CCT40/08

[2011] ZACC 27

2011 (11) BCLR 1158 (CC)

Jafta J

10 March 2011

23 August 2011

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3564

Application for direct access brought in terms of section 167(4)(d) and 167(6)(a) of the Constitution. Case involves a constitutional challenge to a part of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act of 2005 and to the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act 23 of 2005.

Application for direct access in terms of sections 167(4)(d) and 167(6)(a) of the Constitution challenging a part of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act of 2005 and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act 23 of 2005. The applicants contended that these enactments are inconsistent with the Constitution and consequently invalid insofar as they authorise the relocation of Moutse 1 and Moutse 3 from the province of Mpumalanga to the province of Limpopo. The challenge to the impugned laws was based on two grounds: first, that these laws are irrational and perpetuate apartheid-era boundaries insofar as they alter the provincial boundaries of Mpumalanga and relocate Moutse 1 and Moutse 3 to the province of Limpopo and second, that the Mpumalanga Legislature failed to adequately facilitate public involvement in the process of enacting the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill as required by section 118(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court held that the connection between the impugned provisions and the legitimate government purpose was not irrational. The fact that the impugned boundary may coincide with a boundary drawn by the apartheid government does not, in and of itself, render the Twelfth Amendment inconsistent with the Constitution. The evidence which was placed before the Court was not sufficient to show that the public involvement was inadequate. The Court accordingly dismissed the application. Judgment: Jafta J (unanimous).