Library Portal | UWC Portal | National ETDs | Global ETDs
    • Login
    Contact Us | About Us | FAQs | Login
    View Item 
    •   DSpace Home
    • Faculty of Law
    • Dullah Omar Institute for Constitutional Law, Governance and Human Rights
    • Civil Society Prison Reform
    • View Item
    •   DSpace Home
    • Faculty of Law
    • Dullah Omar Institute for Constitutional Law, Governance and Human Rights
    • Civil Society Prison Reform
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    South African prisoner's right to vote

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    De Vos_South African Prisoners Right to Vote (2004).pdf (120.0Kb)
    Date
    2004
    Author
    Pierre, De Vos
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    The South African Constitution states that every adult citizen has the right to vote. There has therefore been some legal controversy around the questions of whether it would be unconstitutional to limit the right of any prisoner to cast a vote in national elections. Before the last Parliamentary and Provincial national election in 1999 a group of prisoners challenged and order of the Electoral Commission which excluded all prisoners from voting. In the case of August and Another v Electoral Commission and Others. The Constitutional Court declared this action by the Commission invalid. However, the judgment did not authoritatively answer the question of whether prisoners could be denied the vote because the Court relied on the fact that the Commission had not acted in terms of a law of general limitation and their action could therefore not be constitutionally justified in terms of the limitation clause. When Parliament therefore amended the Electoral Act in 2003 to, in effect, deprive convicted prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment without the option of a fine of the right to participate in elections, it was predictable that the amendments would be challenged in Court. This duly happened and in Minister of Home Affairs v National Institute for Crime Prevention (NICRO) the Constitutional Court declared these amendments invalid. In this addendum I discuss the reasoning employed by the Court in this case, point out that the Court did not shy away from its Constitutional responsibilities to protect the unpopular and marginalised prison population and conclude that the case bodes well for any future prisoner’s rights litigation.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10566/5096
    Collections
    • Civil Society Prison Reform

    DSpace 6.3 | Ubuntu | Copyright © University of the Western Cape
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    DSpace 6.3 | Ubuntu | Copyright © University of the Western Cape
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV