South African Constitutional Law: Key Cases & Constitution

Question 1

In the block below is ChatGPT’s verbatim answer (with the original errors included) to the question: “The Constitutional Court has generally affirmed its reluctance to interfere in the power of the legislature and the executive to determine their own internal arrangements, procedures, and exercise of power. Is this statement true or false?”

The statement is broadly TRUE, but it needs an important qualification.

The Constitutional Court has generally recognised judicial restraint when matters concern the internal functioning, procedures and powers of another branch of government. This is grounded in the separation of powers doctrine and the principle of institutional comity.

For example, in Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly (2006), the Court stated that Parliament must generally be free to carry out its functions without judicial interference and that courts must respect the constitutional limits on their authority. However, the Court also made clear that judicial restraint does not mean that courts are powerless where constitutional obligations have been breached.

The position remains applicable in recent Constitutional Court jurisprudence. In Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly (2026), the Court said that it is “ordinarily slow to intrude” into Parliament’s functional domain, particularly where political judgment and majority decision-making are involved. Nevertheless, intervention is required where Parliament fails to fulfil a specific constitutional obligation.

Similarly, the Court has recognised that Parliament has constitutional authority to determine and control its internal arrangements, proceedings and procedures, subject to the Constitution and the law.

The important qualification

I would not state the proposition as meaning that the Constitutional Court simply refuses to interfere with the legislature or executive.

The more accurate formulation is:

The Constitutional Court generally exercises restraint when reviewing the internal arrangements, procedures and exercise of constitutional powers of other branches, in accordance with separation of powers and institutional comity, but it will intervene where necessary to enforce the Constitution, legality, or a specific constitutional obligation.

This distinction is particularly important after EFF I, EFF II and subsequent cases. The Court’s approach is deference, not immunity from judicial review.

Answer: TRUE — provided “reluctance to interfere” is understood as judicial restraint rather than an absolute prohibition on intervention.

Disagree with ChatGPT’s superficial, vague, unreferenced and meaningless answer by relying on specific and detailed application of theory from the prescribed textbook, case law and provisions of the Constitution to substantiate your answer.  (22 marks)

QUESTION 2:

For Assessment 1, the instructions were clear, reasonable and explicit: use of artificial intelligence was prohibited. Any other non-compliance with the explicit and reasonable instructions, such as refusing to insert footnotes in the OSCOLA referencing style or referring to sources outside of the stipulated prescribed material would also result in a mark of 0. On the due date, many students submitted their assignments in a format not compatible with Turnitin so no Turnitin report could be generated; where artificial intelligence was abundantly clear and no footnotes included in the answers. Many students then asked for “another chance” to submit Assessment 1.

• On what basis in Constitutional Law is the lecturer obliged to reject such requests?  (6 marks)
  • Hypothetically, if the lecturer were to give some student an additional opportunity, but not all students, which institution would have the jurisdiction to investigate this matter?     (6 marks)

QUESTION 3:

Below is a set of 4 cases. Identify which of these cases is the odd one out and explain in detail why you believe that it is this particular case that is the odd one out.

• Mansingh v General Council of the Bar and Others 2014 (2) SA 26 (CC).
• President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Hugo 1997 (4) SA 1 (CC).
• President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others 2000 (1) SA 147 (CC).
• Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 1995 (4) SA 877 (CC).

QUESTION 4:

Explain what the authors of the prescribed textbook mean when they use the phrase “integrated model of federalism”. What other terms are also used in the textbook to explain this same concept?                                                                                                                                   (10 marks)

QUESTION 5:

What percentage is required in terms of the Constitution for the following decisions to take effect? Provide the percentage as well as which provisions of the Constitution apply to explain and substantiate your answers.

1. Any and all issues tabled in the National Assembly (except the amendment of section 1 of the Constitution).                                                                                                 (3 marks)
   1. Impeachment of the President.                                                                           (3 marks)

• The national legislature threshold for an amendment to section 1 of the Constitution.           (3 marks)
  • The quorum (number of Members of Parliament) who must be in attendance before a vote may take place.                                                                                                               (3 marks)
  • The vote by the NCOP in respect of a Bill passed by the NA that does not directly impact the provinces.                                                                                                                          (3 marks)
  • The number of provinces required to agree on amendment of section 1 of the Constitution.            (3 marks)
  • Removal of the Cabinet (excluding the President) due to political reasons.

Experts Answer on Above Questions on South African Constitutional Law

Agreement/Disagreement with ChatGPT Answers

With respect to the given statement, it is true only if reluctance to interfere implies constitutional judicial restraint, not immunity from review. The answer provided by chat GPT is superficial because it does not identify the constitutional basis for the restraint or differentiate institutional autonomy from unconstitutional conduct which is generally exercised by the constitutional Court and this therefore does not prevent intervention where constitutional limits are breached.

Rejection of Requests by Lecturers

The lecturer may refuse the second submission when the assessment rules are clearly stated in terms of prohibited AI use and requires OSCOLA compliance and turnitin submissions. But it is important that any kind of refusal should comply with lawfulness, fairness and equality. The relevant institutions include the South African Human Rights Commission where a constitutional equality issue arises.

Identification of Odd One Case

The odd one out is Mansingh v General Council of Bar 2014 (2) SA26 (CC)
This particular case primarily concerned the president’s power to confer status under section 84(2)(k), whereas in other cases, focus is mainly on dealing directly with the separation of powers and executive authority.

Analysis of the Phrase “Integrated Model of Federalism

In respect to the South African economy, it follows integrated/cooperative federalism. National, provincial and local governments have different but interdependent and interrelated powers under section 40(1). As per section 41, it requires cooperative government.

Percentage Required for the Constitution for the Following Decisions to Take Effect

With respect to the issue of ordinary national assembly decision, the required threshold is the majority of votes cast. For the removal of the president, the threshold needed is two thirds of NA members. The issue of amendment of section 1 needs 75% of NA along with six provinces. The NA quorum for bills needs a majority of members while NA quorum for other questions need one-third of members. The issue of ordinary NCOP bills needs a majority of votes cast and the issue of no confidence motion against the cabinet needs majority of NA members.

Want Detailed Answers with References?

The analysis of separation of power, federalism, constitutional voting thresholds, and key South African Constitutional Court cases above revealed significant findings. With our law assignment expert in South Africa, you can expect to get assistance with your law assignment. Simply visit our assignment writing service page in South Africa to get a professional law expert, or explore the solved assignment answers from UNISA before deciding to proceed with your assignment.