Abstract
This article focuses on the nature of legislative discretions in the hands of the executive authority of the state. Relevant concepts are analysed, followed by an exposition of the position regarding delegation of legislative authority to the executive under the previous constitutional dispensation when the country had a sovereign Parliament. This is followed by a discussion of the legal position in Germany, which shows similarities to the situation in South Africa. It appears that differences in approach to the problem exist worldwide, but one similarity is to be found in all, namely that a complete parliamentary abdication of legislative authority is always disallowed. What follows from this is that South African law seems to follow the German example regarding the delegation of legislative powers. It seems that the South African Constitutional Court considers the delegation of essential legislative authority as undesirable. Limits have to be placed on the extent of Parliament's competencies pertaining to legislative delegation. Furthermore the manner and form requirements in the Constitution must be met when legislation is adopted. This however does not occur in all instances of legislative delegation to the executive authority. When legislative delegation takes place, it is consistently done by granting the executive the authority to adopt subordinate legislation, which in any event has the same legal effect as legislation of Parliament itself. Next the Transitional Constitution of 1993 is considered against the background of relevant case law. It appears that the legal position was not changed by the promulgation of the ("final") Constitution of 1996. Empowering legislation that delegates any legislative authority must lay down guidelines providing direction regarding the exercise of the delegated authority. Delegated legislation may of course not contain substantive norms. Like the German Bundesverfassungsgericht, the South African Constitutional Court seems to require empowering legislation to lay down the content, extent and purpose of the empowering provisions before it will enjoy legal effect. This content, extent and purpose will not primarily be evident from the delegated legislation, but must be contained in the empowering legislation itself. If this is not the case, the delegation of authority will have exceeded constitutional limits. Therefore, a wide delegation of legislative authority without limitations regarding its exercise, at least as far as content, extent and purpose are concerned, will without doubt be unconstitutional.
Highlights
Omdat dit dus vir die wetgewer onmoontlik is om alle denkbare toekomstige feitekomplekse te reël, word dit aan die administrasie oorgelaat – deur middel van die diskresie-inruiming – om hom so by die gegewe omstandighede aan te pas dat, by die behandeling van 'n bepaalde aangeleentheid, 'n oplossing gevind sal word wat sowel vir daardie enkele geval asook vir die algemene belang bevredigend en regverdig sal wees.[8]
Die volgende vraag moet ook beantwoord word: Indien die wetgewende gesag van die Republiek by die Parlement berus en die uitvoerende gesag by die President en die ander lede van die Kabinet,[9] terwyl die uitvoerende gesag ook wetgewende bevoegdhede het, hoe wyd strek hierdie wetgewende bevoegdhede van die uitvoerende gesag dan? Die
Dit moet egter beklemtoon word dat hierdie reg nie deurslaggewend is in ons reg, soos die geval is ten opsigte van die volkereg nie, weens die woordverskil tussen kan en moet in subartikels (b) en (c) van subartikel 39(1).[22]
Summary
In enige moderne demokrasie is daar een of ander vorm van skeiding van magte tussen die wetgewende, uitvoerende en regsprekende gesag. 'n Skeiding van magte is altyd gedeeltelik.[5] Een van die hoofredes hiervoor is die feit dat die verlening van (wetgewende) diskresies deur die wetgewer noodsaaklik is vir die bestuur van die moderne staat.[6] Daar word vereis dat wetgewende gesag, soos gesetel in die Parlement, na die uitvoerende gesag gedelegeer word. Dit is belangrik om te besef wat die begrip "wetgewende diskresie" inhou, voordat daar enigsins met 'n bespreking van die probleem voorhande, voortgegaan kan word. Dieselfde woordeboek definieer weer die term "wetgewend" as 'n byvoeglike naamwoord wat verband hou met die gesag om wette te kan maak.[19] Hierteenoor word die begrip "diskresie" deur Hiemstra en Gonin omskryf as:. In hierdie artikel sal daar na die begrip "wetgewende diskresie" verwys word as 'n kompetensie om wetgewende maatreëls te kan tref
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.