| Summary: | Section 33(1)(b) is fraught with borrowed provisions. The end-product marries
German and Canadian features. The failure of the German Constitutional
Courts to interpret the "essential content of a right" precipitated the adopted
infant's bumpy landing in South Africa. That the sibling still lacks identity is
evidenced by our Constitutional Court's evasive and superficial treatment of the
clause. Section 33(1)(a) - proportionality prong enables judges to justify their
neglect of Section 33(1)(b). The opinion is expressed that Section 33(1){b)
demands interpretation but to date it has been shrouded in vagueness. After
all without demarcating boundaries with sufficient precision and highlighting
where the State may not tread the State may trespass. Alternatively the
limitable nature of human rights could become a myth as Section 33(1)(b) could
be transformed into an insurmountable hurdle for the State, rendering every
right absolute in practice. A workable conceptual framework proposes an
inverted, porous and value imbibing solution. === Law === LL.M.
|
|---|
