The offence of intimidation has been associated with controversy, particularly because of the his... more The offence of intimidation has been associated with controversy, particularly because of the historical link between the Intimidation Act (72 of 1982) and the legislative machinations of the apartheid regime. In the words of Gamble J, the Act may be regarded as “a piece of apartheid order legislation introduced at a time of increasingly repressive internal security legislation designed to criminalise conduct, largely in the field of resistance politics” (Sandlana v Minister of Police 2023 (2) SACR 84 (WCC) par 34). The nature and ambit of the intimidation offence has once again come under scrutiny in the recent case of S v White (2022 (2) SACR 511 (FB)). The decision in this case is examined here in the context of a general assessment of the offence. The offence can now only be committed by contravening section 1(1)(a) of the Act, as the Constitutional Court has struck down the section 1(1)(b) provision (as well as section 1(2)) as unconstitutional in Moyo v Minister of Police (202...
In the Constitutional Court judgment of S v Thunzi and Mlonzi 2010 (10) BCLR 983 (CC) the court h... more In the Constitutional Court judgment of S v Thunzi and Mlonzi 2010 (10) BCLR 983 (CC) the court had to deal with a consequence of constitutional transition: 'incongruities and anomalies' that were bound to arise from the integration of the separate legislative regimes in the former TBVC (Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei) states (at para [4]). The court noted that there were 'two identical statutes in the same national territory, dealing with the same subject-matter and designated by the same act number and year': the national Dangerous Weapons Act 71 of 1968 (SA) and the Dangerous Weapons Act 71 of 1968 (Transkei) (at para [4]). The difference between the two statutes was that in terms of section 4 of the Transkei Act, a harsher sentencing regime was applicable (at para [11]). Although the matter was not fully argued before them, the Constitutional Court questioned the constitutionality of the dual systems, raised the question whether there was not a constitutional obligation on Parliament to establish uniform legislation, and ultimately required Parliament to notify the court of steps it had taken to rationalise the situation into uniform national legislation (at paras [65]-[72]. See also the Memorandum on the Objects of the Dangerous Weapons Bill, 2012 at 5 (GN 606 in GG 34579, 2010/09/02)).
The offence of intimidation has been associated with controversy, particularly because of the his... more The offence of intimidation has been associated with controversy, particularly because of the historical link between the Intimidation Act (72 of 1982) and the legislative machinations of the apartheid regime. In the words of Gamble J, the Act may be regarded as “a piece of apartheid order legislation introduced at a time of increasingly repressive internal security legislation designed to criminalise conduct, largely in the field of resistance politics” (Sandlana v Minister of Police 2023 (2) SACR 84 (WCC) par 34). The nature and ambit of the intimidation offence has once again come under scrutiny in the recent case of S v White (2022 (2) SACR 511 (FB)). The decision in this case is examined here in the context of a general assessment of the offence. The offence can now only be committed by contravening section 1(1)(a) of the Act, as the Constitutional Court has struck down the section 1(1)(b) provision (as well as section 1(2)) as unconstitutional in Moyo v Minister of Police (202...
In the Constitutional Court judgment of S v Thunzi and Mlonzi 2010 (10) BCLR 983 (CC) the court h... more In the Constitutional Court judgment of S v Thunzi and Mlonzi 2010 (10) BCLR 983 (CC) the court had to deal with a consequence of constitutional transition: 'incongruities and anomalies' that were bound to arise from the integration of the separate legislative regimes in the former TBVC (Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei) states (at para [4]). The court noted that there were 'two identical statutes in the same national territory, dealing with the same subject-matter and designated by the same act number and year': the national Dangerous Weapons Act 71 of 1968 (SA) and the Dangerous Weapons Act 71 of 1968 (Transkei) (at para [4]). The difference between the two statutes was that in terms of section 4 of the Transkei Act, a harsher sentencing regime was applicable (at para [11]). Although the matter was not fully argued before them, the Constitutional Court questioned the constitutionality of the dual systems, raised the question whether there was not a constitutional obligation on Parliament to establish uniform legislation, and ultimately required Parliament to notify the court of steps it had taken to rationalise the situation into uniform national legislation (at paras [65]-[72]. See also the Memorandum on the Objects of the Dangerous Weapons Bill, 2012 at 5 (GN 606 in GG 34579, 2010/09/02)).
Uploads