The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Government has backed off the attempt to circumvent the supremacy of the Constitution and remove the review powers of the courts in the case of the Constitution 17th Amendment Bill. We warned (‘Tinker till the house comes down', Sunday Times 2nd August) that this attempt to allow parliament to legislate as if it were sovereign once more spelled the beginning of the end of constitutional democracy, and had to stopped, preferably before the Gazetted version was tabled in Parliament.

The Bill has now been tabled, and we welcome the fact that the offending provision has been changed. Whereas it used to read: "Notwithstanding any other provision of the constitution, national legislation may further regulate the executive authority of municipalities..." it now reads: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 151, 154, 155 and 156, national legislation may further regulate..."

The four sections deal with the rights of municipalities and the duties of the national and provincial spheres of government. The new Bill is bad enough, since it disturbs our carefully balanced quasi-federal system of government, and a legislative battle lies ahead. But the attack on the foundation of the constitutional democracy has been warded off in this Bill.

However the same assault on the supremacy of the Constitution and the jurisdiction of the courts, which must rule on the validity of laws and their compliance with the supreme law, has occurred in the Gazetted 18th amendment. The Constitutional Court ruled over a year ago in the Nyathi case that section 3 of the State Liability Act had to be changed to make state property subject to attachment just like that of a private person who fails to satisfy a judgement debt. Instead of giving effect to that ruling, government Gazetted a Constitutional amendment, the 18th, which would allow Parliament, "despite any other provision of the Constitution" to make a law containing measures for enforcing the execution of final court orders against the State. The amendment was accompanied by a draft liability law which reinstated the very provision the Court had struck down.

The Constitutional Court's judgment on this matter constitutes a real challenge because no-one wants to see state property necessary for the well-being of all citizens being attached - and a mechanism such as the certificates issued in some other jurisdictions to judgment creditors to enable them to claim their cash seems to offer a better way. But the Court's interpretation of the Constitution must be obeyed, and an elegant solution has been proposed by Adv Paul Hoffman SC (Business Day, 21 August). He suggest that section 3 should provide that before execution, attachment or like process may be issued...against any property of the state, the judgment creditor should hand-deliver a copy of the judgment obtained to the State attorney of the court together with a certificate issued by the registrar or clerk to confirm that the judgment is final; and that the creditor should then give the state attorney 14 days to arrange for the money owed to be paid from the relevant Revenue Fund, whether National or Provincial, or to initiate such appeal proceedings as may be indicated.

The 18th amendment must be abandoned altogether.