South Africa

• Date: 01 March 2009
• DOI: 10.1177/0002716208328477
• Published date: 01 March 2009
• Author: Clive Plasket
• Subject Matter: Articles

256 ANNALS, AAPSS, 622, March 2009

The Constitution of South Africa provides simply for

claimants to represent anyone who cannot act, or a

group, or the public interest. In the absence of more

detailed procedural rules on how these rights are to

operate, the courts have had to grapple with issues on

standing within a difficult socioeconomic and political

background.

Keywords: Republic of South Africa; 1996; standing;

people acting in their own interest; people

acting on behalf of others; interest group;

class action; public interest

Constitutional Developments in

South Africa

From the second British occupation of the

Cape of Good Hope in 1806 (Davenport and

Saunders 2000, 42) until recently, British con-

stitutional institutions have dominated South

African political life (Corder and Davis 1988,

15–19; Dugard 1978, 8–9, 14–28; Klug 1996,

2). At the heart of the three South African con-

stitutions since Union in 1910 lay the doctrine

of the sovereignty of Parliament. It is now

widely accepted that this doctrine, because it

was separated from its principal political coun-

terbalance, universal franchise, was particularly

inappropriate and allowed for gross abuses of

human rights by those in power.1

The struggle for freedom in South Africa

culminated in a new constitutional order that

made a fundamental break with the past. The

current Constitution provides that it is the

“supreme law of the Republic” and that law or

conduct inconsistent with it is invalid. It

describes the Republic as founded on the val-

ues of “human dignity, the achievement of

equality and the advancement of human rights

South Africa

By

CLIVE PLASKET

Clive Plasket is a judge of the Eastern Cape Division of

the High Court of South Africa.

DOI: 10.1177/0002716208328477