2012/09/17

INTODUCTION ( REVIEW) When one looks at case law regarding review on the basis of irrational and unreasonable adm’ve acts, courts see them as very close to each other. Thus they are handled and normally raised together. Although disproportionality is not a ground for judicial review of adm’ve acts, it is very closely related to the above. Proportionality NB in the protection of fundamental rights via the limitation cause = sec 36 (Limitation must be proportional)

The grounds for review for irrationality and unreasonableness and the application of the proportionality principle should be kept separate, despite their close relationship. The courts have adopted different levels of scrutiny in their adjudication of these 3 principles. Rationality Reasonableness Proportionality Rationality is regarded a minimum threshold required for an administrative action to be valid and as such a less stringent level of scrutiny is adopted. Requires a stricter level of scrutiny Even more strict

2. UNREASONABLENESS (h)the exercise of the power or the performance of the function authorised by the empowering provision, in pursuance of which the administrative action was purportedly taken, is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power or performed the function; 6Judicial review of administrative action A court or tribunal has the power to judicially review an administrative action if-

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review Dit is verwant tot die onredelike beoefening van diskresionêre magte of die misbruik van `n diskresionêre mag. Die beheer van die onredelike beoefening van diskresionêre magte het Suid- Afrika al vir jare aan die dink. Die hoof beswaar is dat daar van die regbank verwag word om as super-administrateur op te tree wanneer onredelike administratiewe handelinge hersien word, en daardeur hulle idees aan die administrateur op te lê. Maar, `n hersienende hof wat onredelikheid of andersins administratiewe handelinge ondersoek, verander nie, of lê nie neer administratiewe beleid nie. Die rol van die hof is om die legaliteit van die handeling te ondersoek en nie die werksaamheid of die wenslikheid van die handeling wat geneem is. Dus, in die beoefening van sy beheer funksies kan daar nie gesê word dat die howe die magte van die administrateur toe-eien nie. Voor 1994 was onredelike administratiewe handelinge gewoonlik gemanifesteer in die vorm van diskriminasie, soos rasse diskriminasie. 2. Onredelikheid as `n grond van geregtelike hersiening

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review 2.1 Onredelike administratiewe handeling in gemenereg Tradisionele benadering tot onredelike administratiewe handeling. Die vraag in gemenereg was nog altyd of `n administratiewe handeling wat aan al die vereistes voldoen wat verwant is tot die administrateur se magte, die bemagtigende bepaling en die vorm en doel van Wet, steeds ongeldig is oor die onredelike effek van die handeling. Een van die hoof redes waarom die howe nie sommer sal inmeng in onredeling administratiewe besluite nie, was nog altyd die vrees om die grense tussen appèl en hersiening te oorskry. In die verlede was die benadering tot onredelikheid een waar dit nie onredelike effek van die administratiewe handeling op die individu wat oorwee is nie, maar die onredelike ingesteldheid (subjektiewe ingesteldheid) van die administrateur. Met ander woorde, die toets was nie objektief nie (gemik om die gevolge of effekte van die administratiewe handeling te toets), maar subjektief (dit ondersoek die sielkundige benadering of moraliteit van die administrateur). 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review Die uitgebreide formele maatstaf In party besluite het die howe in die rigting beweeg van die aanneming van `n meer objektiewe benadering tot onredelikheid. Byvoorbeeld, in die saak van Theron v Ring van Wellington van die NG Sendingkerk in Suid-Afrika, het die regter verder as die tradisionele benadering tot onredelikheid gegaan en die “uitgebrede formele maatstaf” / “extended formal yardstick” aangeneem. In terme van hierdie maatstaf is `n onredelike handeling deur die administrateur `n onafhanklike grond van geregtelike hersiening. Maar, die hof het gesê dat die uitgebreide maatstaf slegs van toepassing is op die besluite tribunale (Judicial administrative bodies). Volgens Wiechers was die onredelikheid van administratiewe handelinge nie verwant tot die subjektiewe ingesteldheid van die beampte nie – of hy / sy opgetree het vanuit goeie trou of met ander motiewe – maar tot die effek of gevolg van die besluit op die individu se regte. Dus, neem hy `n objektiewe benadering aan eerder as `n subjektiewe benadering. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review 2.2 Redelikheid in die nuwe grondwetlike orde Redelikheid onder die Interim-Grondwet Tradisionele benadering in Standard Bank of Bophuthatswana Ltd v Reynolds NO verwerp. Hof het gevind dat redelikheid in die nuwe grondwetlike orde `n minder streng streng benadering tot die hersiening van onredelike administratiewe handeling vereis, en het uitdruklik die oordrewe toets van onredelikheid (test of gross unreasonableness). Artikel 24 van die Interim Grondwet het geen verwysing gemaak die die redelikheid van administratiewe handelinge nie. Maar, dit het die konsep van regverdigbaarheid bekend gestel. Dit is gedoen deur die vereiste dat elke persoon geregtig is op “administratiewe handeling wat regverdigbaar is in verhouding tot die redes daarvoor gegee waar enige van sy / haar regte geaffekteer of bedreig word”. Regverdibaarheid = Moet geregverdig wees = daar moet redes gegee word. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review 2.2 Reasonableness in the new constitutional order Redelikheid onder die 1996 Grondwet Artikel 33 stel duidelike dat administratiewe handelinge redelik moet wees. Maar, geen definisie van redelikheid nie. Dit is die taak van die regbank om die omvang van hierdie grond van hersiening te bepaal. Mafongosi v United Democratic Movement = hof het gesê dat artikel 33 verder gegaan het as slegs die kodifikasie van die gemenereg. Onder die gemenereg, was die howe geregtig om in te meng slegs waar daar “gross unreasonableness” was, tot op die punt waar een van die gevestigde gronde van onredelikheid afgelei kon word. Dit is nie meer die posisie nie en enige besluit wat onredelik is word eenkant toe gesit omdat dit nie aan die vereistes van die Grondwet voldoen nie. Die besluit moet geregverdig wees en nie arbitrêr nie. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening 2.2 Redelikheid in die nuwe grondwetlike orde

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review 2.2 Reasonableness in the new constitutional order Reasonableness under the 1996 Constitution In Roman v Williams NO het die hof besluit dat regverdigbaarheid beteken dat die besluit “moet objektief bevestig kan word”. Dus, dit word gewys dat regverdigvaarheid en redelikheid soortgelyke konsepte is en so word die interim en 1996 Grondwette versoen. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening 2.2 Redelikheid in die nuwe grondwetlike orde Redelikheid onder die 1996 Grondwet

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review 2.3 Onredelikheid as grond van hersiening onder PAJA (h)the exercise of the power or the performance of the function authorised by the empowering provision, in pursuance of which the administrative action was purportedly taken, is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power or performed the function; 6Judicial review of administrative action A court or tribunal has the power to judicially review an administrative action if- 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review 2.3 Unreasonableness as a ground of review under PAJA Met `n letterlike interpretasie van hierdie artikel blyk dit of die wetgewer `n beperkte siening van onredelikheid aangeneem het. `n Mens kan ook argumenteer dat met `n letterlike interpretasie van die artikel, word die fokus geplaas op die ingesteldheid, goeie trou of subjektiewe houding van die administrateur. Die moeilikheid van hierdie benadering lê daaring dat `n administrateur mag optree met die beste intensies maar nogsteeds `n handeling of funksie uitvoer wat onredelik is. Dus, die geregtelike hersiening van onredelike administratiewe handelinge kan nie beperk word tot slegs `n ondersoek van die administrateur se subjektiewe ingelsteldheid. Die vraag is nie of die administrateur bona fide is of nie, maar of die besluit self onredelik is.. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening 2.3 Onredelikheid as grond van hersiening onder PAJA

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review 2.3 Unreasonableness as a ground of review under PAJA Maar: Maar verwys die konsep “is so onredelik dat geen redelike persoon so sy mag of funksie sou uitvoer” (“is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised that power or performed the function”) `n refleksie op die toets van die redelike persoon? (Test of the reasonable man) Die “reasonable man” toets dek nie alle gevalle van onredelike administratiewe handelinge nie. Met ander woorde, alhoewel die redelike mens tot `n sekere slotsom sou kom, is dit nie te sê dat die handeling redelik is nie. Aan die ander kan, kan `n redelike mens steeds tot `n slotsom kom wat onredelike gevolge het vir die individu. Hierdie artikel sê net dat alle administratiewe handelinge redelike moet wees en dit is erken dat die beginsel in PAJA, wat gepromulgeer was om effek te gee aan die grondwetlike reg in artikel 33, `n wye interpretasie gegee moet word. Dus, die “redelike man toets” – te nou interpretasie en nie in lyn met die grondwetlike reg tot redelikheid in artikel 33 in die Grondwet. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening 2.3 Onredelikheid as grond van hersiening onder PAJA

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review 2.4 Die mening van onredelikheid in Suid-Afrikaanse Reg. Unreasonableness defined in dictionary as: -Not governed by or acting according to reason -Not conformable to reason -Exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation – also see irrational. In the case of Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others (in which the appellant challenged the Chief Director’s allocation of a fishing quota in terms of the provisions of the Marine Living Resources Act) on of the questions raised by the appellant was whether the Chief Director’s decision was a decision within the terms of section 6(2)(h) of PAJA which provides that a decision must not be “so unreasonable that no reasonable person” could have reached it. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review 2.4 The meaning of unreasonableness in South African Law. The judge looked at the “precise meaning” of the subsection. She said that she preferred the approach adopted by Lord Cooke in the English Constable of Sussex decision. In this regard she said that the decision provides sound guidance in determining the proper meaning of section 6(2)(h). Thus, she stated that section 6(2)(h) should then be “understood to require a simple test, namely, that an administrative decision will be reviewable if, in Lord Cooke’s rods, it is one that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach”. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review She emphasized that a reasonable decision will depend on the circumstances of each case – thus, it is context based. She then went on to enumerate the factors which are relevant to determining whether a decision is reasonable or not: (a)The nature of the decision (b)The identity and expertise of the decision-maker (c)The range of factor relevant to the decision (d)The reasons given for the decision (e)The nature of the competing interests involved (f)The impact of the decision on the lives and well-being of those affected. She also emphasises that though the review functions of the court now have a substantive as well as a procedural ingredient, the distinction between appeal and review remains significant. She pointed out that in order not to eliminate the distinction between appeal and review and in order not to do harm to the doctrine of the separation of powers, a court should, in applying the reasonableness test, treat decision-makers with appropriate deference and respect. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review Further, a court may not rubber-stamp a decision merely because of its complexity or the identity of the decision- maker. A court may review a decision where such decision: (a)Cannot reasonably result in the achievement of the goal identified (b)Is not reasonably supported on the facts and (c)Is not reasonably in the light of the reasons given for it. In the case of Minister of Health v New clicks South Africa (Pty) Limited, Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others the judge said that no sharp line can be dawn between the requirements of procedural fairness and reasonableness. She said: “In my view, such a failure raises issues of both process and substance”. 2. Onredelikheid as grond van geregtelike hersiening

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review Meaning of unreasonableness in SA. Unreasonableness defined in dictionary as: -Not governed by or acting according to reason -Not conformable to reason -Exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation – also see irrational. In the case of Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others (in which the appellant challenged the Chief Director’s allocation of a fishing quota in terms of the provisions of the Marine Living Resources Act) one of the questions raised by the appellant was whether the Chief Director’s decision was a decision within the terms of section 6(2)(h) of PAJA which provides that a decision must not be “so unreasonable that no reasonable person” could have reached it. 2. UNREASONABLENESS

The meaning of unreasonableness in South African Law. The judge looked at the “precise meaning” of the subsection. She said that she preferred the approach adopted by Lord Cooke in the English Constable of Sussex decision. In this regard she said that the decision provides sound guidance in determining the proper meaning of section 6(2)(h). Thus, she stated that section 6(2)(h) should then be “understood to require a simple test, namely, that an administrative decision will be reviewable if, in Lord Cooke’s rods, it is one that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach”.

She emphasized that a reasonable decision will depend on the circumstances of each case – thus, it is context based. She then went on to enumerate the factors which are relevant to determining whether a decision is reasonable or not: (a)The nature of the decision (b)The identity and expertise of the decision-maker (c)The range of factors relevant to the decision (d)The reasons given for the decision (e)The nature of the competing interests involved (f)The impact of the decision on the lives and well-being of those affected.

She also emphasises that though the review functions of the court now have a substantive as well as a procedural ingredient, the distinction between appeal and review remains significant. She pointed out that in order not to eliminate the distinction between appeal and review and in order not to do harm to the doctrine of the separation of powers, a court should, in applying the reasonableness test, treat decision- makers with appropriate deference and respect.

2. Unreasonableness as a ground of review Further, a court may not rubber-stamp a decision merely because of its complexity or the identity of the decision- maker. A court may review a decision where such decision: (a)Cannot reasonably result in the achievement of the goal identified (b)Is not reasonably supported on the facts and (c)Is not reasonably in the light of the reasons given for it. 2. REASONABLENESS

In the case of Minister of Health v New clicks South Africa (Pty) Limited, Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others the judge said that no sharp line can be dawn between the requirements of procedural fairness and reasonableness. She said: “In my view, such a failure raises issues of both process and substance”.

3. The role of proportionality in controlling administrative action No direct reference to the requirement of proportionality as a separate and independent ground for judicial review. However, it is expressly included in section 36 limitation clause of the Constitution. This section, which introduces the concept of proportionality, expressly provides that fundamental rights may be limited or infringed under constitutionally prescribed conditions only. Therefore, the courts rely on the constitutional emphasis on proportionality in balancing the interests of the state on those of the individual where an infringement of a fundamental right has occurred. Discretionary powers should be exercised in such a way that the burdens they place upon members of the public should ‘bear equally upon all subjects’ without inconsistency and fluctuations between individual cases. Thus, proportionality serves a general rubric for reasonableness, fairness and good administration. In a narrow sense, it requires that the extent to which administrative action may infringe the rights of the individual, should not exceed the degree necessary to serve the public interest.

BAXTER Discretionary powers should be exercised in such a way that the burdens they place upon members of the public should ‘bear equally upon all subjects’ without inconsistency and fluctuations between individual cases. Thus, proportionality serves a general rubric for reasonableness, fairness and good administration. In a narrow sense, it requires that the extent to which administrative action may infringe the rights of the individual, should not exceed the degree necessary to serve the public interest.

Proportionality is a principle that requires a reasonable & justifiable relation between: Objectives of administrative decision & facts & circumstances which were taken into consideration by administrator in reaching the decision. Main purpose of this legal concept is to ensure that the administration is guided by the principles of suitability & necessity in performing its administrative functions to avoid the infringement of fundamental rights.

Proportionality in SA Introduced into SA law via limitation clause – S 33 Interim Constitution & S 36 ‘96 Constitution Any limitation of fundamental right must be: Reasonable & justifiable and certain specific factors Proportionality must be taken into account In any judicial enquiry into the lawfulness of the limitation of fundamental right, proportionality as encapsulated in the factors in S 36(1)(a) – (e), constitutes the basis for such an enquiry. In SA proportionality comes into play in the control of administrative conduct as contained in S 33 of Constitution.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF PROPORTIONALITY Minister of Public Works v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association When conflicting interests have to be reconciled and choices made- Proportionality, which is inherent in the bill of rights, Is relevant in determining what fairness requires Other important cases: United Democratic Front ( Western Cape Region) v Van der Westhuizen S v Makwanyane Roman v Williams NO Bel Porto School Governing Body v Premier of the Province, Western Cape

Levels of scrutiny adopted by the courts pertaining to irrationality, unreasonableness and disproportionality. Do the courts apply the same standard of review in each of these three instances, or are there various levels of scrutiny? Is there a minimum standard of review or a maximum standard, depending on whether rationality, reasonableness or proportionality is reviewed? Strictest level of scrutiny is reserved for an enquiry into the justification of the limitation of any fundamental right – thus, section 36 and proportionality. Thus, proportionality = strictest level of scrutiny. Right to reasonableness forms part of the right to just administrative action and as such is a constitutionally entrenched right. It is apparent, therefore, that reasonableness review should be subject to the same strict level of scrutiny as that of other fundamental rights. – variable but higher standard (New Clicks case). Although rationality is not afforded express constitutional protection, it is not without significance in the new dispensation. The courts have adopted the approach that rationality is a minimum threshold requirement for the legality of the exercise of all public power.

Guidelines for establishing whether administrative action is rational, reasonable and proportional 1.Rationality: (a)Four pronged test laid down in section 6. (b)The reasons advanced for the action must be adequate to substantiate the assertion that the decision complies with administrative legality. In other words, the decision must be capable of objective substantiation. 2.Reasonableness (a)The circumstances in which the administrative action was exercised. Always context-based. (b)A consequence of this context based approach is that the decision maker must take following factors into account. The nature of the decision The identity and expertise of the decision-maker The range of factor relevant to the decision The reasons given for the decision The nature of the competing interests involved The impact of the decision on the lives and well-being of those affected. (c) It must be determine whether the exercise of the discretion is one which a reasonable decision-maker would have made. The reasonable decision-maker presupposes an administrator who is qualified to exercise the discretionary power.

Guidelines for establishing whether administrative action is rational, reasonable and proportional 3. Proportionality (a)It should be determined whether there is a proper balance between the means (used by the administrator) and the ends (the advantages and disadvantages of the end which is attained by the performance of the particular administrative action). It must be determined whether the prejudice to the individual is proportionate to the advantages to the common weal or public interest. In short, there must be proportionality between the means and the ends. (b)It should be determined whether the administrator has chosen the least intrusive option – one which causes the least harm to the affected individual or to the public at large. (c)The proportionality of the measure must be tested by considering the disadvantages prevented by the action, the advantages which would flow from the action, and what disadvantages are caused by the measure. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages must be compared and weighted against each other.

Section 5 of PAJA Governs the provision of reasons by the administrator. These reasons must be provided by the administrator after the decision has been taken (or whilst taking it), in order to justify the decision. The importance of furnishing reasons cannot be overstated – an administrator’s decision is subject to censure by both the internal administrative controlling body and the courts, which means that he / she cannot hide behind the anonymity of the decision. The furnishing of reasons thus facilitates fairness and proper administrative behaviour, accountability and openness. Right to reasons

Right to reasons under the 1996 Constitution Section 33(2) states that: “Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons for the decision”. This is to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness. Reasons for administrative action are part of the administrative process and should not be confused with the process of litigation in which the validity of the administrative action is challenged. Administrative action Reasons must be furnished Different to furnishing of reasons at litigation.

The furnishing of reasons facilitates fairness and proper administrative behaviour on the part of the administrator. He or she must apply his or her mind to the matter and produce sound and legally acceptable reasons to avoid the possibility of internal review by the courts. These reasons provided for an administrative action must also be distinguished from the information obtained by the administrator prior to making a decision. Thus, jurisdictional fact versus furnishing of reasons. Jurisdicational fact Administrative action which requires the furnishing of reasons – section 5 deals with this part. If action is invalid – there are also reasons given during litigation Right to reasons under the 1996 Constitution

The right to reasons under PAJA Importance of reasons: shows how the administrator functioned when it took the decision and in particular how the administrator performed the action – whether lawful, unlawful etc.

The right to reasons under PAJA The request for reasons in terms of section 5(1) Written reasons are required. Oral reasons will not suffice. When administrative action materially and adversely affects a person’s rights, he/ she may apply for or request written reasons. The request must be mad within 90 days after the date on which that person became aware of the action, or might reasonably have been expected to become aware of it. The right to reasons only applies where the requester has not already been furnished with written reasons for the decision. If he / she has already received reasons there is no duty on the administrator to provide reasons in terms of section 5(1).

The right to reasons under PAJA The request for reasons in terms of section 5(1) Question: does section 5(1) only apply to individual / specific administrative law relationships or whether it also applies in general administrative law relationships. Does the duty to furnish reasons also exist where administrative actions materially and adversely affect the public? Administrator Specific individual (granting of passport to foreigner) Administrator PUBLIC

The right to reasons under PAJA The request for reasons in terms of section 5(1) The submission has been made that section 5 can be read so as to impose a duty to furnish reasons in instances where administrative action has a broad impact, but at the same time a particular impact upon a specific person or class of persons, as well.

The right to reasons under PAJA Adequate reasons as a standard Standard of reasons for the decision is that of adequacy. What will constitute adequate reasons will depend on the circumstances of each case. In Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v Phambili Fisheries (Pty) Ltd; Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd, the SCA held that: “It is apparent that reasons are not really reasons unless they are properly informative. They must explain why action was taken or not taken, otherwise they are better describes as findings or other information”. The court also stated that “adequate reasons” will only be met where the reasons given are in sufficient detail to justify the administrative action taken. In other words, the reasons given must provide a satisfactory explanation for the decision. For example, it will not suffice for the administrator to base the action on the provisions of the empowering statute only. The main requirement is that the reasons must meet the requirement of justifiability – the action must be justifiable in relation to the reasons given. Thus, the reasons must contain sufficient substance and content to justify the decision.

The right to reasons under PAJA Adequate reasons as a standard Reasons must be intelligible / of sufficient precision to give a clear understanding of why the decision was made. The more involved the decision, the more detailed the reasons should be. – Moletsane v Premier of the Free State. Other factors which could have an impact on the adequacy of the reasons: (a)whether the issue involves an application for a benefit or a deprivation of a right; (b) the nature of the right that is adversely affected; (c) the nature of the proceedings preceding the action that is taken; (d) The nature and complexity of the decision (including whether it is mainly based on questions of fact or interpretation of law); (e) The nature of the authority taking the decision; (f) The time available to formulate the reasons; (g) The manner in which an administrative authority has chosen to give effect to its duty to furnish reasons.

UNIT 4 CONTROL OF ADMINISTARTIVE ACTION UNIT 4.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION Chapter 12 TB P Study guide p 47

Administrative Accountability Accountability for the exercise of public power lies at the heart of democratic government In Sa Government Accountability is achieved in a variety of ways: 1.SEC 92 CONSTITUTION Provides for accountability & responsibility of the deputy- president, ministers and members of cabinet. – constitutional imperative of ministerial responsibility ( UK) They are responsible for the powers & functions of the executive, Members of cabinet are accountable collectively & individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers, and performance of their functions. Cabinet members must act in accordance with Constitution & must provide Parliament with full & regular reports on matter under their control.

Provincial sphere Members of the executive council are responsible for their executive functions & accountable collectively & individually to the legislature for exercise of their powers & performance of their functions. They must act in accordance with the Constitution & must provide Parliament with full & regular reports.

2.SEC 152(1)(a) Objects of local government are inter alia to provide democratic & accountable government of local communities. Therefore local government councillors are similarly accountable

Sphere of state administration (a) Ministers as heads of department must respond to questions raised in Parliament. Give an account of activities in their departments to Parliament (b) Accountably also achieved by providing reasons for administrative action – PAJA & Sec 33(2)

NGXUZA v PERMANENT SECRETARY, DEPT. OF WELFARE EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT One of the foundations of democracy is that those who are chosen to rule must be accountable to those they govern……… p 67 tb One of the founding values of Constitution – Accountability of those exercising public power Its importance is repeatedly asserted in the Constitution. RAIL COMMUTERS ACTION GROUP v TRANSNET LTD t/a METRIRAIL Sec that relate to accountability: 1(d), 41(c), 195(1)(f), 195(2)(a) – (c) P 67 TB

NEXT CLASS UNIT 4.2 QUESTIONS 114 TO 129 WORKBOOK