... the ANC-led government has remained loyal to its commitment to upholding the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, which are the bedrock of our constitutional democracy. The constitutional amendments we sought were neither aimed at tinkering with the independent justice system nor were they directed at curtailing the powers of the Constitutional Court, as some wanted South Africans to believe during this robust public debate. On the contrary, they sought to strengthen our constitutional democracy and the rule of law, which is an important shield against any threat by government whether real or perceived. Not only do courts resolve disputes in accordance with the law and fact, but they perform a delicate balancing act between the rights and obligations of the state and individuals, and between individuals, in accordance with legislation, common law and existing social standards.
The courts' function of dispute resolution is a very important mechanism for ensuring social stability and cohesion. For a society to be stable, citizens need to be confident that the laws which govern them not only reflect socially accepted values and standards, but, should there be a dispute, that the courts will interpret those laws impartially and that a resolution will be achieved within a reasonable timeframe. The supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law bind everyone, including Parliament, the executive and the judiciary.
You will remember that it is the Constitutional Court, in the case of the Speaker of the National Assembly v De Lille MP and Another, decided in 1999, which stressed that under the rule of law, everyone including parliamentarians enjoy the protection of our courts. It stated as follows:
The Constitution is the ultimate source of all lawful authority in our country. No Parliament, however bona fide or eminent its membership, no President, however formidable be his reputation or scholarship, and no official, however efficient or well meaning, can make any law or perform any act which is not sanctioned by the Constitution. Any citizen adversely affected by any decree, order, or action of any official or body, which is not properly authorised by the Constitution is entitled to the protection of the courts.
Whilst most of these amendments are straightforward, I wish to highlight two intriguing reforms contained in this Bill, which introduce what conveniently can be referred to as the judicial governance framework, that is section 165(6) of the Constitution. Regarding the former amendments, it is during this term of this administration and under President Zuma that the government took bold and unwavering steps to establish a separate institution in the form of the Office of the Chief Justice as a separate entity from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. This was with a view to enabling the judiciary to regulate itself in the same way as the executive and this Parliament do, in keeping with the doctrine of the separation of powers.
These steps, which were implemented through the Presidential Proclamation of August 2010, are transitional in nature and a constitutional and legislative framework is necessary to establish a truly independent judicial administration. Therefore the proposed section 165(6) provides the required constitutional basis for the envisaged Judicial Council and court administration framework, which will be unpacked in greater detail in subsequent national legislation.
Turning to the second set of significant changes brought about by this Bill, it is important to remind this House and South Africans that it is the ANC-led government that postulated the idea of a single judiciary in terms of which the Constitutional Court should be affirmed as the highest court of the Republic. This is evident from section 166 of the Constitution which places this court at the apex of our judicial system. The proposed amendment, therefore, introduces a sifting mechanism that will ensure that not all nonconstitutional matters progress to the Constitutional Court as the apex court, but that only those that must deservedly receive the attention of the Constitutional Court. This is with a view to maintaining a three-tier appeal system up to the Supreme Court of Appeal to the extent that it is possible, in view of the cost and time that are expended if appeals go through the hierarchy of our courts. It is in this context that the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal are our centres of excellence where our evolving jurisprudence is distilled under the premise of our Constitution, which is the supreme court in our land. With those few words, I thank you. [Applause.]