A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW JOINT COMMITTEE
16 September 2005
SUBMISSIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW: CONSIDERATION
Chairperson: Dr E Schoeman (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Index of submissions received from the public
Legal opinions of the Parliamentary Legal Services (not for public release)
The Committee considered the submissions in light of legal opinion it had received. Submissions relating to or on the following matters were rejected:
– amendment to the property clause
– the inclusion of animal rights in the Constitution. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism would be asked to investigate if there was a need for further protection of animals.
– reinstatement of the death penalty in a limited form and in extreme cases. It was suggested by a member of the committee that the issue should be referred to a sub-committee for further consideration.
– that traditional law should not be subjected to any other law except the Constitution.
– that in some cases a person should be presumed guilty until he or she proves otherwise.
– that judicial independence should be limited to ensure accountability.
All people who had made submission to the Committee would be furnished with the Committee’s report on the submissions. The Department of Communications would be requested to brief the Committee on whether the wording of Section 192 of the Constitution was adequate following the convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting.
The Chairperson welcomed and thanked members for attending the meeting. He indicated that some members had indicated that they would not be able to attend the meeting.
Dr T Delport (DA) said that lack of attendance from the ANC members was unacceptable. There were three members from an opposition party (Democratic Alliance) and three from the ANC. Lack of attendance was evidence of utter contempt of the work of the Committee. The Committee dealt with suggestions from the public. He said that he would issue a press statement to emphasise that, for at least the last three meetings of the Committee, the ANC had shown utter contempt of the public submissions.
The Chairperson noted the objection.
Mr J Jeffrey (ANC) wondered if Dr Delport was looking for other ways of deflecting pressure following the events of the previous day [floor crossing by five DA members].
Dr Delport objected to "childish remarks".
Mr Jeffrey said that Dr Delport had left during the last meeting of the Committee and had indicated that he was going to a Joint Ethics Committee meeting. The Ethics Committee had not sat until much later because it did not have a quorum. However, Dr Delport did not come back to this Committee's meeting. When looking at the Committee’s register, his attendance at meetings was not particularly good. He said that he had overheard Ms S Camerer (DA) saying that she was happy that two other members of the DA had attended the meeting. Dr Delport was free to issue a press statement and the ANC could also issue its own statement. There was no need to politic around the issue.
Ms Camerer indicated that the DA had two members from the National Assembly and one from the National Council of Provinces in attendance. Dr Delport had a very strong case.
The Chairperson said one would have liked a better attendance. A few members had tendered their apologies with very good reasons. Ms Camerer interjected and said ANC members apologised on regular basis.
The Chairperson said members should refrain from politicising the issue of attendance. The Committee was supposed to put petty party issues aside and work as a team. Members who had sacrificed their time to be in the meeting should try and make the time spent in the meeting worthwhile.
The Chairperson said that the President had aptly said that the Constitution was a contract that was negotiated. There was ‘give and take’ from all sides during the negotiations. The contract was binding on all citizens and required a lot of sacrifice. The Committee should keep this in mind. It might be that not everything that was contained in the Constitution was what the ruling party or opposition parties wanted. It was the Committee’s imperative to see how it could improve the Constitution.
Submission relating to property rights (Section 25 of the Constitution)
The Chairperson said that the legal opinion that the Committee had received was to the effect that the right to property was not included in the Constitution for the specific purpose of allowing the redress our the past injustice as well as allowing for measures to ensure equitable access to property, including land. While the redistribution of land and other property was ongoing, whether it included such a right at this stage of transformation had to be considered in light of the question whether it was the right time to do so or whether it was, at all, appropriate for South Africa. With regard to submissions raised around land tax matters, the legal opinion said that the matter was best dealt with by tax legislation. The essence of the submission was in direct conflict with the original intention of Section 25. The submission was either superfluous or could at best dealt with in terms of other legislation.
Mr Jeffrey said that there was no point in spending a long time on the submission. There were a number of assumptions made in the submission. One such assumption was that for the unemployed and indigent, a dignified life was unattainable without land. One did not have to own land to live a dignified life. Section 25 was already complicated given the debate around the "willing buyer willing seller" principle.
The Chairperson asked if the Committee was in agreement that the legal opinion received was a broad reflection of the views of the Committee.
Mr Jeffrey said that the legal opinion was technical. Having considered the opinion, the Committee was of the view that the submission should not be accommodated.
Ms Camerer said that the Committee was expected to make suggestions to Parliament whether any amendments to the Constitution should be made. The Committee should basically say that no amendment should be made to Section 25.
The Chairperson said that it was correct that the Committee was expected to make recommendations. There should also be a reflection that the Committee had applied its mind to the issues. It would also have to motivate its recommendations.
Submission by Royal Bafokeng Nation
The Chairperson said that the legal opinion received provided that the fact was that indigenous law was subject to the Constitution and legislation. The inter-relatedness of traditional leaders, their communities and their land was a matter of interpretation. People who belonged to cultural communities could practice their culture and this left no doubt that traditional communities were protected. Section 39(2) of the Constitution required any court or tribunal to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights when interpreting any legislation or developing customary law.
Ms Camerer suggested that the Committee should accept the legal opinion and should also indicate that the question whether the Constitution should be amended was a matter of policy.
The Chairperson said that the legal opinion had also provided that issue whether the House of Traditional Leaders should have veto powers in respect of certain legislation was a matter of policy.
Mr Jeffrey said that the legal opinion had given legal points and the Committee had to take policy decisions.
Ms Camerer said that the Committee’s job was to make recommendations to Parliament and not to make policy decisions. Only the Executive could make policy decisions.
Mr Jeffrey said that the requirement was that the Constitution had to be reviewed annually by the Committee. The job of the Committee was to decide if there should be amendments to the Constitution and this included taking policy decisions.
Ms Camerer disagreed.
Mr Jeffrey said that perhaps Ms Camerer was confusing the Committee with the previous Committee which had a technical Committee which made recommendations to the full Committee. The Committee was being asked to decide if the Constitution had to be amended to make it peremptory that there should be legislation established the National House of Traditional Leaders. He wondered if Ms Camerer had forgotten what the Committee used to do. The Committee was not a post box for the legal advisors.
Ms Camerer appealed to Mr Jeffrey to stop making derogatory remarks about colleagues in the Committee. She said that she did not necessarily differ from Mr Jeffrey but saw the matter in a different light. The Committee could recommend that government or Parliament should look at possible amendments but not change policy.
Mr Jeffrey said that the Committee could not say to Parliament that something was a policy decision and therefore Parliament had to decide. The Committee was expected to come up with recommendations which Parliament would either reject or accept. The Committee would not be performing its functions properly should it expect Parliament to pass a resolution requesting the Executive to decide.
The Chairperson said that accepting the recommendation by Royal Bafokeng Nation would mean a radical change in policy. This was a policy that the Committee could not determine. The Committee should indicate if the Nation had a strong case and recommend that the powers that be should see if an amendment would serve the best interest of the Constitution.
Mr Jeffrey said that in the past there had been a submission for the reinstatement of the death penalty. The Committee did not say that this was a policy decisions and therefore could not make a decision. The IFP had agreed with the submission. The ANC did not support the submission by the Royal Bafokeng Nation because it substantially increased the powers of traditional leaders and giving them veto powers would be in conflict with democratic principles. Similarly, the question whether there should be a requirement that there should be National House of Traditional Leaders was problematic because Gauteng and the Western Cape Province did not have traditional leaders.
Ms Camerer said that Mr Jeffry was contradicting himself. He had said that the Committee should make policy decision and then changed his tune to say that it should make recommendations. The Committee should make recommendations along the lines suggested by Mr Jeffrey.
Mr Jeffrey said that Ms Camerer had objected to personal remarks. She had just said that "I have contradicted myself and if this is not personal, I do not know what". He said that he was objecting to the view that the Committee should simply say that it would not make any recommendation but leave it to Parliament. The Committee should make a policy recommendation to Parliament. The legal advisor could not recommend that the Committee should change the Constitution to give traditional leaders a veto right because this was a policy issue.
The Committee did not agreed with the submission by Royal Bafokeng Nation.
Submission by Marriage Alliance and Doctors for Life
The Chairperson said that the concern was that the interpretation of the equality clause following an allegation of discrimination led to an automatic presumption of unconstitutionality. The Alliance had proposed that prejudice should be a requirement for a finding of discrimination.
Dr Delport said that the interpretation by the court had been good and there was no need for the Committee to tamper with anything or to steer the interpretation towards any particular direction.
The Chairperson said that the Alliance had also proposed that the Constitution should provide additional guidelines to its interpretation in order to facilitate clarity, judicial restraint and principled interpretation.
Mr Jeffrey said that Dr Delport’s points around the equality clause would equally apply here.
The Chairperson said that there was also a concern that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights did not deserve the same degree of protection and that a hierarchy existed. It was submitted that the courts had also attached more weight to some rights than others and therefore accepted that there were competing rights in some instances. The legal advisors agreed that rights did not deserve the same degree of protection. However, there was no need to effect to have an amendment that would achieve what the Alliance desired.
Ms Camerer agreed with the legal opinion.
Mr Jeffrey said that it was obvious that rights were not the same. The Constitution even referred to non-derogable rights.
The Chairperson said that there was a submission on the definition of marriage. Parliamentary legal advisors were of the view that the submission was based on moral and socialised view and not on sound legal argument. It was not appropriate to include such a definition in the Constitution. This was a matter of policy and not law.
Dr Delport agreed that it was a policy issue based on morality. Parliament was being called upon to give clarity on the issue of same sex marriages. The issue had to be dealt with but whether it had to be dealt with in this forum was a different matter. He was of the view that one could not call a same sex cohabitation marriage because marriage had certain elements. However, there was a need for allowing cohabitation to have the consequences of marriage but same sex cohabitation should not be called marriage. Parliament would have to deal with the matter at some stage. It could start the process or wait for the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to initiate the process.
Mr Jeffrey said that it was quite a sensitive issue but there was no need to amend the Constitution. There might be unforeseen consequences if the definition was included in the Constitution. The issue could be dealt with in terms of ordinary legislation. The wording proposed by Doctors for Life would have the effect of throwing polygamy out of the window and this was a sensitive issue in some communities.
Ms Camerer said that Mr Jeffrey had spoken without being given permission by the Chairperson and if it had been her, she would have been ruled out of order, as was the case in most cases. Doctors for Life had raised the issue before. The matter should be addressed in terms of other legislation.
The committee agreed that there was no need for constitutional amendment.
Submission on crime and abuse of the aged
The Chairperson said that the submission proposed the establishment of old age homes to help protect the aged against abuse and crimes.
Ms Camerer said that the approach during the constitutional negotiations was that children needed protection and adults could take care of themselves. Disabled or infirm adults were to be catered for in terms of ordinary legislation by the Department of Social Development. There was no reason why the position should be changed.
The Committee agreed that there was no need for constitutional change.
Ms Njobe said that there should be awareness programmes to help people understand the importance of looking after old people. She did not think that one could legislate for something like this.
Prisoners’ right to vote
The Chairperson said that the submission provided that everyone had the right to vote and the court did not have the right to disenfranchise them.
Ms Camerer said that there was legislation that dealt with the issue.
Mr Jeffrey said that the Committee was being asked to specifically provide in the Constitution that prisoners should not be allowed to vote. This was a policy issue which could be addressed by ordinary legislation. It was important not to tamper with the Bill of Rights.
The Committee agreed that there was no need for constitutional amendment.
Submission of the reinstatement of the death penalty
The Chairperson said that some members of the public had called for the reinstatement of the death penalty for certain crimes.
Dr Delport said that he differed from Ms Camerer on this issue. He was in favour of the death penalty under controlled circumstances and in extreme cases whilst Ms Camerer was against the death penalty. He proposed that this matter should be referred to a sub-committee for consideration. Many people would probably vote for the reinstatement of a limited form of the death penalty if South Africa were to hold a referendum on the issue.
Mr Jeffrey said that the submission had been made every year and the Committee might need to have a vote on the issue. He did not think there would be support for Dr Delport. There were other parties that would support Dr Delport.
The Chairperson said that the opinion was that there would be no change but Dr Delport was entitled to canvass more support and present his case.
Submission on abortion
The Chairperson said that legal opinion provided that the issue had not been decided by the Constitutional Court. The suggested amendments would have a fundamental and negative impact on the rights of women.
The Committee agreed that there was no need for an amendment.
Dr Delport said that he had been called by his party bosses to go and attend some urgent business. He requested that that he be excused from the meeting.
Mr Jeffrey said that perhaps Dr Delport should withdraw his earlier remarks about the seriousness with which member of the ANC took the business of the Committee.
Dr Delport said that he would consider withdrawing remarks.
The Chairperson hoped that Dr Delport would return to the meeting as soon as he had attended to the other matter.
Ms Camerer said that Dr Delport would return to the meeting once the defectors had been replaced.
Submission on caring for children
The Chairperson said that a submission had been made that "guardian" should be added to parental care. The care of a guardian was included in either parental care, family care or appropriate other care. The submission would not take the issue any further.
Mr Jeffrey said that the amendment of rights would open the Pandora’s box if it was not done carefully. The enforcement of socio-economic rights was difficult and tightening such rights would make the situation worse. The submission could be addressed in terms of ordinary legislation. The Committee might consider if it was necessary to phrase the provision in stronger positive terms. The legal opinion pointed out that legislation that was intended to give effect to some provision of the Constitution was not effective.
The Committee agreed that there was no need for an amendment. Ms Camerer agreed that legislation was not effective.
With respect to child labour and detention, the legal advisors were of the opinion that the proposed amendments would not bring about additional protection for a child.
The Committee agreed with the legal opinion.
Ms Camerer said that there were a number of children who were in detention. This indicated lack of compliance with the Constitution and other legislation. She wondered if the Committee should comment on this.
Submission on presumption of Innocence until proven guilty
The Chairperson said that the gist of the submission was that in some instances one should be presumed guilty and the accused should have the onus of proving his or her innocence. The submission was contrary to a very fundamental principle and could not be supported.
There was also a submission that the powers of the South African Human Rights Commission should be extended to include education. The legal opinion had provided the Commission was adequately empowered to educate people on human rights.
The Committee agreed with the legal opinion and saw need for an amendment.
Submission on judicial authority
The Chairperson said that it had been submitted that judicial independence should be limited in order to ensure judicial accountability. Judicial independence was crucial for the doctrine of separation of powers. The relationship between the different arms of government should be one of checks and balances. The checks and balances system was designed to ensure that each arm operated within the confines of its authority and to ensure that none of them had unlimited powers. The powers of judicial review conferred on the judiciary by the Constitution should not be unlimited. The independence of the judiciary did not mean that the judiciary should be unaccountable. It meant that the judiciary should be able to decide cases without any pressure or influence exerted by either the legislature or the executive. An amendment of the Constitution to suspend the independence of the judiciary would be contrary to the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers. An amendment to the Constitution was not the ideal way of achieving the desired accountability.
The Committee agreed that there was no need for an amendment.
Submission on Animal Rights
Ms Camerer was of the view that animal rights had no place in the Constitution. But because a lot of research work had been done, it might be preferable to have further engagement on the issue. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism should look at this issue. The Department would have access to developments around the world as far as they related to animal rights. Advocate Gordon had said that the wording in the Constitution could be interpreted as giving a general protection to animal. The issue of protection should be looked at further. The Committee should not just turn its back on the work that had been done as well as on developments in other country.
Mr Jeffrey thought that Section 24 gave enough protection to animals. It seemed that the Animal Rights wanted individual rights for animals. He agreed that a lot of research had been done on animal rights.
Ms Camerer said that the legal advisors had asked if animal rights were adequately dealt with in the Constitution. A window was left open and the answer might be "no". The Committee could not turn its back on the legal opinion. It should ask for a further investigation of the matter. The Department of Environment should be asked make some input on the matter.
The Chairperson concluded that the Committee was of the view that no change to the Constitution should be made but the whole issue of animal rights required some input from the Department.
Ms Camerer said that the report should indicate that the Committee did not think that there was a place of animal rights in the Constitution. The issue of protection of wildlife should be investigated further.
Ms M Njobe (ANC) said that natural resources included plants. Would the Committee’s recommendation also refer to plants? The definition of an animal in some legislation was not adequate. Would the Committee define an animal just to suit its own needs? The law would not be able to offer the desired protection should one try and define an animal. South Africa was not ready to follow the example of Switzerland and Germany.
The Chairperson that the crux of the matter was that there was no place for animal rights.
Ms Camerer agreed that there was legislation that protected wildlife. The problem was that the Committee was given legal advice that showed that maybe the legislation did not go far enough. All she was asking for was a further investigation of the matter.
Mr Jeffrey said that the legal opinion had provided that the question whether animal rights should be specifically included was a matter of policy. The Bill of Rights was currently only applicable to natural and juristic persons. He appealed for Ms Camerer to follow meeting procedures after she had interjected while he was still talking.
Ms Camerer said that the Chairperson had accommodated Mr Jeffrey’s interjections whilst she was on the floor. It was surprising that he did not like other people to interject while he was on the floor although he did the same to other members.
The Chairperson agreed that he had allowed Mr Jeffrey to interject. Perhaps it was wrong for him to allow Mr Jeffrey to interject but Mr Jeffrey at least interjected through the Chairperson. He appealed for members to refrain from interrupting each other.
Mr Jeffrey said that all were agreed that there was no place for animal rights in the Constitution. The issue was whether there was adequate protection for animals. He asked Advocate Gordon to indicate why animals were not adequately protected.
Advocate Gordon said that the protection of animal was incidental to legislation passed in terms of Section 24(b) of the Constitution. There was no direct protection for animals. The question was whether the Committee wanted to have a direct protection of animals.
Mr Jeffrey said that the Constitution provided for the protection of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations. Animals were part of the environment. The question was why protect animals and not plants if one wanted to protect the biological biodiveristy of animals and plants kingdoms. One could not put such a protection as a right in the Constitution. He did not think that animals were not adequately protected. Asking whether animals were adequately protected would be synonymous to asking whether the Marine Living Resources Act or any other legislation was sufficient. He asked if Advocate Gordon was proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
Advocate Gordon replied that she would have been usurping the Committee’s powers was she to propose an amendment. Her role was to furnish legal advice around the submission. The Committee should decide if it would amend the provision.
Mr Jeffrey asked if Advocate Gordon was saying there was a problem or not. If there was a problem, how should it be addressed?
Advocate Gordon replied that the Constitution had no definition of the word "environment". The National Environment Management Act contained a definition of ‘animal’ whilst the Marine Living Resources Act did not have such a definition. It might be useful to ask the Department if there was a need to amend Section 24. People assumed that they knew what the concept of ‘environment’ contained.
Ms Camerer said that Advocate Gordon had drawn the Committee’s attention to the fact that other countries were beginning to introduce provisions in their Constitution that specifically related to the animal kingdom. This was an interesting development. She was not in a position to say if South Africa should do the same. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism would be in a position to decide if South Africa should follow Germany and Switzerland. She said that she would be happy with any decision from the Department. The Committee owed it to the country to ensure that issues brought to its attention were referred to qualified people for their consideration.
Ms R Ndzanga (ANC) asked what was contained in the definition of an animal. People in rural areas had animals like sheep and goats. What was the difference between domestic and wild animals? Animals in our homes lived under a different environment from those living in the bush. People protected their domestic animals. Supposing a hyena had come and attacked a sheep, would one have to stand and watch and not fight the hyena just because it was also protected? It was important to know what kind of animals was protected and what kind of protection was to be given.
The Chairperson said that the cutting of a lamb’s tail was prohibited in Germany. The issue was very complicated. The Committee’s report should provide that there was no place for human rights in the Constitution at this stage. The Department of Environmental Affairs should investigate if any further legislation was required to protect animals.
Mr Watson asked for permission to leave the meeting.
Ms Njobe said that the Committee should find out from the Department if there was a need for further to give more effect to Section 24 of the Constitution.
Mr Jeffrey said that the Constitution did not have definitions. It was up to the court to provide a definition of the word. There was no way that the Committee would put a definition in the Constitution. Only two countries had provisions relating to animal protection in their Constitution. Switzerland gave the state the power to legislate on particular issues like experimentation on live animals. Germany and Switzerland were quite different from South Africa in terms of being developed countries. He disagreed with the suggestion that the Department of Environmental Affairs should be asked if its legislation were sufficient. It was not the Committee’s job to do so. Its mandate was to see if there was a need to amend the Constitution. The Committee would sit forever if the Committee was to start asking if a Department’s legislation were sufficient. He was of the view that the legislation was sufficient. The Committee should just explain why it had rejected the submission. He was prepared to concede that there might be a need to investigate if animals should be afforded more protection but this could be done next year. He still maintained that the Constitution offered adequate protection.
Ms Camerer agreed that it was not the Committee’s job to ask if a Department’s legislation was sufficient. The legal opinion given to the Committee had indicated that legislation offered protection to animals to some point. The opinion raised the question whether South Africa should go a bit further and adjust Section 24 so that it would offer more protection to the animal kingdom. The report should indicate that, in view of the fact that the Committee had received some information about other jurisdiction, the Department should investigate if Section 24 adequately protected animals.
The Committee’s report should say that the question whether Section 24 of the Constitution adequately protected animals and plants should be further investigated.
Position of South African Local Government Association (SALGA)
The Chairperson said that the Committee was still awaiting input from the National Council of Provinces.
Mr Jeffrey said that it would be preferable for the Committee to request the person who had made the submission to motivate it.
The Chairperson said it was not possible at this stage of the process to request for further information. The report should indicate that the Committee agreed with Advocate Jenkin’s legal opinion and that there was no need for changes in the Constitution.
Mr Jeffrey said that the Committee should indicate to the person who had made the submission that it had received legal opinion that was different from her view. The person should be welcomed to make further submission that would be considered next year.
Ms Camerer said that it would be preferable for all people who had submitted submissions to be sent a copy of the report.
Chapter 9 Institutions
The Chairperson said that the Committee had received some valuable input from Professor J Hofman (UCT Law Faculty).
Ms Camerer said that one could agree with some aspects of the legal opinion and input received by the Committee. There was a divergence of views in some aspects. The question was whether broadcasting included telecommunications. Ms M Smuts (DA) had said that there might be a need to expand the purview of Section 192 of the Constitution. This should be looked into properly. The DA was prepared to make a submission should the Committee decide to expand the ambit of Section 192. The Department of Communications should also make some input relating to this section. One should consider the consequences of amending or not amending the section. Technology had improved over the last ten years. The Committee could not recommend anything in this regard without hearing from experts on the field of telecommunication and broadcasting.
The Chairperson said that issue was whether the wording of Section 192 was adequate following the convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting.
Ms Camerer said that the Committee did not know and did not have the necessary expertise to make a decision on this matter. This issue should be examined and there seemed to be evidence that the world out there had galloped ahead. The Constitution might have to be amended. The legal advisors were not certain if broadcasting included telecommunications.
Mr Jeffrey said that the issue was whether Section 192 was still appropriately worded in light of the technological advances. He appealed for Ms Camerer to observe normal meeting procedures instead of talking whilst another member was still on the floor.
Ms Camerer said that people had always interjected while she was speaking and had never received protection from the Chairperson.
The Chairperson appealed to members to observe meeting procedures and to address the Committee through him.
Mr Jeffrey said that the issue whether Section 192 was still adequate needed further report and the Committee should indicate this in its report.
The Chairperson said that the Committee should indicate that it had received expert opinions and that all indications were that there had bee a convergence of broadcasting and telecommunications. There might be a need of looking at the wording of Section 192. Professor Hofman was of the view that the reference to broadcasting should be taken out of the Constitution. This could be one of the Committee’s recommendations. He was quick to add that the Committee was not yet in a position to make any recommendation.
Ms Camerer said that Professor Hofman had indicated that he was not sure if broadcasting could be interpreted to include telecommunications. Nobody was sure and the Committee should just recommend a further investigation of the matter.
Mr Jeffrey wondered if it would be appropriate for the Committee to say that the Constitution must be amended. In putting the report to Parliament, the Committee would be expecting Parliament to also say that the Constitution should be amended. This was a serious thing to say and it would be better to couch it widely.
The Chairperson said that the Committee’s report should simply say that the issue needed further investigation.
The Chairperson said that there were few outstanding issues that the Committee had to deal with. He asked members if he should adjourn or continue with the meeting.
Mr Jeffrey said that the land issue had been dealt with when dealing with the property clause. The issue about religion had been dealt with many times before. The submission on cooperative governance provided that Section 41 should be amended to remove provincial government from the spheres of government. There might be a need to evaluate the functioning of provincial and local government but this could be done at some stage.
In relation to the religion issue, the Chairperson concluded that no constitutional amendment was justified. The Committee could not decide on whether or not provincial government should be abolished.
The meeting was adjourned.
No related documents
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.