Court of First Instance? Towards a Pro-Poor Jurisdiction for the South African Constitutional Court

Bibliographic Data

ID11422284
AuthorsJackie Dugard (0000-0003-2584-5678, corresponding author)
Year2006
Volume22
Issue2
Pages261-282
Publication date2006-01-21
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueSouth African Journal on Human Rights (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0258-7203 • E-ISSN: 1996-2126
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/19962126.2006.11864890
OpenAlexW1922992631
LanguageEN
Citations received3

Despite being premised on a transformative constitution, the South African Constitutional Court has not always functioned as an institutional voice for the poor. This is apparent in the relatively low number of cases brought by poor people, as a percentage of the total number of cases in which decisions are handed down by the Court. This article examines the extent to which the Court can in fact be said to have a pro-poor jurisdiction. In particular, it considers whether the Court's practice regarding direct access applications adequately facilitates the uptake of issues affecting the fundamental rights of poor people. The Court's record indicates that it has failed to utilise the direct access mechanism to allow constitutional matters to be brought directly to it by poor people who have been unable to secure legal representation. In so doing, the Court has failed to live up to its transformative promise. Two recent decisions of the Court — Mnguni v Minister of Correctional Services and De Kock v Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry — are used to indicate how the Court might pursue a different modus operandi to develop a pro-poor jurisdiction

Constitution · Constitutional court · High Court · Jurisdiction · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Human Rights and Development · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal Issues in South Africa

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub