INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION 178
TUTORIAL 6
Date and time of submission: Thursday 20 August before 23:59
Maximum length: 2.5 pages (Times New Roman, 12pt, 1.5 spacing,
justified)
Instructions
Properly substantiate your answers, with reference to the relevant provisions
in the Act and other relevant sources. Add footnotes where relevant and
include a bibliography.
The portal for submission of the tutorial will open on Monday 17 August at
9:00 and close on Thursday 20 August at 23:59. No late submissions will
be accepted.
Read the plagiarism declaration and click that you accept its contents before
you submit your tutorial.
Question 1 [7 marks]
(a) Suppose the National Water Amendment Bill is currently before Parliament.
When will the Bill become an Act of Parliament? (Hint: consult section 81 of
the Constitution.)
(1)
(b) Briefly discuss three ways in which the Act can be put into operation and
indicate clearly on which date the Act will come into operation in each
instance.
(6)
Question 2 [8 marks]
(a) Suppose a new Assemblies Act 100 of 2025 (“AA”) was recently adopted. The
AA repeals and replaces the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993
(“RGA”). The provision that repeals the RGA came into effect on 1 July 2025.
However, the other provisions of the AA will only come into effect on 30
September 2025.
Suppose further that a group of Stellenbosch University students plan to
march to Parliament on 12 September 2025 to protest against financial
exclusion at universities. The students want to know whether there is
legislation that will govern the protest. Advise them whether they need to
1
comply with any of the following legislation: the AA; the RGA; or the
Gatherings and Demonstrations in the Vicinity of Parliament Act 52 of 1973,
which was repealed by the RGA in 1993.
(4)
(b) Suppose the students march to Parliament on 12 September. Suppose further
that the RGA is in force at the time. The police arrest the students and charge
them with the violation of certain provisions in the RGA. When they appear in
court on 15 October, they ask for the case against them to be dismissed.
They argue that the RGA is no longer in operation and that, consequently,
they cannot be charged with its violation. Alternatively, they argue that the
relevant provisions of the RGA are unconstitutional. Can either or both
challenges succeed?
(4)
Question 3 [7 marks]
Are the following statements true or false? In each case, substantiate your answer:
(a) “The purpose of the presumption against the retro-active application of
legislation is to prevent taking away people’s rights retroactively.”
(2)
(b) “The Terrorism Act of 1967, which was deemed to have come into effect in
1962, is an example of legislation with weak retro-effect.”
(2)
(c) “The Constitutional Court held in Veldman v Director of Public
Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division that the presumption that
legislative provisions do not apply retrospectively did not apply to the
amendment of the regional court’s sentencing jurisdiction, as the provision
was of a procedural rather than substantive nature.”
(3)
2
INLEIDING TOT STAATSREG EN UITLEG VAN WETSTEKSTE 178
TUTORIAAL 6
Datum en tyd van indiening: Donderdag 20 Augustus voor 23:59
Maksimum lengte: 2.5 bladsye (Times New Roman, 12pt, 1.5
spasiëring, justified)
Instruksies
Motiveer jou antwoorde behoorlik, met verwysing na die relevante bepalings
in die Wet en ander relevante bronne. Voeg voetnote by waar toepaslik en
sluit ʼn bibliografie in.
Die portaal vir indiening van die tutoriaal sal op Maandag 17 Augustus om
9:00 oopmaak en op Donderdag 20 Augustus om 23:59 sluit. Geen laat
voorleggings sal aanvaar word nie.
Lees die plagiaatverklaring en klik dat jy die inhoud daarvan aanvaar voordat
jy jou tutoriaal indien.
Vraag 1 [7 punte]
(a) Veronderstel die Nasionale Waterwysigingswetsontwerp dien tans voor die
Parlement. Wanneer sal die wetsontwerp ʼn Wet van die Parlement word?
Wenk: raadpleeg artikel 81 van die Grondwet.
(1)
(b) Bespreek kortliks drie maniere waarop die Wet in werking gestel kan word en
dui duidelik aan op watter datum die Wet in elke geval in werking tree.
(6)
Vraag 2 [8 punte]
(a) Gestel 'n nuwe Wet op Vergaderings 10 van 2025 ("WV") is onlangs aanvaar.
Die WV herroep en vervang die Wet op die Regulering van Vergaderings 205
van 1993 (“WRV”). Die bepaling wat die WRV herroep, het op 1 Julie 2025 in
werking getree. Die ander bepalings van die WV tree egter eers op 30
September 2025 in werking.
Veronderstel verder dat 'n groep studente van die Universiteit Stellenbosch op
12 September 2025 na die Parlement wil optrek om teen finansiële uitsluiting
by universiteite te betoog. Die studente wil weet of daar wetgewing is wat die
betoging sal reguleer. Adviseer hulle of hulle aan enige van die volgende
wetgewing moet voldoen: die WV; die WRV; of die Wet op Byeenkomste en
3
Betogings in die Omtrek van die Parlement 52 van 1973, wat in 1993 deur die
WRV herroep is.
(4)
(b) Gestel die studente stap op 12 September na die Parlement. Veronderstel
verder dat die RGA op daardie tydstip van krag is. Die polisie arresteer die
studente en beskuldig hulle van die oortreding van sekere bepalings in die
WRV. Wanneer hulle op 15 Oktober in die hof verskyn, vra hulle dat die saak
teen hulle laat vaar word. Hulle voer aan dat die WRV nie meer in werking is
nie en dat hulle gevolglik nie vir die oortreding daarvan aangekla kan word
nie. Alternatiewelik voer hulle aan dat die relevante bepalings van die RGA
ongrondwetlik is. Kan een of albei hierdie argumente slaag?
(4)
Vraag 3 [7 punte]
Is die volgende stellings waar of onwaar? Motiveer u antwoorde.
(a) “Die doel van die vermoede teen die terugwerkende toepassing van
wetgewing is om te verhoed dat mense se regte terugwerkend weggeneem
word.”
(2)
(b) “Die Wet op Terrorisme van 1967, wat geag is om in 1962 in werking te tree,
is ʼn voorbeeld van wetgewing met swak terugwerkende krag.”
(2)
(c) “Die Konstitusionele Hof het in Veldman v Director of Public Prosecutions,
Witwatersrand Local Division beslis dat die vermoede dat wetgewende
bepalings nie terugwerkend van toepassing is nie, nie van toepassing is op
die wysiging van die streekhof se vonnisjurisdiksie nie, aangesien die
bepaling van ʼn prosedurele eerder as substantiewe aard is.”
(3)