The enactment of both interim and final Constitutions ushered in a new approach to statutory interpretation. In this essay I argue that the statement made by the court in Daniels v Campbell 2003 (9) BCLR 969 ( C ) at 985 is TRUE.
2) THE INTERPRETATIVE APPROACH ADOPTED BY SOUTH AFRICAN COURTS PRE- 1994:
Before 1994 South Africa was a country based on Apartheid rules and regulations. The Parliament was the highest legislative body and it interpreted laws as it pleased, mostly in favour of ‘white Christians’. Any other race or religion was treated in an unfair and sometimes inhumane way. These laws were mainly based on Roman-Dutch law and influenced by English law.
The Parliamentary Acts did not favour anyone but …show more content…
4) THE IMPACT OF THE CONSTITUTION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION POST 1994:
The impact of the Constitution on statutory interpretation has changed the direction of our government and country in the opposite direction. Human rights, dignity and fundamental rights were given to each South African citizen, regardless of what race, sex or religion they are .
The interpretation of the Bill of Rights is dealt with in Section 39(2) of the Constitution. Botha prescribes the filtering of legislation through fundamental rights during the ordinary interpretation process. Interpreting ordinary statutory should be based on a text-in-context method that is also used in Constitution interpretation.
To have a supreme Constitution means to always make sure the “spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights” are promoted when interpreting and developing all legislation, common law and customary law keeping in mind that any law, rule or Act that goes against the Constitution will be seen as invalid and void.
I personally find the explanation of fundamental rights the most descriptive in Chapter 1 of the Constitution.
Section 1 of Chapter 1 of the Constitution:
The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the following values: