Show simple item record 2017-04-08T17:01:30Z 2017-04-08T17:01:30Z 2003-11-19 en
dc.identifier.citation [2002] ZACC 29
dc.identifier.citation 2003 (3) SA 34 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2004 (9) BCLR 895 (CC)
dc.title Geuking v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others en
dc.title.alternative CCT35/02 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT35/02 en 21 November 2002
dc.contributor.judge Goldstone J 12 December 2002
dc.concourt.synopsis Goldstone J, for a unanimous Court, held that the President's consent to trigger extradition proceedings is not a trial, nor an administrative decision but rather, a policy decision. It is thus not a prerequisite that the nationality of the person sought for extradition be considered. A provision in the Extradition Act which provides that the Magistrate holding an extradition enquiry must accept a certificate from the appropriate authorities in the foreign state as conclusive proof that they have sufficient evidence to warrant the proposed prosecution does not violate the person's rights to a fair trial, to freedom and security of the person, or to a fair hearing. The provision also does not interfere with the independence of the judiciary or violate the separation of powers doctrine.
dc.concourt.casehistory peal to Constitutional Court from decision of the Cape High Court: Geuking v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2002 (1) SA 204 (C); 2001 (2) SACR 490 (C).

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


My Account