Explore publications.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, grants all official languages parity of esteem and equal treatment. The Constitution also recognises injustices of the past and historical diminished use of indigenous (African) languages. It is against this backdrop that this democratic constitution calls-upon the national and provincial government to take practical and positive measures in encouraging the use and elevation of the status of African languages. In advocating for these languages, the Constitution declares that a minimum of two official languages be used by the government in executing government activities. Contrastingly, the heads of court resolutions in 2017 declared English a lingua franca in South African courts. In a diverse country such as South Africa with twelve official languages, this raises critical concerns in terms of the country’s diversity, inclusivity, and multilingualism policies. With a distinct focus on Eastern Cape legal courts, this study examines the constitutional linguistic rights on the use of English as a lingua franca in South African courts system. The study adopted a qualitative research approach embedded within the exploratory-explanatory research design. The data was obtained from secondary sources, which in this context are judicial precedents. To analyse the collected data, close-reading and thematic content analysis techniques were adopted. The findings of the study exhibit English as a language of power and access in law, this positions African languages at the periphery, limiting their development and incorporation in legalese. Also, the use of English as a lingua franca in the Eastern Cape courts contravenes the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. This study submits that legal practitioners and linguists should critically explore, language studies to bridge the knowledge gap.  Additionally, the government should create channels which allow the practical use of African languages in the court of law.                                                                                                                                             

As South Africa enters its fourth decades of democratic governance there is growing debate about the way intergovernmental support and intervention is understood from operational perspectives, particularly as pertains to the management of local government. It is not clear how national and provincial governments apply intergovernmental support, control and checking mechanisms before the mandatory interventions through Section 139 of the Constitution of South Africa (1996) becomes a necessity. This article aims to contribute to this contemporary discourse by providing a critical account of the role of intergovernmental support and intervention to local government in provincial contexts. The article follows qualitative approach. It argues that a capable local government is possible if there is enough intergovernmental support from provincial and national governments. It further argues mandatory interventions are not helpful, and that their parameters should be revisited and certainly, limit those to cases of ‘absolute’ impossibilities. In the end, the article recommended key ‘intergovernmental support’ channels and measures that provinces can use to aid municipalities facing crisis situations.   

The establishment of South Africa’s 2024 Government of National Unity (GNU) marks a significant departure from post-apartheid electoral norms, raising critical questions about the constitutional viability of coalition governance amid political fragmentation. This paper interrogates whether the existing constitutional framework adequately supports a GNU model under contemporary conditions of socio-economic strain and institutional fragility. Through a qualitative legal analysis of constitutional texts, key policy documents, political declarations, and jurisprudential trends, the study assesses how mechanisms such as separation of powers, executive authority, and intergovernmental cooperation are interpreted and deployed within unity arrangements. It traces the historical emergence of power-sharing in South Africa, comparing the 1994 transitional GNU to the current iteration, and identifies core challenges such as executive ambiguity, accountability erosion, and legal uncertainty. The paper further evaluates the role of civil society, the judiciary, and political culture in safeguarding constitutional order. By synthesizing insights from state performance, party behavior, and legal analysis, it identifies both limitations and reform opportunities within South Africa’s constitutional architecture. The study concludes with recommendations for strengthening democratic resilience through clearer legal design, institutional clarity, and enhanced civic engagement, contributing to global discourse on constitutional adaptability in emerging democracies.

This article critically examines the constitutional tension between the right to freedom of expression and the rights to equality and dignity in adjudicating racially charged political speech in South Africa. It focuses on the controversial chant "Kill the Boer" and interrogates how courts navigate the competing imperatives of protecting political expression while upholding non-racialism, equality, and human dignity. Through doctrinal and comparative analysis, including cases from Kenya and Rwanda, the article identifies inconsistencies in South African jurisprudence, particularly regarding symbolic speech and its real-world impact on minority communities. It highlights the judiciary's tendency to underplay psychological and symbolic harm, which undermines public trust and the transformative vision of the Constitution. The article further addresses the study's limitations, such as the limited engagement with primary data and potential judicial biases. It proposes reforms that prioritise restorative constitutionalism and a more context-sensitive approach to adjudicating hate speech, considering the feasibility of such measures within South Africa’s resource-constrained legal framework. The study contributes to broader debates on how transitional democracies can address historical injustice without enabling new forms of exclusion or harm.

The Life Esidimeni tragedy represents one of the most egregious human rights violations in South Africa's contemporary history. This article examines the series of events that led to the deaths of 141 mental healthcare patients and the severe maltreatment of over 1,400 others following their forced relocation from the Life Esidimeni facility to various unlicensed NGOs. The Gauteng Department of Health's decision to end its contract with Life Esidimeni without adequate planning or consultation led to a humanitarian disaster characterized by neglect, abuse, and gross violations of human rights. This paper reviews the timeline of events, the systemic failures, and the outcomes of various inquiries and legal proceedings, drawing lessons from the incident to inform future healthcare policies and practices. The findings emphasize the need for stringent oversight, transparent decision-making processes, and the protection of vulnerable populations in healthcare settings. The discussion reflects on the broader implications for mental healthcare reform and the importance of accountability and justice in preventing such tragedies. It also underlines the necessity of comprehensive policy frameworks and robust enforcement mechanisms to safeguard the rights and well-being of mental healthcare users.