The traditional view held by many is that courts simply interpret the law by examining the wording of statutes and applying it to the facts of a case. However, with the advent of constitutional democracy and the enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, this view has been significantly challenged. The Constitution has introduced a new paradigm in legal interpretation, where courts are not only tasked with applying laws but also with ensuring that those laws are in line with constitutional values and principles.
Section 39(2) of the Constitution states that when interpreting legislation, and when developing the common law or customary law, every court, tribunal, or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. This provision essentially requires that all legal institutions and decisions be informed by the values enshrined in the Constitution, such as equality, human dignity, freedom, and social justice.
This expansive approach to legal interpretation has had a profound impact on the role of courts in the South African legal system. Rather than simply applying laws as they are written, courts are now required to consider the broader constitutional context and implications of their decisions. This means that statutes must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the values and principles of the Constitution, even if this involves departing from the literal meaning of the words used in the legislation.
For example, in the case of S v Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC), the Constitutional Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. This decision by the Court was based on an interpretation of the Constitution that prioritized the protection of fundamental rights over the literal wording of the law.
Similarly, in the case of Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC), the Constitutional Court interpreted the Medicines Act to require the government to provide access to antiretroviral drugs to pregnant women with HIV, even though the Act did not explicitly mandate such access. The Court justified its interpretation by emphasizing the right to access healthcare services enshrined in the Constitution.
These examples demonstrate the transformative role that the Constitution has played in influencing the interpretation of statutes in South Africa. The Constitution has shifted the focus from a strict textual approach to one that considers the underlying values and principles of the legal system. This approach ensures that laws are interpreted and applied in a manner that upholds constitutional rights and promotes a just and equitable society.
In conclusion, the Constitution has significantly influenced the interpretation of statutes in South Africa by requiring courts to consider the broader constitutional context and values when applying the law. This has led to a more dynamic and rights-based approach to legal interpretation, where statutes are understood and applied in a manner that is consistent with constitutional principles. The Constitution has thus empowered courts to ensure that the law reflects and upholds the values of a democratic and constitutional society.
In Holomisa v Argus Newspapers Ltd 1996 (2) SA 588 (W) the court referred to section 35(3) of the Interim Constitution (the forerunner of section 39(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996) and stated that the interpretation clause in the Constitution is
“[not] merely an interpretive directive, but a force that informs all legal institutions and decisions with the new power of constitutional values.”
In light of this statement, write an essay on how the Constitution has influenced the interpretation of statutes.
Your essay should articulate the following:
The myth that courts only interpret the law.
1 answer
1 answer