Judgment No. CCZ 10/2018 Const. Application No. CCZ 80/2016 In Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly & Ors 2006 (6) SA 416 (CC), the Constitutional Court of South Africa was seized with the complaint that, during the legislative process leading to the enactment of certain health legislation, the National Council of Provinces and the provincial legislatures did not comply with their constitutional obligations to facilitate public involvement in their legislative processes. The court proceeded, at para 19, on the premise that the phrase “a constitutional obligation” in s 167(4)(e) of the Constitution – the equivalent of our s 167(2)(d) – should be given a narrow meaning. In any event, only the Constitutional Court could intrude into the domain of Parliament. As was held per Ncgobo J: “The principle underlying the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court under section 167(4) is that disputes that involve important questions that relate to the sensitive areas of separation of powers must be decided by this Court only. Therefore, the closer the issues to be decided are to the sensitive area of separation of powers, the more likely it is that the issues will fall within section 167(4). It follows that where a dispute will require a court to decide a crucial political question and thus intrude into the domain of Parliament, the dispute will more likely be one for the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court.” [at para 24] “A review by a court of whether Parliament has complied with its obligation under section 72(1)(a) calls upon a court to intrude into the domain of a principal legislative organ of the state. Under our Constitution, this intrusion is reserved for this Court only.” [at para 26] “A construction of section 167(4)(e) which gives this Court exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether Parliament has complied with its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in its legislative processes is therefore consistent with the principles underlying the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court. An order declaring that Parliament has failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in its legislative process and directing Parliament to comply with that obligation constitutes judicial intrusion into the domain of the principle [sic] legislative organ of the state. Such an order will inevitably have important political consequences. Only this Court has this power.” [at para 27] “The question whether Parliament has fulfilled its obligation under section 72(1)(a) therefore requires this Court to decide a crucial separation of powers DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS e-mail: veritas@mango.zw; website: www.veritaszim.net Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. 9