By virtue of state sovereignty, states exercise authority over all persons and things within their territories. This includes individuals suspected of committing or charged with crimes in foreign states. International law generally imposes no obligation to surrender individuals suspected of or charged with committing crimes in foreign states. Fugitives may only be returned when an agreement exists between the states concerned. As such, states are increasingly ratifying international treaties mandating cooperation to ensure that individuals responsible for certain categories of crimes are brought to justice. It is worth noting that some of these states lack extradition treaties with each other. For example, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) which mandates that they cooperate with each other in ensuring that crimes related to corruption are prosecuted. However, there is no extradition treaty between South Africa and the UAE. In these circumstances, a question arises as to whether they can they rely on the UNCAC to extradite individuals for corruption-related crimes. If they can, what is the nature of the international obligation entrenched under the UNCAC? Overall, what is the standing of international treaty clauses on extradition for states without extradition treaties?
By virtue of state sovereignty, states exercise authority over all persons and things within their territories. This includes individuals suspected of committing or charged with crimes in foreign states. International law generally imposes no obligation to surrender individuals suspected of or charged with committing crimes in foreign states. Fugitives may only be returned when an agreement exists between the states concerned. As such, states are increasingly ratifying international treaties mandating cooperation to ensure that individuals responsible for certain categories of crimes are brought to justice. It is worth noting that some of these states lack extradition treaties with each other. For example, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) which mandates that they cooperate with each other in ensuring that crimes related to corruption are prosecuted. However, there is no extradition treaty between South Africa and the UAE. In these circumstances, a question arises as to whether they can they rely on the UNCAC to extradite individuals for corruption-related crimes. If they can, what is the nature of the international obligation entrenched under the UNCAC? Overall, what is the standing of international treaty clauses on extradition for states without extradition treaties?
The Constitutional Court, on 17 March 2017 handed down judgment in the case of Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development (South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) case). The case dealt with the payment of social grants, which, in accordance with the South African Agency Act, is the responsibility of SASSA.The Court made a number of orders, including an order that “(SASSA) and Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Limited (CPS) are under a constitutional obligation to ensure payment of social grants to grant beneficiaries from 1 April 2017 until an entity other than CPS is able to do so and that a failure to do so will infringe upon grant beneficiaries’ rights of access to social assistance under section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution.” This order was made despite the fact that 1. There was no valid contract between SASSA and CPS and 2. That CPS is a private entity, which, in the ordinary course of events, is not the primary duty-bearer in so far as human rights are concerned. Indeed, the Court itself conceded that this order pushes at the limits of its exercise of a just and equitable remedial power. A number of interesting legal issues are brought sharply into focus in light of this court order. Firstly, what is the nature and weight of the right to social security? Secondly, could the private entity (CPS) be placed under legal obligation to guarantee the rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights, in particular, where no valid contract exists between a private entity and a state organ? Thirdly, what are the implications of the Court’s order against CPS for the laws of contract? As the SASSA decision was only handed down in March 2017, it has not been unpacked fully. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to critically assess how these questions played out, in particular, how the Constitutional Court, against all odds, played its role as the custodian of the Constitution.It would however, be premature to embark on such detailed discussion without getting to grips with the decision in the SASSA case. For this purpose, the SASSA decision is briefly discussed with a view to setting the stage for the detailed analysis of the issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.