The application of the doctrine of proportionality in South African courts

• Published date: 01 January 2013
• Pages: 40-57
• Date: 01 January 2013
• Author: George Barrie
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC153152

The application of the doctrine of

proportionality in South African courts

George Barrie*

1 Introduction

Can constit utiona l rights be li mited whe re there is a f unctio ning d emo cracy and the

rule o f law? It has be come g enera lly accepte d that lim itations on con stitutiona l rights

gen erate d by statutory or com mon law in dem ocrac ies are con stitutio nally perm issible

if the prin ciple of pro portio nality is applied . Suc cinctly pu t, in fun ctionin g democ racie s

the c onstitutio nality of such limitat ions a re determ ined by p ropo rtiona lity.

In pra ctice the princi ple of pr opo rtion ality is a safe gua rd for the indiv idua l, ove r

and abo ve t radi tiona l meth ods of c ontrol ling the s tate ’s a dmi nistr atio n. It inv olve s

a balancing act betw een the com peting intere sts and objec tives of the state and th e

inte rests of the indiv idu al and e mbod ies a s ens e of an app ropriat e relatio nship

between the ends and the mea ns o f state action .

Pro portion ality d em and s that w hen an individ ual’s ri ghts are a ffecte d or

thre atene d by s tate a ction , only s uch acti on s hall b e cou nten anced which is

sui table , nece ssar y and not o ut of pro portio n to th e ga ins to the c omm unit y.

Pro portion ality ca n thus be see n to be a synon ym f or re asona blene ss.

Th e birth plac e of propo rtiona lity is Germ any, fro m whe nce it has migr ated into

ma ny cou ntries and leg al system s. It migra ted to vario us We stern Eu ropean stat es,

to Can ada, t o E ngla nd, to New Zeala nd, to A ustrali a, to Sou th A frica , to Is rael , to

Ce ntral and Easte rn Eur ope , to Asia n and to S outh A mer ican sta tes.1

Prio r to setting out the impa ct of the do ctrine o f propo rtionality on South African

cou rts two ju risdiction s will be e xamin ed. First, th e jurisd iction of Germ any as it is th e

jurisd iction w here th e prop ortion ality doctrin e ha d its origin and early deve lopm ent.

Sec ondly, Ca nada , du e to t he fac t th at th e limita tion clause in So uth Africa ’s 1 993

BA LLB (Pretoria) LLD (University of South Africa), Special Professor, Faculty of Law, University of

*

Johannesburg.

Barak Proportionality, constitutional rights and their limitations (2012). In this monumental work the

1

author sets out the migration of proportionality from Germany to the rest of the world. He also sets out

the sources, nature and function of the doctrine of proportionality, evaluates the doctrine and gives his

views on the future of proportionality.

The appl icatio n of t he do ctrine of p ropor tiona lity in South Afric an c ourts 41

Inter im Constitu tion and 1996 C onstitutio n ha s be en s o he avily in fluence d by th e

gen eral limita tion clau se (art 1) of the 1982 Can adian Cha rter of Rights and Freedo ms

and the in terpretat ion o f that claus e by t he C anadia n Supr eme Cour t.

It is ironic that nine teen years befor e the 1993 So uth Afric an Interim Cons titution

Hiem stra C J in Sm ith v Attorn ey-G enera l, Boph uthatsw ana ap plied p roportion ality

2

whe n la ying down guide lines f or th e inte rpreta tion of the funda men tal rig hts of the

Bop hutha tswana Con stitution – a constitutio n of an inter nation ally unre cogn ised state .

At issu e was the interpr etatio n of legis lation in fringin g fund ame ntal righ ts guar antee d

by th e Con stitutio n. He declare d tha t in ter ms of th e princ iple of prop ortionali ty an y

inter feren ce with the fundam ental rights gua rante ed by the constitu tion would be

lawfu l only if it w as allo wed b y the Co nstitu tion; wa s capable of achiev ing the purpo r-

ted o bjectiv e, was nec essa ry to ach ieve th e purp orted obje ctive and it was c lear th at

there wa s no lesser form o f inte rfere nce availa ble. Lastly, if it w as r easo nable o r

prop ortion al in the sense that the purporte d obje ctives of th e i nter ferenc e with the

right s were adequate and nece ssary a nd of e qual or su perio r weigh t when balanced

aga inst th e affe cted righ t.

In S v M akwa nyane Ch aska lson P he ld th at all limitatio ns of rig hts sho uld be

3

sub ject to a propo rtionality e nquir y. The ‘lim itations o f rights ’ men tione d by

Cha skalso n P referred to section 36 of the South Af rican Constit ution, the g enera l

limita tion c lause of the B ill of Rig hts. S ection 36 prov ides tha t the rights in the Bill o f

Righ ts may be limit ed o nly in te rms o f law of ge nera l app lication. Further that suc h

limita tion mu st be reaso nable and justif iable in an ope n and democr atic socie ty based

on hu man dig nity, equalit y and free dom. To deter mine wheth er the lim itation is

reas onab le and justifiable all releva nt factors must be taken into acc ount includ ing the

natu re of the right; the im portanc e o f the purpo se of the limita tion; the n ature and

exte nt of the limit ation; the re lation betwee n th e lim itation an d its purpos e an d less

restr ictive m eans to achie ve the purpos e.4

Th is gen eral limita tion cla use (wh ich was also inc luded in South A frica’s

Inte rim Con stitu tion of 1 993, ) fo r all pra ctica l purp oses intro duc ed the doc trine of

5

1984 1 SA 182 (B). See Rautenbach ‘Grondwetlike bepalings ter beskerming van die wese van

2

menseregte’ (1991) TSAR 403 at 411.

1995 6 BCLR 665 (C); 1995 3 SA 391 (CC) para 104: ‘Th e limitation of constitutional rights for a

3

purpose that is reasonable and necessary in a democratic society involves the weighing up of

competing values and ultimately an assessm ent based on proportionality’.

See Rautenbach and Malherbe Constitutional law (2004) 317 fo r an extensive discussion of these

4

‘relevant factors’.

Section 33. In Roman v Williams NO 1997 9 BCLR 1267 (C) which dealt with s 24(d) of the Interim

5

Constitution the close link between proportionali ty, justifiability, rationality and reasonableness was

demonstrated. Van Deventer J at 1275 held that s 24(d) ‘imports the requirement of proportionality

between means and end and the role of the courts in judicial reviews is no longer limited to the way

in which an administrative decision was reached but no w extends to its substance and merits’.