Rural Women's Action Research Programme

English

Cape Town University OpenUCT

1        PILANE  v  PILANE:  A  SUMMARY  OF  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  COURT  JUDGMENT  September  2013  BACKGROUND  On   28   February   2013,   the   Constitutional   Court   decided   a   case   which   upheld   the   rights   of   community  members  to  have  meetings  at  which  they  discuss  concerns  about  the  governance  of  their  community.    This  has  great  significance  in  a  context  where  a  series  of  judgments  in  the  North  West  have  prevented  certain  groupings  living  on  ?communal  land?  from  having  meetings.    The  case  was  a  dispute  about  whether  a  group  of  people  could  convene  a  meeting  at  which   they  would  discuss   the   possibility   of   breaking   away   (also   referred   to   as   ?????ssion??? from   the   larger   traditional  community.    On  one  side  of  the  dispute  were  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Ramoshibidu  Dintwe  ??????????????????,  from  Motlhabe  Village  in  the  North  West,  who  attempted  to  convene  such  a  meeting.    On  the  other  side  of  ???? ???????? ????? ??????????????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????(kgosi/chief)  of  the  Bakgatla  baKgafela  Traditional  Community,  and  the  Traditional  Council,  who  wished  to  stop  the  meeting  from  taking  place  on  the  basis  that  only  traditional  leaders  who  were  officially  recognised  by  government  could  call  such  a  meeting.  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  took  the  case  to  the  Constitutional  Court   in  order  to  challenge  a  2011  decision   favouring   the   kgosi   and   traditional   council   by   Judge   Landman   in   the  North  West   High   Court   in  Mafikeng.    WHAT  WAS  DECIDED  IN  THE  NORTH  WEST  HIGH  COURT?  Judge  Landman  granted  a  court  order  that  would  prevent  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  from  having  meetings   without   getting   the   permission   of   the   kgosi   and   traditional   council   and   from   identifying  themselves  in  ways  that  suggest  they  have  authority  within,  or  represent,  the  traditional  community.    The  problem  was  that   they  had  referred  to  themselves  as   the  Motlhabe  ?traditional  authority?   in  advertising  the  meeting.      The   judge   also   prohibited   them   from  acting   contrary   to   certain   laws   and   customs.      Judge  ???????????????????imposed  many  restrictions,  which  is  why  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  applied  to  have  his  judgment  overturned  in  the  Constitutional  Court.    WHAT  WAS  DECIDED  IN  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  COURT?  A  majority   in   the  Constitutional  Court,   consisting  of  eight   judges,  decided  that   it  was   incorrect   for   Judge  Landman  to  grant  these  orders  and  decided  the  case  in  favour  of  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe.  2    ???????????? ??ority  judgment,  written  by  Judge  Skweyiya,  first  looked  at  the  technical  legal  requirements  for  granting  an  order  that  prevents  someone  from  taking  certain  actions  (called  an  interdict).    According  to  ordinary  legal  requirements,  a  judge  is  only  allowed  to  grant  an  interdict  if  it  is  proved  that  a  clear  right  is  being  threatened  and  if  there  is  no  other  remedy  for  the  situation.    The  same  requirements  would  apply  to  all  the  other  North  West  cases  in  which  similar  court  orders  have  been  granted  in  the  past.  The  Constitutional  Court  said  that  the  kgosi  and  traditional  council  had  not  proved  that  any  of  their  rights  were   being   threatened   by   the   proposed  meeting   in   the   evidence   before   the  High  Court.      The   kgosi   and  traditional   council   tried   to   argue   that   they   had   an   exclusive   right   to   act   as   traditional   authorities   in   the  community.     They  argued  further  that  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  were  threatening  to  usurp  their  identity  and  exclusive  right  by  calling  themselves  the  Motlhabe  traditional  authority  and  calling  meetings  to  ????????????????????????????????????????????  However,  the  Constitutional  Court  pointed  out  that  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  were  not  trying  to  claim   the   authority   of   the   kgosi   and   traditional   council   as   their   own   ?   instead,   they   were   explicitly  acknowledging  the  separate  existence  of  that  authority  by  wanting  to  discuss  breaking  away  from  it.    The  ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  were  trying  to  assume  the  identity  of  the  senior  traditional  leader  or  traditional  council.  Since   the   legal   requirements   for  granting  an   interdict  were  not  met,   the  Constitutional  Court  overturned  ?????????????????????????????????????  The   Constitutional   Court   then   looked   at   the   constitutional   rights   that  would   be   infringed   if   Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  were  prohibited  from  holding  meetings  to  discuss  their  concerns  about  governance  in  the  community  and  the  possibility  of  splitting  off  from  the  larger  group.    Prohibiting  such  meetings  would  ???????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????association   (section   18)   in   the   Constitution.      The   Court   said   that   democracy   and   accountability   is  strengthened   by   allowing   opposing   voices   to   be   heard   and  warned   that   the   law  would   not   tolerate   the  kgosi  and  traditional  council  using  the  courts  to  silence  criticism  against  their  leadership.  The  Court  therefore  emphasised  that  people  living  in  traditional  communities  have  the  right  to  meet  for  discussions  about  possibly  breaking  away  from  a  larger  group.     This  right  could  be  restricted  in  terms  of  the  Constitution,  only  ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????(section  36).     However,   in   this   case   the  kgosi   and   traditional   council   did  not  prove   that   the   rights  of  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  were  allowed  to  be  restricted  in  this  way.    OTHER  IMPORTANT  COMMENTS  MADE  BY  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  COURT  An  important  comment  made  by  the  Constitutional  Court  in  the  case  is  that,  because  officially  recognised  traditional   leaders   and   traditional   councils   perform   public   functions   in   terms   of   statute   law   and   the  Constitution,   they   are   organs   of   state.      What   this   means   is   that   traditional   leaders   and   councils   must  function   in   an   open,   accountable   and   democratic   manner   similar   to   government.      However,   the  Constitutional  Court  also  acknowledged  that  other  forms  and  institutions  of  customary  leadership  can  co-­‐exist  alongside  officially  recognised  structures.    This  implies  that  a  person  could  function  as  a  customarily  recognised   leader   in   a   community   without   the   Premier   having   issued   that   person   with   a   certificate   of  recognition.    In  this  way  the  Court  emphasised  that  the  authority  of  traditional  structures  has  its  source  in  customary  law,  not  in  official  government  recognition.  3    WHAT  DID  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  COURT  NOT  DEAL  WITH  IN  THE  JUDGMENT?  The  majority  Court  did  not  decide  outright  whether  or  not  a  portion  of  community  members  can  split  off  from  a  larger  traditional  community  under  statute  law  or  customary  law.    The  Court  also  did  not  decide  the  question  of  whether  under  customary   law  anybody  can  call  a  traditional  community  meeting  (specifically  ????????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????ent)   or   whether   only   a   senior   traditional   leader   or   his  traditional  council   is  allowed  to  do  so.    The  issue  decided  by  the  Court  was  whether  it  was  correct  under  common  law  for  Judge  Landman  to  stop  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  from  calling  meetings  without  permission  and  to  stop  them  from  using  certain  names  when  referring  to  themselves.      DID  ANY  JUDGES  DECIDE  DIFFERENTLY  IN  THE  CASE?  A  small  minority  of   judges   in  the  Constitutional  Court,  consisting  of  Judge  Mogoeng  and  Judge  Nkabinde,  decided  the  case  differently  to  the  other  eight   judges.     They  thought  that  Judge  Landman  was  correct  to  grant   a   court   order   to   stop   Mr   Mmuthi   Pilane   and   Mr   Dintwe   from   calling   meetings   to   discuss   the  possibility  of  breaking  away  from  the  larger  community.    These  two  judges  were  primarily  concerned  with  what   they   perceived   as   a   potential   for   disorder,   chaos,   lawlessness   and   the   undermining   of   official  traditional   authorities.      They   implied   that   the   need   for   order   in   the   broader   traditional   community  superseded  the  basic  tenets  of  democratic  governance  and  the  constitutional  rights  of  Mr  Mmuthi  Pilane  and  Mr  Dintwe  to  freely  associate  and  express  themselves.  Since  they  were  outnumbered  by  a  majority,  the  decisions  of  these  two  judges  have  no  authority   in   law.    The   law  that  applies   from  the  time  of  the   judgment   is  that  which  was  established  in  the  decisions  of  the  majority  judges.    ______________________________________________  

Pilane v. Pilane: a summary of the Constitutional Court judgment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Cape Town University OpenUCT