Speaker, no, that is not the intention. That is not the purpose of the review. I am sure that Minister Radebe will be able to answer that question. The separation of powers is what we accept, that the three arms of the state have separate powers and have to work in a co- operative fashion but independent of each other, in a manner that enhances and consolidates our democracy. None of these three is superior to the others. These are equal arms of the state.
The practice of constitutional review only serves to ensure that we comply with the prescripts of the Constitution. Parliament, in legislating, should comply. The executive, in adopting major policy, should also comply. That is the responsibility that is given to the judiciary. It does not therefore make them more senior, stronger or powerful than the other two.
If, as legislators, we craft legislation with the understanding that it must be within the framework of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court would not have the need to pronounce on that at all. It will simply certify that it is indeed in line with the Constitution. If, as the executive, we take a major policy decision, we ought to take the trouble to ensure that it complies with the Constitution.
The separation of powers is very clear. They should not be blurred. We have no intention of doing so. Thank you.