28 August 2001
The Sunday Times article, Divided ANC takes itself to court, 19 August 2001, missed a valuable opportunity to educate and inform the readers on the intricacies of law-making process a democratic state.
It is unfortunate that while the article is authored by one of the country's gifted legal journalists, the large part of the article opinionated and based on speculative assumptions rather than the essence of the case at hand. This approach has unfortunately deprived those who could not attend the hearing the opportunity to have a glimpse in the law making processes in South Africa.
The decision to refer the Mpumalanga Petitions Bill, 2000 to the Constitutional court emanated from conflicting legal interpretations of the Bill. The premise from which the Premier of the Province, Mr Ndaweni Mahlangu, decided not to assent to the Mpumalanga Petitions Bill is that he needed to satisfy all interested parties that the Bill is constitutional. It is unfortunate that the media reports attached a political connotation to what is purely an essential process in law making.
The case before the Constitutional Court has nothing to do with the alleged divisions within the ANC, but it is a meant to seek clarity on who should make regulations and determine the date of operation, with specific reference to the Mpumalanga Petitions Bill, 2000, i.e. whether it should be the Premier or the Speaker.
South Africa is a constitutional state and any law passed by the Legislature could be referred to the Constitutional Court for scrutiny and a ruling in case there are doubts about the constitutionality of such legislation.
It is expected that the outcome from the Constitutional Court will benefit, not only Mpumalanga, but also the provinces that have the same legislation, or are in the process of promulgating similar legislation. Both the Speaker and the Premier will accept the ruling of the Constitutional Court irrespective of the outcome.
It is not unusual that legislation is referred to the Constitutional Court to seek clarity where necessary, and it is a practice that has always been happening with legislation passed by national parliament as well as provinces. It is thus unfortunate that the media reports ignored this reality. It is also strange how the author of the article selectively concluded that Mpumalanga was encountering divisions, and said nothing about Gauteng province which has also joined the proceedings at the Constitutional Court.
Issued by : Communications Directorate
Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature
Enquiries : Tom Nkosi
Spokesperson - Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature
013 766 1220 or 082 553 4067
Peter Shube
Public Relations Officer - Premier's Spokesperson
013 766 2055 or 082 553 7479