No abstract

The terms “privileges” and “immunities” in relation to parliament are used interchangeably in the literature. A comparison of the privileges and immunities of parliament in the Namibian and the South African jurisdictions has shown that these are distinctive but interrelated. Major dissimilarities in Namibian and South African law in this regard are discernible. In the Namibian system, certain weaknesses are identified in the legal framework for the privileges and immunities of parliament. Recommendations are made based on these identified gaps with a view to improving the law relating to the privileges and immunities of parliament.

The history of local government in South Africa dates back to a time during the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910. With regard to the status of local government, the Union of South Africa Act placed local government under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The status of local government was not changed by the formation of the Republic of South Africa in 1961 because local government was placed under the further jurisdiction of the provinces. Local government was enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa arguably for the first time in 1993. Under the interim Constitution local government was rendered autonomous and empowered to regulate its affairs. Local government was further enshrined in the final Constitution of 1996, which commenced on 4 February 1997. The Constitution refers to local government together with the national and provincial governments as spheres of government which are distinctive, interdependent and interrelated. This article discusses the autonomy of local government under the 1996 Constitution. This it does by analysing case law on the evolution of the status of local government. The discussion on the powers and functions of local government explains the scheme by which government powers are allocated, where the 1996 Constitution distributes powers to the different spheres of government. Finally, a conclusion is drawn on the legal status of local government within the new constitutional dispensation.

The relationship between a voluntary association and its members is founded on a contract. The constitution of the association regulates the acquisition and termination of the membership of the association. The courts have always had the jurisdiction to hear disputes between members of the association, and they can also interfere with its decision if it has acted ultra vires, or in an instance where its decision was vitiated by bias. After the dawn of the new constitutional democracy, the Constitution became the supreme law of the Republic, and it enshrined the transformative clauses. Thus, the process of transforming the adjudication of disputes in the private sector has to be aligned with the values embedded in the Constitution. This article explains the review of the decisions of a disciplinary tribunal prior to and after the 1994 constitutional dispensation. This it does by discussing the effect of transformative constitutionalism on the review of disputes in the private sector. The relevant transformative clauses in the Constitution are discussed. More particularly, the article concentrates on the effect of the just administrative clause in the Constitution and the Promotion of Just Administrative Act (PAJA) in transforming the rules of natural justice. Furthermore, instances where the PAJA is applicable with regard to the decision of a tribunal of voluntary association, are explained. Finally, a conclusion is drawn on the post-1994 courts’ reviews of decisions of disciplinary tribunals of voluntary associations.