Doctors for Life v Speaker
South African legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that Parliament and the provincial legislatures are constitutionally obliged to take reasonable steps to enable effective public participation in the legislative process in respect of every law passed. The court invalidated the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2004 and the Traditional Health Practitioners Act, 2004 on the basis that the National Council of Provinces had not solicited public submissions on the laws before passing them.[1][2]
Doctors for Life v Speaker | |
---|---|
Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
Full case name | Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others |
Decided | 17 August 2006 (2006-08-17) |
Docket nos. | CCT 12/05 |
Citation(s) | [2006] ZACC 11; 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC); 2006 (6) SA 416 (CC) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen and Yacoob JJ |
Case opinions | |
The Constitution obliges the legislatures to take reasonable steps to enable effective public participation in the legislative process in respect of each bill passed. The National Council of Provinces failed to fulfil this obligation in respect of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2004 and the Traditional Health Practitioners Act, 2004; both laws are therefore invalid. | |
Decision by | Ngcobo J (Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, Nkabinde, O'Regan and Sachs concurring) |
Concurrence | Sachs J |
Dissent | Yacoob J (Skweyiya concurring) |
Dissent | Van der Westhuizen J |
The court was split eight-to-three on the merits of the application. Justice Sandile Ngcobo wrote the majority judgment, a lengthy judgment that drew heavily on the principle of participatory democracy. Justice Zak Yacoob, who wrote the leading dissent, disagreed with Ngcobo's conception of the nature, scope, and justiciability of the section 72 obligation, and he warned strongly against judicial trespass on the separation of powers, arguing that such trespass indirectly infringed the political rights of voters in a representative democracy.