Interpretation, that is, not based on the traditional sources of the law. The analysis shows that the original Constitutional Court followed a method of constitutional interpretation based on traditional methods of interpretation, as well as a measure of subjective constitutional interpretation. The general limitation provisions of section 36 stated that rights could be limited, but there was no previous precedent or comparable South African jurisprudence to guide the adjudication. The text of the Interim Constitution offered no guidance and section 11 was unqualified, stating that everyone has the right to life. The drafters of the Constitution and the incumbent government left the resolution of the question of the constitutionality of the death penalty up to the courts. Makwanyane is an example of a 'hard case' due to its extremely difficult interpretive choices. 4 Makwanyane was chosen because the Court had to deal with the undefined rights and values articulated by the Interim Constitution. This paper investigates the interpretation of the often vague and undefined constitutional rights and values fundamental to the South African Constitution by revisiting S v Makwanyane. This requires the judge to make the reasoning for the decision public in the form of a written court decision, which articulates the reasoning behind the decision. It must present a just appraisal of the facts, evidence and arguments placed before the courts. This means the decision of the court should be based on fact and sound reason, as well as being well-founded in prevailing law. 3The decision-maker, therefore, has to deliberate before reaching a decision - and justify the decision made. However, this presents a conundrum, as the courts are duty-bound to give reasoned decisions. In some instances, these 'other sources' find their origin in the subjective identity of the judge - the sum of his or her upbringing, culture, life experience and religious- or political beliefs. 2 However, in hard cases, the court will often have to reach a fair and just decision based on other sources. In South Africa, the first source for judicial decision-making will be the Constitution, 1 followed by the accepted current law in the form of statutory law, common law, customary law as well as court precedent, international, and foreign law.
These are referred to as 'hard cases', in which an objective way of reaching a judgment based on the accepted sources of law is problematic.
However, adjudication is also sought in matters where the accepted sources of law are not always clear, may contradict one another, or may offer no clear and acceptable legal sources for the resolution of the dispute. Therefore, there is conformity in the objective legal interpretation of the sources. The legal sources point in one direction: a delict was committed and the plaintiff is entitled to damages. If the plaintiff in a delictual claim for damages proved, by fact and legal argument, that the defendant has assaulted him intentionally and unlawfully, he is entitled to the damages that he can prove. The sources of law that the judge must interpret to arrive at a just and fair conclusion are obvious. In most cases commonly before the courts, the legal sources point to a clearly defined outcome after the facts and legal arguments have been heard. So erkenning word dan geartikuleer in die beslissing van die hof wat 'n mate van objektiwiteit daaraan verskaf en dit blootstel vir kommentaar en moontlike kritiek. Hierdie artikel stel voor dat regters die effek van eie persoonlike vooroordele moet ondersoek en indien dit moontlik 'n rol mag speel in die beslissing van die hof dit te erken. Subjektiewe interpretasie is egter moeilik inaggenome die plig wat op howe rus om 'n beredeneerde rede vir hul beslissings te verskaf.
In S v Makwanyane, 'n voorbeeld van 'n moeilike saak, het die hof bevind dat subjektiewe interpretasie onontbeerlik deel is van grondwetlike interpretasie. Dit laat die moontlikheid dat die bevinding van die hof beïnvloed kan word, of selfs baseer mag wees, op die persoonlike geloof-, politieke- of waardesisteem van die regter. Dit beteken dat regters van nie-tradisionele bronne gebruik moet maak wanneer grondwetlike interpretasie plaasvind. Grondwetlike interpretasie in sogenaamde 'moeilike sake' verg, in sekere gevalle, dat regters van subjektiewe maatstawe moet gebruik maak om definisie te verskaf aan grondwetlike regte en waardes. Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, North West University Grondwetlike interpretasie in sogenaamde 'moeilike sake': 'n Herbesoek aan S v MakwanyaneīProc LLM LLD. Constitutional interpretation in the so-called 'hard cases': Revisiting S v Makwanyane
0 kommentar(er)
