dc.contributor.author | Slade, Bradley | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-03-04T08:06:48Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-03-04T08:06:48Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Slade, B. 2021. Reviewing the Speaker's decision : a brief synopsis of UDM v Speaker of the National Assembly 2017 5 SA 300 (CC). Potchefstroomse elektroniese regsblad = Potchefstroom electronic law journal, 2021(24):1-20 [http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-
3781/2021/v24i0a811] | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1727-3781 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10394/38749 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-
3781/2021/v24i0a8111 | |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |
dc.language | English | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | PER/PELJ | en_US |
dc.subject | Separation of powers | en_US |
dc.subject | Judicial review | en_US |
dc.subject | Judicial restraint | en_US |
dc.subject | Legality | en_US |
dc.subject | Rationality | en_US |
dc.subject | Administrative law | en_US |
dc.title | Reviewing the Speaker's decision : a brief synopsis of UDM v Speaker of the National Assembly 2017 5 SA 300 (CC) | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |