10 Judgment No. CCZ 3/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 15/18 Court in matters over which other courts have jurisdiction is a discretionary procedure, which is granted only in exceptional cases - see Betlane v Shelley Court CC 2011 (1) SA 388 (CC), 2011 (3) BCLR 264 [22]; A Party and Another v The Minister for Home Affairs and Others, Moloko and Others v The Minister for Home Affairs and Another 2009 (3) SA 649 (CC), 2009 (6) BCLR 611 (CC) [70]. Currie and De Waal, in “The Bill of Rights Handbook”, 6 ed (2013) at pp 127-128 have the following to say on the subject: “Direct access means that a matter is heard by the Constitutional Court at first instance. … The Rules provide for direct access to the Constitutional Court in matters over which concurrent jurisdiction is exercised, where the matter is of sufficient public importance or urgency that direct access will be in the interests of justice. Direct access is an extraordinary procedure that has been granted by the Constitutional Court only in a handful of cases.” The applicants were required by law to seek leave to approach the Court directly with their main application. They did not attempt to argue that theirs is a matter over which leave to approach the Court directly is not required. WHETHER IT IS IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE TO GRANT THE APPLICANTS DIRECT ACCESS The Court has analysed the matter and has come to the conclusion that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant the applicants direct access. Pursuit of justice must be shown to be at the heart of every legal remedy sought to be granted by a court of law. The requirements for an application for direct access are set out in r 21(3) of the Rules as follows: