[19]Background evidence may, however, be useful to show why particular provisions were or were not included in the Constitution. It is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage in the development of our constitutional law to express any opinion on whether it might also be relevant for other purposes, nor to attempt to lay down general principles governing the admissibility of such evidence. It is sufficient to say that where the background material is clear, is not in dispute, and is relevant to showing why particular provisions were or were not included in the Constitution, it can be taken into account by a Court in interpreting the Constitution. These conditions are satisfied in the present case.
[20]Capital punishment was the subject of debate before and during the constitution-making process, and it is clear that the failure to deal specifically in the Constitution with this issue was not accidental.[1]
[21]In February 1990, Mr F W de Klerk, then President of the Republic of South Africa, stated in Parliament that "the death penalty had been the subject of intensive discussion in recent months", which had led to concrete proposals for reform under which the death penalty should be retained as an option to be used in "extreme cases", the judicial discretion in regard to the imposition of the death sentence should be broadened, and an automatic right of appeal allowed to those under sentence of death.[2] These proposals were later enacted into law by the Criminal Law Amendment Act No. 107 of 1990.
[22]In August 1991, the South African Law Commission in its Interim Report on Group and Human Rights described the imposition of the death penalty as "highly controversial".[3] A working paper of the Commission which preceded the Interim Report had proposed that the right to life be recognised in a bill of rights, subject to the proviso that the discretionary imposition of the sentence of death be allowed for the most serious crimes. As a result of the comments it received, the Law Commission decided to change the draft and to adopt a "Solomonic solution"[4] under which a constitutional court would be required to decide whether a right to life expressed in unqualified terms could be circumscribed by a limitations clause contained in a bill of rights.[5] "This proposed solution" it said "naturally imposes an onerous task on the Constitutional Court. But it is a task which this Court will in future have to carry out in respect of many other laws and executive and administrative acts. The Court must not shrink from this task, otherwise we shall be back to parliamentary sovereignty."[6]
[23]In March 1992, the then Minister of Justice issued a press statement in which he said:
- ↑ The brief account that follows is taken from the written submissions of the South African Government. These facts were not disputed at the hearing.
- ↑ Address to Parliament on 2 February 1990. In this speech it was said that the last execution in South Africa had been on 14 November 1989.
- ↑ South African Law Commission, Interim Report on Group and Human Rights, Project 58, August 1991, para. 7.31.
- ↑ "The Commission … considers that a Solomonic solution is necessary: a middle course between the retention of capital punishment and the abolition thereof must be chosen in the proposed bill of rights." Id. at 7.33.
- ↑ Id. at para. 7.36.
- ↑ Id. at para. 7.37.
