constitutional framework, coupled with immigration legislation and policies, aim to promote the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights for all individuals living within the borders of the Republic. While certain rights are expressly reserved for citizens only and are largely of a civil or political nature, the remaining rights are those that ‘everyone’, including foreign nationals, may enjoy. Non-citizens within the borders of the Republic receive, inter alia, the protection of South Africa’s basic constitutional values; in particular the right to equality, human dignity and freedom. Socio-economic rights, subject to the limitations clause in section 36 of the Constitution, are also made available to everyone. This includes both citizens and foreign nationals. These rights can be found in section 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Constitution and relate to issues of access to land, housing, health care, food, social security and education. The focus of this paper will be the right of access to social security for non-citizens, particularly migrants, in South Africa. Who falls within the scope of the term ‘everyone’ as found in section 27 of the Constitution? The international perspective on the issue of social exclusion of non-citizens from accessing social security benefits is briefly dealt with, followed by a discussion of the South African perspective on the matter. The approach of the South African Constitutional Court in respect of the protection of the rights of noncitizens will then be discussed. The European approach to the matter, including the approach of European courts, will then be examined. The concluding paragraphs entail an evaluation of the improvements that can be made to the South African social security system as inspired by the European approach.



Author(s):  
ES Nwauche

The impartiality of judges often expressed in the Latin maxim nemo iudex in propria causa interpreted to mean that no man should be a judge in his own cause together with the right of fair hearing make up the right to natural justice. This principle is recognized by a number of provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 165 (4) provides that the organs of state shall through legislative and other measures assist and protect the courts to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. Furthermore, section 34 of the same Constitution provides that everyone has the right to have any dispute resolved by the application of law by a court or, where appropriate another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1988, applicable in England since 2000 provides that: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." The independence of courts and impartiality of judges are closely related in that they operate to sustain public confidence in the administration of justice.This article advocates a return to the use of the manifest justice principle enshrined as the proper contextfor the application of the tests of "reasonable apprehension of bias" adopted by South African courtsand "real possibility of bias" adopted by English courtsin the consideration of allegation of apparent bias. This paper argues that the tests are differentand that while the English test is a move of English courts from the real danger/likelihoodtest in consonance with an overwhelming global jurisprudence the South African test is a move away from this global jurisprudence and arguably back to the real danger/likelihood test. This paper also argues that the reasonable apprehension test as applied by the minority in SACCAWU v Irvin & Johnson Ltd (Seafoods Division Fish Processing)is a more acceptable interpretation of the reasonable apprehension test than the test laid down in President of the Republic of South Africa v South Africa Rugby Football Union (2) and its interpretation by the majority in SACCAWU v Irvin & Johnson Ltd (Seafoods Division Fish Processing). More importantly there is an examination of cases where the tests have been applied which hopefully shows that there are considerable problems and inconsistency in their application and argue that the manifest justice principle provides the proper context for the tests to be properly applied.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document