Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others CCT1. ZACC 1. 1 2. 00. At a White House press conference today, President Trump accused former FBI director James Comey of perjuring himself before the US Senatea very serious charge. BCLR 1. 39. 9 CC 2. SA 4. 16 CC 1. August 2. I. Introduction. This. case concerns an important question relating to the role of the. This issue lies at the. The Court is required to answer. The first question concerns. Court may. interfere in the processes of a legislative body in order to. In particular, whether it is competent for. Court to interfere during the legislative process before a. The third. question concerns the issue whether this Court is the only court. These. issues arise out of a constitutional complaint brought directly to. Archives and past articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, and Philly. Billing Program Amicus Attorney Anywhere' title='Billing Program Amicus Attorney Anywhere' />Court by Doctors for Life International, the applicant. National Council of Provinces NCOP. Bills as required. Following. a brief review of the facts, I will identify the issues for. II. Factual. background. Parliament. has enacted four health statutes, namely, the Choice on Termination. Pregnancy Amendment Act 3. CTOP. Amendment Act. Sterilisation Amendment Act 3 of 2. Traditional Health. Practitioners Act 3. THP Act and the Dental. Technicians Amendment Act 2. The constitutional challenge. I shall collectively call the. The applicants. complaint is that during the. NCOP and the provincial legislatures. Constitution, respectively. In terms of section 7. NCOP must. facilitate. Section 1. 181a contains a. The applicant accepts that the National Assembly has fulfilled its. This, the applicant says. National Assembly by inviting members of. National Portfolio Committee on. Health and also by holding public hearings on the. That process, the applicant maintains, complied with section. Torrent Decoder Pack 8.8 Mpeg-2 here. Constitution. 1. The applicant alleges that the NCOP and the various provincial. This is what. the duty to facilitate public involvement required of them. The. constitutional challenge was initially directed at the Speaker of. National Assembly and the Chairperson of the NCOP only. Speakers of the nine provincial legislatures and the Minister of. Health were subsequently joined as further respondents. I shall refer to all respondents collectively as the respondents. The. respondents deny the charge by the applicant. They maintain that. NCOP and the various provincial legislatures complied. They also take issue with the scope of the duty. While. conceding that the duty to facilitate public involvement. The. applicant has approached this Court directly. It alleges that this. Court is the only court that has jurisdiction over the. Parliament has fulfilled its constitutional obligations. Court to consider such disputes is conferred. Constitution. That section. Constitutional Court may. Parliament. has failed to fulfil a constitutional. The respondents did not contest any of this. There is therefore. But. the question whether this Court has exclusive jurisdiction in this. When. the applicant launched the present proceedings it was under the. But, as it turned out, all of the legislation except the. Sterilisation Amendment Act had been promulgated when these. February 2. 00. 5. This fact was readily ascertainable all along. The challenge. relating to the Sterilisation Amendment Act would have required. Court to intervene during the legislative process. This. raised the question of the competence of this Court. Given the importance of this question. Chief Justice placed it squarely on our. The parties were thus invited to submit written argument on the. III. Issues presented. The. issues that will be considered in this judgment are therefore. Does this Court have exclusive jurisdiction over the present. Constitution bIs it competent under our constitutional order for declaratory. What is the nature and the scope of the duty to facilitate. Constitution dDid the NCOP and the provincial legislatures comply with their. If the process followed by the NCOP and the provincial. Constitution, what. I. now turn to consider these issues. IV. Does this Court have exclusive jurisdiction over the present. Whether. the applicant is entitled to come directly to this Court in regard. NCOP depends on whether. Constitution. The contention. Court has exclusive jurisdiction. NCOP to. facilitate public involvement in its legislative processes and. If both of these propositions are. Court. The first of these propositions, namely, that the provisions of. Section. 7. 21a provides that the NCOP must. The use of the word must in this context denotes an. It is plain from the wording of section 7. Considering the provisions of section 5. One Unprecedented 2015 more. National. equivalent of section 7. Supreme Court of. Appeal in King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of. Control and Another,6. Parliament to. facilitate public involvement in its legislative processes. This holding is plainly correct. The conclusion that section. NCOP to facilitate public. The. merits of the second proposition must be considered at some length. It raises the question of the proper meaning of the phrase. This question. is difficult to resolve. Section 1. 674e confers exclusive. Court to decide disputes concerning a failure. Parliament or the President to fulfil a constitutional. This provision must be construed in the light of the. Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Courts to. Act of. Parliament, a provincial Act or any conduct of the President. These are very wide powers indeed. The. provisions of section 1. President will be considered, in the first instance, by the. High Courts or the Supreme Court of Appeal, which are given the. Constitution invalid, subject to confirmation by this Court. The difficulty is that a statute may be invalid for at least two. It may be invalid because its provisions are in conflict. Bill of Rights. Or it may be invalid because. Constitution. What compounds the difficulty is that in a. Constitution is supreme. Constitution imposes certain obligations on the exercise of. Consider. for example, section 72 of the Constitution, which provides that. Bill of Rights. This provision no doubt imposes. Bill of Rights. But it can hardly be suggested. Court has exclusive jurisdiction. Parliament has failed to fulfil. Bill of Rights. Were this to be so, it would. In fact it would be contrary to section 1. Supreme Court. of Appeal and the High. Courts have the jurisdiction to consider the validity of an Act of. Parliament. The Supreme Court of Appeal. High Court would have. In. the case of a law that infringes a right in the Bill of Rights, the. Bill. of Rights. Although, inevitably this means that Parliament. It concerns. validity of the impugned law and not the failure to fulfil an. Sections 1. 675 and 1. Constitution. contemplate that such disputes will be considered in the first. High Courts, which are given the power to declare. Court. In doing so. High Court would not be deciding whether Parliament has. Bill of Rights. What. If the phrase is construed as applying to all questions. Acts of Parliament. Supreme Court of Appeal. High Courts to make orders concerning the validity. Parliament. In President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South. African Rugby Football Union and Others SARFU 1,1. Court, in the context of the conduct of the President. Supreme Court of Appeal and the High. Courts to make orders concerning the constitutional validity of the. President. 1. 1. While finding it unnecessary to define the phrase fulfil a. Court expressed the view that. President. 1. 2. In my view, there is no reason why this should not apply to the. Parliament. In. the Supreme Court of Appeal had to consider whether it had. National Assembly to facilitate public involvement in its.