Ex parte the President of the Republic of South Africa: In re Constitutionality of the Liquor Bill
South Africa Constitutional Court
2000 (1) SA 732 (CC) (1999)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
The president of the Republic of South Africa (the president) (plaintiff) referred a bill passed by Parliament to the South Africa Constitutional Court prior to signing it to determine its constitutionality. Several of South Africa’s provinces (the provinces) (defendants) intervened to challenge the bill. The bill in question regulated the liquor industry by dividing it into three categories: manufacturing, distribution, and retail sales. The bill placed regulation of manufacturing and distribution with a national authority. This included the authority to grant registration licenses for manufacturing and distributing liquor. Provincial governments, in contrast, were vested with overseeing the registration of retail sellers of liquor. The purpose behind the bill was to remedy economic disparities in the liquor industry under apartheid, which had prohibited the sale of liquor to Blacks. The president argued that the bill was a valid exercise of Parliament’s authority to regulate economic goods and services. The provinces, in contrast, argued that the bill was an impermissible intrusion into their exclusive authority under the constitution to regulate liquor licenses. The president responded by saying that even if this were the case, the constitution had vested Parliament with concurrent powers over matters of trade and industrial promotion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cameron, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.