Page:NCGLE v Minister of Justice.djvu/4

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Ackermann J

empowers a referral for such purpose.

[3]Orders (1) and (2) would ordinarily become final when the period for instituting appeal proceedings against these orders to the Supreme Court of Appeal or this Court lapsed and no such appeal proceedings had been commenced by that time. I shall deal later with the problems that can arise because the Constitution makes no provision for an obligatory referral in such cases.

[4]The first applicant is the National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality, a voluntary association of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in South Africa and of 70 organisations and associations representing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in South Africa. The second applicant is the South African Human Rights Commission which functions under section 184 of the 1996 Constitution.[1] The three respondents are the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Safety and Security, and the Attorney-General of the Witwatersrand. Initially the applicants sought the following relief in the High Court:

“(a) an order declaring that the common-law offence of sodomy is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996) (“the Constitution”) and invalid;

  1. The Human Rights Commission was established under section 115 of the interim Constitution (the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993) and continues to function as such by virtue of item 20 of Schedule 6 to the 1996 Constitution.
4