Decision means the unsigned MPRDA, Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill, and Expropriation Bill require full and fair ventilation in a meaningful public participation process
10 August 20-16
On 28 July 2016, the Constitutional Court issued a timely reminder to South Africa’s legislators that meaningful public participation is vital to the democratic law-making process. Finding that this was lacking in the accelerated adoption of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill (“Restitution Bill”) by Parliament’s National Council of Provinces (“NCOP”) in March 2014, the Court struck down the resulting Act, in a unanimous judgment with significant implications for several other pending laws affecting property rights.
Other Bills criticised as having been rushed through the NCOP without adequate public input include the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill, 2012 (“Private Security Bill”) and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, 2013 (“MPRDA Amendment Bill”), both passed shortly before the May 2014 elections, as well as the Expropriation Bill, 2015 (“Expropriation Bill”), passed in May this year.
Like the Restitution Bill, these Bills each have significant and complex economic implications, but they have not yet become law as President Jacob Zuma has hesitated in signing them into law. In order to avoid the fate of the Restitution Bill, these three important Bills require full and fair ventilation in a meaningful public participation process.
To this end, it is significant that the President has a constitutional prerogative to refer Bills back to Parliament for reconsideration, which he exercised in respect of the MPRDA Amendment Bill early last year and the Performing Animals Protection Bill just yesterday (also citing deficiencies in the NCOP’s processes).