Dating irect

The applicant alleges that the NCOP and the various provincial legislatures were likewise required to invite written submissions and hold public hearings on the health legislation.This is what the duty to facilitate public involvement required of them, the applicant maintains. There is therefore no dispute between the parties as to whether this Court has exclusive jurisdiction in this matter under section 167(4)(e).Its complaint is that the National Council of Provinces (“NCOP”), in passing certain health bills, failed to invite written submissions and conduct public hearings on these Bills as required by its duty to facilitate public involvement in its legislative processes and those of its committees. and [those of] its committees.” Section 118(1)(a) contains a similar provision relating to a provincial legislature.Parliament has enacted four health statutes, namely, the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act 38 of 2004 (“the CTOP Amendment Act”); the Sterilisation Amendment Act 3 of 2005; the Traditional Health Practitioners Act 35 of 2004 (“the THP Act”); and the Dental Technicians Amendment Act 24 of 2004. facilitate public involvement in [its] legislative and other processes . The applicant accepts that the National Assembly has fulfilled its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in connection with the health legislation.

dating irect-1dating irect-67

The difficulty is that a statute may be invalid for at least two reasons.But it can hardly be suggested that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the validity of a statute that violates those rights because in enacting that statute, Parliament has failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil rights in the Bill of Rights.Were this to be so, it would undermine the role of other courts.What compounds the difficulty is that in a constitutional state like ours, where the Constitution is supreme, the Constitution imposes certain obligations on the exercise of legislative authority.Consider, for example, section 7(2) of the Constitution, which provides that “[t]he state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.” This provision no doubt imposes an obligation on the state to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.The jurisdiction of this Court to consider such disputes is conferred by section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution. (a) Does this Court have exclusive jurisdiction over the present dispute under section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution?

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!