Consumers’ perspectives on multiracial advertising in a South African context

Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, provides that everyone has a right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being. However, the protection of the environment faces challenges, such as the failure of municipalities to provide safe and sufficient drinking water, regularly collect waste and effectively deal with the spillage of sewage into water courses, amongst others. The imminent collapse of local government, which impacts all social, environmental and economic aspects of sustainability, intensifies these failures. Several mechanisms help ensure that municipalities fulfil their constitutional and legislative obligations – including those related to the protection of substantive and procedural environmental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Among these are civil protests and judicially ordered provincial interventions into failing municipalities. However, little attention has been paid to the role of Chapter 9 institutions in ensuring that local government respects, protects, promotes and fulfils its environmental rights obligations. Drawing on a mix of literature and the recently decided South African Human Rights Commission v Msunduzi Local Municipality case, this contribution advances the argument that the South African Human Rights Commission has vast potential to help protect and fulfil s 24 of the Constitution and also that litigation seems inevitable in propelling specific action. The authors also consider the interpretation of the constitutional environmental right and the use of structural interdicts in the case of breaches.

The preamble of the Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) contains the commitment to, amongst other things, establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights, lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law and improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person. One of the methods used to achieve these objectives is the inclusion of enforceable socio-economic rights in the Chapter 2 Bill of Rights.
 
 Despite numerous debates surrounding the issue of enforceability of socioeconomic rights, it has become evident that these rights are indeed enforceable. Not only does section 7(2) of the Constitution place the state under an obligation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil all rights in the Bill of Rights, including socio-economic rights, but the Constitutional Court has in various decisions passed judgment on issues relating to socio-economic rights, underpinning the fact that these rights are indeed enforceable.
 
 The fact that socio-economic rights have been included in the Bill of Rights and are enforceable is, however, not sufficient to achieve the aims set out in the preamble. In order for these rights to be of any value to the people they seek to protect, they need to be implemented. One of the ways in which the implementation of these rights is monitored is by means of the South African Human Rights Commission's annual Economic and Social Rights Reports. The aim of this contribution is to assess these reports and to establish the degree to which they contribute to good governance in South Africa with reference to, inter alia, the constitutional mandate of the South African Human Rights Commission, the reporting procedure and the evaluation of reports.

This chapter assesses the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) against a number of referents provided by the holistic evaluative model. It briefly explains the nature of the holistic evaluation model. The chapter presents an extended analysis of the behavior, performance and promise of the SAHRC, as well as a discussion of the extent to which it has contributed to social change in South Africa. In terms of assessing the SAHRC's accessibility through observing the extent of public awareness of its existence and functions, it is pertinent to observe that, as the SAHRC has itself noted, the extent of its physical presence country-wide does affect its visibility. There is thus a connection between the three sub-aspects of accessibility. The Commission has made strenuous efforts to improve its visibility and raise the level of awareness within South Africa (and even beyond) about its very existence and functions. Keywords: Ireland; South Africa's Interim Constitution; South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)

This article considers case law where the courts have held that the South African Human Rights Commission does not have the power to make a definitive finding that a right has been violated, or issue binding directives to remedy a violation of human rights. It is argued in this article that these decisions cannot be faulted as it was not the intention of the constitutional drafters to create a Commission with binding powers. It is also not a requirement in terms of the international framework for national human rights commissions to have binding power. Furthermore, where foreign jurisdictions have sought to provide binding power to its human rights commissions, it has explicitly awarded such binding power either in the constitutional text or in the enabling legislation. This article argues that the Commission must use its soft power to establish respect for human rights and a culture of human rights, and should not adopt an adversarial approach. The Commission should therefore enter into dialogue with the relevant parties where it concerns the alleged violation of human rights, and the relevant parties would have an obligation to participate in this dialogue in protecting the integrity and effectiveness of the Commission.

Constitutionalism is central to achieve good governance in Africa, and the role of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) in this regard is affirmed in Article 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other laws. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Nigerian National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) have ‘A’ status accreditation which suggests that both institutions are substantially in compliance with the Paris Principles. However, there remains the issue of whether the ‘A’ status reflects their viability or otherwise in reality. Through the lenses of legislative framework, qualification and appointments, financial autonomy and the nature of their recommendations, this article examines the ability of both institutions to effectively perform their functions towards the achievement of good governance. Thus, using doctrinal and comparative law methodologies, this article finds that while NHRC falls short in terms of legislative framework and other indicators like financial autonomy, appointment and dismissal, the SAHRC relatively meets the standard of the Paris Principle though with challenges. Although the Paris Principles provides that ordinary legislation is acceptable legal framework, such is not sufficient in the context of Nigeria. Therefore, for ordinary legislation to be regarded as sufficient, the context in which an NHRI operates should be considered. Also, arguments have been made for NHRI’s financial autonomy, it is posited that what is achievable in reality is relative financial autonomy not absolute financial autonomy. On recommendations, judicial decisions including the South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data held SAHRC’s recommendations as non-binding. This article however argues that distinction needs to be drawn between recommendations requiring performance of an act as means to an end, and recommendations determining rights and obligations, as while the former should be binding, the latter may be non-binding to prevent usurpation of judicial powers.

IT HAS BEEN WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED that the South African Human Rights Commission's Inquiry into Racism in the Media was a watershed initiative in the annals of the nascent democratic South Africa. By undertaking the investigation, the Commission demonstrated the advantages of a nonjuridical approach to human rights promotion and protection. In particular, the mechanism of an inquiry serves multiple functions. It gives public expression to the values embedded in our Constitution and thereby it raised awareness of human rights. Second, it showed that ordinary South Africans who have reason to be concerned about violations of human rights would receive a sympathetic hearing. Finally, it demonstrated that everybody, however powerful, is subject to the law and the Constitution and can be made to account for their actions insofar as these affect the human rights of the others. The South African Human Rights Commission is an independent state institution established by law as provided for in the Constitution. National institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights are a recent development in international human rights practice. They have been established in order to ensure application of international human rights norms in the domestic sphere and to monitor the observance of human rights nationally. The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Paris Principles in 1993.1 The Paris Principles define the sphere of operation of national institutions and set out elements for the effective functioning of national institutions. Among these are independence,

This chapter explores the role of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), established in 1995, in promoting human rights education within the schooling system in a transitional context. In the South African post-apartheid environment, the widespread discourse on human rights – linked with the new Constitution, legal reforms and compliance with international standards – facilitated a review of the entire education system, including the curriculum, resourcing of schools and bringing the various racially segregated departments together in one education system. We focus our attention in presenting and analyzing the effort to infuse human rights content and values within the curriculum reform efforts as part of the strategy of reconstruction of South African society. In this chapter we will show that there were competing forces influencing curriculum reform, with the SAHRC’s more ambitious goal to have “transformative” HRE infused throughout the curriculum reduced to one that was less ambitious in both scope and depth.

The Constitution of South Africa, 1996, is committed to redressing poverty and inequality. This is evident in its inclusion of a range of justiciable socio-economic rights along with a strong substantive right to equality and non-discrimination. The South African Human Rights Commission is a state institution established by the Constitution to support constitutional democracy. It has wide-ranging powers to investigate, monitor and protect human rights, including an express constitutional mandate in relation to socio-economic rights. This article examines how it has sought to apply its constitutional and legislative mandates to various manifestations of poverty and economic inequality in South Africa. It focuses on three broad areas of the Commission’s work with a view to identifying its achievements as well as some of the key challenges it has faced. Based on this analysis, the article concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of the experience of the Commission for fourth branch institutions, specifically national human rights institutions, that apply a human rights lens to poverty and economic inequality.

There has been limited research into the activity of South Africa’s national independent human rights institutions (NIHRIs) and their roles in protecting and promoting the rights of children. This article attempts to address this gap by analysing the mandate and the effectiveness of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) in respect of children’s rights. The mandate and the work of the SAHRC are assessed against the guidelines issued by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The article shows that the SAHRC largely complies with the above general guidelines, although improvements are required in terms of the specificity of the mandate pertaining to children, priority given to the rights of children, the diversity of rights issues addressed by the SAHRC, as well as promoting, protecting and monitoring the right of the child to be heard. Positive practices from foreign jurisdictions are used to suggest improvements to the activity of the Commission.

South Africa has a undemocratic past. This past spans centuries of colonialism and decades of the apartheid regime. The adoption of South Africa’s Constitution in 1996 completed the transition to a constitutional democracy and provided the foundation for a new state and society.The redress of historical inequality lie at the heart of South Africa’s post-apartheid Constitution. The inclusion of justiciable socio-economic in the Bill of Rights was globally considered progressive and distinctive. In addition, South Africa’s inclusion of these rights demonstrated that socio-economic rights were also fundamental to rebuilding a nation and eradicating the inequality that characterised apartheid.Central to the effective realization of the range of human rights protected in South Africa’s Constitution are a number of institutions established for the purpose of strengthening constitutional democracy. This article analyses the main activities and assesses the role of the South African Human Rights Commission in the ensuring of realisation of socio-economic rights in the country.

The preamble of the Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution)contains the commitment to, amongst other things, establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights, lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law and improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person. One of the methods used to achieve these objectives is the inclusion of enforceable socio-economic rights in the Chapter 2 Bill of Rights. Despite numerous debates surrounding the issue of enforceability of socioeconomic rights, it has become evident that these rights are indeed enforceable. Not only does section 7(2) of the Constitution place the state under an obligation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil all rights in the Bill of Rights, including socio-economic rights, but the Constitutional Court has in various decisions passed judgment on issues relating to socio-economic rights, underpinning the fact that these rights are indeed enforceable. The fact that socio-economic rights have been included in the Bill of Rights and are enforceable is, however, not sufficient to achieve the aims set out in the preamble. In order for these rights to be of any value to the people they seek to protect, they need to be implemented. One of the ways in which the implementation of these rights is monitored is by means of the South African Human Rights Commission's annual Economic and Social Rights Reports. The aim of this contribution is to assess these reports and to establish the degree to which they contribute to good governance in South Africa with reference to,inter alia, the constitutional mandate of the South African Human RightsCommission, the reporting procedure and the evaluation of reports.

How journalists report race and racism was at the centre of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) Inquiry into racism in the media. A critical analysis of the conceptual assumptions in the Inquiry's Final Report, however, reveals serious limitations to the enterprise. In particular the flawed conceptualisations, plus the generalised character of the findings are of little help in assisting the momentum of eradicating racism in South African media, and for linking race transformation to issues of class, gender, sexual orientation and xenophobia. This article identifies the problems as race essentialism and a relativism about what constitutes racism. It argues instead that journalists need the concept of racialisation in order to change their reporting. The argument upholds the desired role of the South African media as one that contributes to a non-racial, as opposed to a multi-racial, society.

This article takes a "second look" at the place of the South African Human Rights Commission and its role in the promotion of socioeconomic rights through monitoring. It argues that a "first look" at understanding drew heavily on international concepts of monitoring, including those of violations and progressive realization. These concepts have proven to be of limited usefulness in a national context where the justiciability of socioeconomic rights has been achieved. This "second look" proposes an alternative model of national monitoring of socioeconomic rights, based on greater participation, transparency, and a constitutional right of access to information.

In South African Human Rights Commission v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2023 (3) SA 36 (CC), the Constitutional Court held that a bank is not obliged to take a foreclosure matter to the magistrate’s court, even if the magistrate’s court has jurisdiction over the matter. The apex court confirmed that a court is not entitled to decline to hear a matter properly brought before it because another court has concurrent jurisdiction. Before this decision, the Gauteng and Eastern Cape Divisions of the High Court both found that the High Court was entitled to decline to hear a matter if the matter fell within the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court. These decisions were taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which upheld the appeal and found that the High Court has no power to refuse to hear a matter falling within its jurisdiction on the ground that another court has concurrent jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court has now confirmed the decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal, finding that complex matters such as foreclosure applications deserve more judicial scrutiny, and ought to be heard by the High Court.

The environmental right, as provided in section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Constitution), read with section 7(2), places a positive duty upon all three government spheres to realise this right. This duty thus also befalls every municipality in the country. From time to time this right is adjudicated in the context of municipal governance. This note is premised on the judgment handed down in the case South African Human Rights Commission v Msunduzi Local Municipality (8407/2020P) [2021] ZAKZPHC 35 (17 June 2021). In this case the court found the Msunduzi Local Municipality to have breached section 24 of the Constitution and related legislative provisions. In addition to the declaratory order granted against the Msunduzi Local Municipality, the court further ordered a structural interdict as a way to enforce compliance on the part of the Municipality. Against this backdrop this paper examines the use of a structural interdict as a remedy to achieve judicial enforcement when municipalities breach constitutional and statutory environmental law. The meaning and relevance of the structural interdict in relation to local government are discussed with reference to the South African judiciary's historical application of structural relief in some of the most prominent socio-economic rights cases.