1. This judgement concerns two applications challenging the constitutionality of an appointments policy determined by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development in accordance with insolvency legislation.  The Policy is impugned in terms of sections 9, 10, 22 and 33 of the Constitution[1] and on the basis of unlawful exercise of public power.  The context of the challenge raises complex issues concerning law, policy, constitutionality and the interaction of human rights and commercial interests.

2. It is now axiomatic that all human rights are interdependent.[2]  The core right of dignity can only be respected, protected, promoted and fulfilled if there is a move not only to ensure freedom from torture and the guarantee of other civil and political rights, but also the advancement of socio-economic rights.  This has been acknowledged repeatedly by the courts in the context of the right to housing.[3] The long-term reduction of poverty depends on economic development.  Consequently, without economic development there is little prospect of civil rights being realised.  This gives rise to two questions.  First, how can the right to dignity be respected, protected, promoted and fulfilled if there is little or no hope of alleviation from poverty, especially in a society as unequal as is South Africa?  Secondly, what does the right to equality mean in South Africa 20 years after the birth of a constitutional non-racial non-sexist society?