Judgment in the cross-boundary municipality case involving residents of Matatiele was reserved in the Constitutional Court on Tuesday.

This, after nearly four hours of arguments, with lawyers representing residents maintaining that the government acted irrationally in incorporating Matatiele into the Eastern Cape from KwaZulu-Natal.

Presenting his case before a full Bench, advocate Glen Goddard challenged the constitutionality of the Thirteenth Amendment Act 2007 and the Cross-Boundary Amendment Act.

The government's decision was based on these acts.

"Parliament was not rational in passing the Act. The court should find that the decision taken was not rational, because it was taken before the [public] hearings.

"Residents were not properly consulted, and by the time public participation processes took place a decision had already been taken," said Goddard.

He also contended that lawmakers failed to offer a legitimate reason justifying the relocation of residents.

However, government lawyers disputed this, arguing that the amendment acts were passed in accordance with the constitution and that residents were consulted.

"In papers before this court, it's clear that there was proper consultation. They [the government] invited the public to participate... special notices and broadcasts were issued to alert people in that area," said advocate Jan Heunis SC.

Goddard maintained that while residents were consulted, it was not done properly.

He said residents had wanted to be consulted separately from residents of villages like Maluti, which were incorporated into their municipality before the demarcation processes started.

A second lawyer arguing on behalf of the State, advocate Vincent
Maleka SC, submitted that it would have been unreasonable to consult residents separately.

"It couldn't have been possible to consult those affected separately, because they were all affected by cross-border municipality issues so we submit that the applicant's argument is unfounded," he said.

Goddard further argued that there was political interference during the demarcation process, with the provincial government taking instructions from the national office.

"The party at the national level gave instructions to the party at the provincial level to vote in a particular way. The decision shouldn't have been made at a national party level, but at a provincial level," he said.

Newly-appointed Constitutional Court judges Sisi Khampepe and Mogoeng Thomas Reetsang Mogoeng, who took their oaths of office earlier in the day, did not say a word during the proceedings.

A third new appointment, Judge Johan Froneman, did actively participate, constantly asking the lawyers questions along with the other Constitutional Court judges.