Podcast Beta
Questions and Answers
What was the main issue that the court had to address in S v Makwanyane?
What reason did the court give for finding the death penalty unconstitutional?
What was the significance of the S v Makwanyane judgment for South African constitutional law?
What was the significance of the S v Makwanyane judgment for global constitutional law scholars?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the main purpose of the Interim Constitution?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the key factor that the court considered in its decision to invalidate the death penalty?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the central issue addressed in the S v Makwanyane case?
Signup and view all the answers
Which legal document served as the basis for the legal challenge in the S v Makwanyane case?
Signup and view all the answers
Which section of the Interim Constitution recognized the right to life?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the role of Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson in the S v Makwanyane case?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the significance of the S v Makwanyane case in South African constitutional law?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the legal status of the two individuals who brought the case?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
S v Makwanyane: A Landmark Judgment in South African Constitutional Law
Introduction
S v Makwanyane and Another (Makwanyane), decided on 6 June 1995, marked the beginning of a new era in South African constitutional law. The case dealt with the constitutionality of South Africa's law allowing the death penalty, section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 51 of 1977. This landmark judgment, rendered by Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson and delivered by him personally, cast aside the old regime's approach to criminal justice and laid the foundation for a more human rights-oriented system.
The case was brought by two individuals who were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Their lawyers argued that the death penalty violated the newly adopted Interim Constitution's core values. The case ultimately set a major precedent, contributing significantly to the transformation of the country's criminal justice system.
Legal Framework and Context
The Interim Constitution served as the basis for the legal challenge in the case. Adopted in 1994, the Interim Constitution had already incorporated elements of a Bill of Rights, which protected certain basic human rights. Section 11 of the Interim Constitution, for instance, recognized that "everyone has the right to life". However, while the constitutional protection of life was evident in the text of the Interim Constitution, the definition of what constituted "degrading treatment or punishment" was less straightforward.
Moreover, the Interim Constitution lacked established jurisprudence to guide its application, particularly concerning issues like the death penalty.
The Decision
Chief Justice Chaskalson found that section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act was inconsistent with the anti-retentionist position embraced by the new regime, which prioritized preventing cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment over retributive justice. Specifically, the Court determined that capital punishment infringed upon two fundamental rights - the right to life and dignity.
The Court reasoned that capital punishment did not simply affect these rights but extinguished them entirely. Given that these rights were central to the dignitarian ethos of the Interim Constitution, their infringement through the implementation of the death penalty was highly problematic. Consequently, the Court held that this infringement was not justified under the limitations clause of section 36 of the Interim Constitution.
The judgment highlighted the importance of the Bill of Rights, which symbolizes the transformative aspirations of the new democratic dispensation. By invalidating the death penalty, the Court signaled its commitment to the principles of human dignity and non-discrimination outlined in the Interim Constitution.
Implications and Analysis
S v Makwanyane had far-reaching implications for South African constitutional law. Justice Chaskalson's decision underscored the primacy of the right to life in the Interim Constitution and advanced a progressive reading of the concept of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment". The ruling also confirmed the Court's intent to embrace a form of constitutional interpretation that emphasized the overarching objectives of the Interim Constitution, as opposed to relying solely on literalism or intentionalism.
Additionally, the judgment was important for global constitutional law scholars since it showed how courts might employ a range of methods to strike a balance between different interests and values under a constitution, especially when faced with "hard cases," i.e., situations involving ambiguous or undeveloped constitutional provisions.
Overall, S v Makwanyane stands as a testament to the power of the judiciary in preserving human rights and shaping the trajectory of constitutional systems.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
Explore the significance of the S v Makwanyane case in South African constitutional law, focusing on the abolition of the death penalty and its impact on human rights and legal interpretation. Learn about Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson's pivotal decision and its implications for constitutional systems.
