Browsing by Author "Pierre, De Vos"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Prisoners' rights litigation in South Africa since 1994: a critical evaluation(Law, Democracy & Development, 2005) Pierre, De VosIt is a sad fact that there is often a huge gap in South Africa between the constitutional promise of a life lived with dignity and respect, on the one hand, and the actual lived reality of people who are supposed to be protected by that Constitution, on the other. The hearings at the Jali Commission of Inquiry into the system of corrections in South Africa have revealed that many prisoners' are incarcerated in circumstances that fall far short of those guaranteed them in the South African Constitution. This article is based, in part, on a number of interviews conducted with human-rights practitioners directly involved in prisoners' rights litigation in South Africa. To gather background information about the problems relating to the administration inside the Department of Correctional Services, I also interviewed other experts who have worked with the Department in the past.i- The article furthermore relies on academic writing and press reports.Item South African prisoner's right to vote(Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, 2004) Pierre, De VosThe South African Constitution states that every adult citizen has the right to vote. There has therefore been some legal controversy around the questions of whether it would be unconstitutional to limit the right of any prisoner to cast a vote in national elections. Before the last Parliamentary and Provincial national election in 1999 a group of prisoners challenged and order of the Electoral Commission which excluded all prisoners from voting. In the case of August and Another v Electoral Commission and Others. The Constitutional Court declared this action by the Commission invalid. However, the judgment did not authoritatively answer the question of whether prisoners could be denied the vote because the Court relied on the fact that the Commission had not acted in terms of a law of general limitation and their action could therefore not be constitutionally justified in terms of the limitation clause. When Parliament therefore amended the Electoral Act in 2003 to, in effect, deprive convicted prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment without the option of a fine of the right to participate in elections, it was predictable that the amendments would be challenged in Court. This duly happened and in Minister of Home Affairs v National Institute for Crime Prevention (NICRO) the Constitutional Court declared these amendments invalid. In this addendum I discuss the reasoning employed by the Court in this case, point out that the Court did not shy away from its Constitutional responsibilities to protect the unpopular and marginalised prison population and conclude that the case bodes well for any future prisoner’s rights litigation.