Home

South Africa commemorates 25 years of the Constitution

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Lauded as one of the most progressive in the world, the adoption of South Africa’s Constitution, 25 years ago, heralded the intention to make a clear break from the country’s apartheid past towards a future that promised human rights and dignity for all.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa was approved by the Constitutional Court on the 4th of December 1996. It would take effect the following year, on the 4th of February 1997. This court serves as the ultimate guardian and the protector of the Constitution.

Before it took effect, the late former President Nelson Mandela signed the Constitution into law in Sharpeville in the Vaal Triangle on the 10th December 1996.

South Africa’s Constitution was signed into law 25 years ago:

Sharpeville, one of the oldest townships was chosen as a commemorative gesture in remembrance of the 69 people who had died during a peaceful demonstration. They were demonstrating against the vicious pass laws on the 21st of March 1960.

The Constitution drastically transformed the legal, political, social and economic landscape of the country.
At the time, the government asserted that the crafting of a vision for a new democratic South Africa, reflected in the Constitution, was a deliberate choice.

“That was a choice the ANC made to go for constitutional democracy; because parliamentary democracy proved to be a dictatorship that was used by the apartheid government for various and nefarious activities that lead to the perpetuation of prejudices against black people. There were no checks and balances. But in a constitutional democracy, there are checks and balances. The Executive: there is a separation of powers, there is parliament and there are courts which stand as a guard of the Constitution to make sure that everyone in society complies with the Constitution,” explains Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, Ronald Lamola.

The esteem the South African constitution enjoys is largely due to its attempt to give effect to citizens’ socio-economic rights. Besides human and political rights, Chapter 2 guarantees the right to housing, health care, food, water and education amongst others.

Lamola says inequality based on past racial discrimination necessitated the need to ensure redress. “The Constitution had to be transformative. It then gave a directive to the government of the day to put in place legislation to achieve socio-economic rights. Hence, we have been able to move progressively towards issues of water access, human settlement, and as you are aware the land. We have been able to do some work in terms of the Restitution Act as well as redistribution where we have been able to redistribute about 11% of the land which was not enough, but at least something was done,” says Lamola.

The recent debates around Section 25 of the Constitution have, however, questioned the Constitution’s ability to resolve issues such as land inequality.

Discussion on the failed vote for the amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution: 

Section 25 of the Constitution

Political parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters have asserted that the clause stands in the way of proper land reform in its insistence that landowners be compensated for expropriated land.

The Constitutional Court, as the custodian of the Constitution, ensures that the values and principles contained in the country’s apex law are not contravened.

Some legal minds say there’s been decreasing focus over the years in advancing the material conditions of ordinary people.

“The Constitutional Court initially started with for instance TAC, the right to life through right the death penalty, antiretroviral medication, the right to housing. It started off very well from that perspective and that foreshadowed what we thought would be coming years to come. But what has happened with the constitutional court of the last decade, 15 years or so is that it has waded into government space. We’ve been dealing with the notion of no confidence for instance for the president. We’re dealing with Nkandla. We’re dealing with government failures and what we are seeing is the Constitutional Court is really what is clearly teetering on the edge of keeping the country alive from that perspective because parliament is not doing its job,” says Legal Analyst Reitumetse Phiri.

Despite its imperfections, for many South Africans, the Constitution remains a barricade against the excess of executive power.

A beacon of hope towards a better life and a promise of upholding dignity for all citizens.

Author

MOST READ