Reviewing the Speaker's Decision: A Brief Synopsis of UDM v Speaker of the National Assembly 2017 5 SA 300 (CC)
Keywords:Separation of powers, judicial review, judicial restraint, legality, rationality, administrative law
In United Democratic Movement v Speaker of the National Assembly 2017 5 SA 300 (CC), the Constitutional Court set out certain factors that the Speaker of the National Assembly must consider when deciding the manner in which voting in a motion of no confidence proceeding must be conducted. These factors would ostensibly also be relevant when the Speaker's decision as to the proper voting procedure is reviewed in future.
This note considers the law governing the review of the Speaker's decisions and finds that although the Speaker's decision is reviewable in South African law, after the UDM decision there is still uncertainty as to whether the Speaker's decision can be reviewed only on the basis of legality or whether it constitutes administrative action reviewable in terms of PAJA. Furthermore, the Court's exposition of certain factors against which the Speaker's decision can now be reviewed creates uncertainty as to whether the review in terms of legality is a basic rationality review as is generally the case or a stricter form of review closer to review that is possible under PAJA.
The argument is that the potential of reviewing the Speaker's decision on the basis of a number of factors that in totality appears to set out a test that is stricter than a basic rationality test may hold severe implications for the separation of powers doctrine, as it now appears that the Court is increasing its supervisory jurisdiction in a manner that is not fully substantiated. Although the Court, or courts in general, has the power to review the exercise of public power in a system of constitutional supremacy, it should consider the impact that its judgments may have on co-equal branches of government, as a failure to do so may negatively impact on the relationship between the different branches of government and dilute the already frayed separation of powers doctrine.
Banda T ʺUnited Democratic Movement v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT89/17)  ZACC 21ʺ 2018 SAIPAR Case Review 16-20
Cachalia F ʺJudicial Review of Parliamentary Rulemaking: A Provisional Case for Restraintʺ (2015-2016) 60 New York Law School Review 379-406
Corder H ʺWithout Deference, with Respect: A Response to Justice O’Reganʺ (2004) 141 SALJ 438-444
Hoexter C Administrative Law in South Africa (Juta Cape Town 2012)
Kavanagh A ʺJudicial Restraint in the Pursuit of Justiceʺ (2010) 60 University of Toronto Law Journal 23-40
Kohn L ʺThe Burgeoning Constitutional Requirement of Rationality and the Separation of Powers: Has Rationality Review Gone too Far?ʺ (2013) 130 SALJ 810-836
O’Regan K ʺA Forum for Reason: Reflections on the Role and Work of the Constitutional Courtʺ (2012) 28 SAJHR 116-134
Okpaluba C ʺCan a Court Review the Internal Affairs and Processes of the Legislature? Contemporary developments in South Africaʺ 2015 Comparative and International Journal of Southern Africa 183-218
Price A ʺRationality Review of Legislation and Executive Decisions: Poverty Alleviation Network and Albuttʺ 2010 SALJ 580-591
Price A ʺThe Content and Justification of Rationality Reviewʺ (2010) 24 SAPL 346-380
Price A ʺThe Evolution of the Rule of Lawʺ (2013) 30 SALJ 649-661
Rautenbach IM ʺRationality Standards of Constitutional Review and the Risk of Judicial Overreachʺ 2018 TSAR 1-17
Sewpersadh P and Mubangizi JC ʺJudicial Review of Administrative and Executive Decisions: Overreach, Activism or Pragmatism?ʺ (2017) 21 Law Democracy & Development 201-220
Van der Sijde E Reconsidering the Relationship between Property and Regulation: A Systemic Constitutional Approach (LLD thesis Stellenbosch University 2015)
Venter R ʺMotions of No Confidence: Parliament’s Check and Checkmateʺ 2014 TSAR
Woolman S ʺA Politics of Accountability: How South Africa’s Judicial Recognition of the Binding Legal Effect of the Public Protector’s Recommendations had a Catalysing Effect that Brought down a Presidentʺ 2018 CCR 155-192
Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation 2010 3 SA 293 (CC)
Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs (Bato Star) 2004 4 SA 490 (CC)
Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces v Malema 2016 5 SA 335 (SCA)
Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa 2013 1 SA 248 (CC)
Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly 2018 2 SA 571 (CC)
Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council 1999 1 SA 374 (CC)
Judicial Service Commission v The Cape Bar Council 2013 1 SA 170 (SCA)
Lekota v Speaker of the National Assembly 2015 4 SA 133 (WCC)
Malema v Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces 2015 4 SA 145 (WCC).
Mazibuko v Sisulu 2013 6 SA 249 (CC)
Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau 2014 5 SA 69 (CC)
National Treasury v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance 2012 6 SA 223 (CC)
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa 2000 2 SA 674 (CC)
S v Manamela 2000 3 SA 1 (CC)
Tlouamma v Mbete, Speaker of the National Assembly 2016 1 SA 634 (WCC)
United Democratic Movement v Speaker of the National Assembly 2017 5 SA 300 (CC)
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
Parliament of South Africa Rules of the National Assembly (9th ed 2016)
Applicant’s Head of Argument (Available at https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/3901?show=full accessed 31 March 2020).
First Respondent’s Heads of Argument (Available at https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/3901?show=full accessed 31 March 2020).
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright in all material published in PER/PELJ vests in the author, provided that authors grant, by submission of their contributions, permission that their contributions may be shared and adapted without restriction. An author furthermore agrees that the same contribution may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of the editor.
Anyone gaining access, electronically or otherwise, to a contribution to PER, may quote from such contribution, use the intellectual content thereof, share and adapt it, but subject to the following conditions:
you must give appropriate credit, provide a link and indicate if changes were made; and
the copyright of the author(s) may not be infringed in any way.