From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Azanian People’s Organization v. President of the Republic of South Africa
Constitutional Court of South Africa
 4 S.A.L.R. 671
Apartheid, a system of racial discrimination, permeated South Africa’s governmental policies and practices beginning in 1948. Apartheid classified and separated persons by skin color and denied various groups the rights to vote and own property, among other rights. As a result, a large majority of South Africa’s population was denied fundamental human rights. During the 1990s, the South African government (defendant) commenced negotiations to transfer power to majority rule. During the negotiation talks, as a way to promote reconstruction of the nation, a provision was included in the Interim Constitution granting amnesty to some persons who had committed apartheid. The Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (Act) was subsequently adopted to implement the Constitution’s amnesty provisions. The Act established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which was comprised of three sub-commissions that were tasked with investigating facts, deciding upon indemnification for victims, and managing amnesty claims. The Act contained two main conditions that had to be satisfied before amnesty would be granted: (1) the applicant fully disclosed all facts related to the offense, and (2) the offense was associated with a political objective and was committed during a past conflict. Sections 20(2) and 20(3) of the Act outlined the specific elements that constituted a political objective. Section 20(7) further provided that, upon a grant of amnesty, no civil or criminal liability would attach. After the Act was passed, the Azanian People’s Organization and several apartheid victims (plaintiffs) challenged the constitutionality of the Act in the Constitutional Court of South Africa, arguing that section 20(7) violated section 22 of the Interim Constitution, which granted individuals the right to have an impartial court resolve all justiciable disputes.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Mahomed, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 630,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.