Analysis of Landmark Case Judgment in South Africa.

Introduction

This article will analyze the importance of landmark case judgment in South Africa, focusing on the famous case S v makwanyane 1995,  the case involved  two accused  themba makwanyane and mvoso mchunu, this two accused  were sentenced to death on each count of murder and to a long term imprisonment on the other counts .[1]   This article following the judgment of the s v makwanyane will analyze why it form as part of the landmark case judgment in south Africa and how the decision in the judgment changed south African law, society and abolishing the death penalty and the importance impacting the interpretation, court application of the constitutional right by a south African court and this Article will furthermore show how Ubuntu contributed to defining the cruelty of the death penalty and its inconsistency with the right to life .[2]   

Body.

Following the proceedings of the two accused in s v makwanyane judgment the accused appealed to the Supreme Court following the interim constitution of 1993. The appellate division dismissed the appeal against the conviction and came to a conclusion that the accused deserved the convictions therefore should receive the harshest sentence available by law. [3] At the legal defense that section 277 (1) (a) of the criminal procedure Act no. 51 1977 which conducted that the death penalty is the relevant sentence for murder. [4]Which posed a lot of questions, because the accused lodged an appeal because the death penalty violated the right to life and dignity.

Which clearly shows that the death penalty was inconsistent with section 9 of the right to life, everyone shall have the right to life not only the right to life but also human dignity. Everyone shall have the right to respect and protection of his or dignity.[5] Meaning the right to life of the people who were sentenced was violated and this was inconsistent with the law.

The above facts this article mentioned above were also confirmed in following the legal proceedings judgment of s v makwanyane since the right to life and dignity is the most significant human rights and all the source of other personal right in chapter 3 of the constitution everyone is required to respect the two rights mentioned above not only isn’t important but contribute to this case shaping as a landmark judgment. This two rights also apply to the state in everything it does with regard to the way it punishes criminals the two rights must not be violated. The above legal proceedings lead to the counsel of the accused ordered by the appellate division to examine whether this was consistent with the republic of the South African constitution, which came into effect to the conviction and sentencing by the court.

The new interpretation of the constitution and statutory.

The counsel agreed that the death penalty conflicted with section 9 and 12, of the constitution.[6]  This case then showcase that the s v makwanyane case offers a new interpretation of a constitutional provision because after the accused lodged an appeal although their appeal was dismissed lead to legal proceedings because the appellate division dismissed the appeal against the sentences on the counts of attempted murder and robbery, but postponed the further hearing of the appeals against the death sentences which form as part of new interpretation and provision.

The attorney general argued that what is cruel, inhuman or degraded depend on what the society says and that south African does not examine the death sentence for murder as cruelty.  [7] however this article disagree, because if public opinion matters they wasn’t going to be a need for the constitution all the decision would  be dependent on the society and what we think is right and wrong as individual rather than constitutional principles.[8]  Not only did this case form as a landmark judgment, but it also highlighted the unfair and inhuman aspects of the interim constitution of 1993. At that time, there were about over 300 people on the row with approximately 400 people sentenced in the former Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda are taken into account , who have been sentenced to death by the courts , awaiting resolution on this issue.[9]

The case of S v Makwanyane is a landmark judgment that significantly changed South African law and society.

The attorney general decided that if the death penalty for murder was deemed unconstitutional, there would be no need to carry out the death sentences imposed on the accused. The prohibition of cruel and inhuman punishment applies to all punishments implemented after 27 April 1994 and can be applied retrospectively to prevent punishment that were lawful when imposed. This led to the dismissal of the death penalty. Benefiting not only the accused but also those in custody awaiting resolution’’. [10]  This case solidify its status as a landmark. It saved numerous lives, commuting death sentences and making a significant shift in South African law. This case honors those who were executed and changed society by abolishing the death penalty, making it a crucial reference point for future cases involving the right to life. It sets a precedent for challenging similar punishment, ensuring consistency with the constitution. [11]  

Following the analysis, section 98(5) of the constitution declares paragraph (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of section 277 (1) of the criminal procedure Act, and corresponding provisions, incompatible with the constitution and invalid.

Section 98 (7) of the constitution abolished the death penalty, with effect from the date of this order which is June 6 of 1995

The order was as follow;

The state and its organs are forbidden to execute anyone already sentenced to death under a provision declared to be invalid and all such persons will remain in custody under the sentences imposed on them until such sentences have been set aside in accordance with law and substituted with lawful punishment.[12]  This article agrees with the order and judgment. Sentencing people to death was cruel and inconsistent with African values one of them being Ubuntu.

An outstanding feature of Ubuntu in community sense is the value it places on life and human dignity. The dominant cultural ethos is that another person’s life is t as valuable as one’s own. Respect for every person’s dignity is integral to this concept[13]. During violent conflict and times when crimes destroyed lives, society loses Ubuntu like it did during the death penalty. Thus crimes are the antithesis of Ubuntu, and treatment that’s cruel, inhuman, or degrading is lacking of Ubuntu highlighting the death penalty’s inconsistency with the right to life[14].  This article agree with the author in our society respect for human dignity is important, and the death penalty was inconsistent with the right to life. As in Ubuntu one person’s life is at least as valuable as another’s, making the death penalty a violation of this fundamental principle. The judgment in the case of s v makwanyane contributed in construction of Ubuntu, translating to humanness and personhood, emphasizes group solidarity compassion, and respect for human dignity. Its’ about recognizing that a person is a person through others, highlighting the importance of community and collective unity.[15]In South Africa, Ubuntu underpins our democracy, promoting conciliation and respect for life.[16] 

CONCLUSION.

S v makwanyane (1995) stands as a pivotal landmark judgment, abolishing the death penalty and upholding the right to life and dignity. [17] this case not only reshaped south African law but also reflected the country’s transition to a more humane and just society. By recognizing the inherent value of human life, the court set a precedent for future cases, cementing the principles of dignity and humanity.[18]  As a result South African law and society have been profoundly impacted, with the right to life and dignity now a fundamental to the country’s legal ethos.[19] Ultimately this judgment saved countless lives, honored those executed and solidified South Africa’s commitment to constitutional values.[20] This article agrees with the order and judgment.[21]Sentencing people to death is cruel and inconsistent with African values of Ubuntu. Ubuntu places values on life and human dignity, recognizing that another person’s life is as valuable as your own.[22] The death penalty contradicts this principle, leading to a loss of Ubuntu. The s v makwanyane judgment contributed to the construction of Ubuntu, emphasizing community, solidarity, and respect for human dignity.[23]  The case of s v makwanyane and Another (1995) Underpins South African’s democracy, promoting conciliation and the right to life.

Bibliography

Statutes

Constitution of the republic of South Africa, 1996.

The 1993 interim constitution (Act 200 of 1993)

Criminal procedure Act 51 of 1977.

Book

Laubscher,R,Van staden M. Landmark constitutional cases that changed south Africa (uj press 2023).

Case

S V makwanyane and Another 1995(3) SA 311(cc)

[1] State v makwanyane and another (1995)  CCT 3 / 94 paragraph 1

[2] Laubscher R, Van staden, M. landmark constitutional cases that changed south Africa UJ press (2023 Nov 1)p ii State v makwanyane and Another (1995)  paragraph 224

[3] State v makwanyane and another (1995) CCT/94 para 1

[4] S v makwanyane (199) para 2

[5] Act 200 of 1993 section 9

[6] S v makwanyane and Another (1995) para 2.

[7] S v makwanyane  and Another (1995) para 87.

[8] S v makwamyane and Another (1995) para 88.

[9] S v makwanyane and Another (1995) para 6.The author acknowledges using ChatGPT (OpenAI) for assistance with brainstorming and structuring ideas in this article.

[10] S v makwanyane and another (1995) para 148 I wish to be transparent and indicate that I have made use of Grammarly in formulating the sentences and assisting with punctuation in this article  however all the ideas are from the case I mentioned above.

[11] I wish to be transparent and indicate that I have made use of grammarly in formulating the sentences and assisting with punctuation in this Article however all the substantive ideas are my own. 

[12] S v makwanyane and another (1995) para 151.

[13] S v Makwanyane and Another (1995) para 225.

[14] S v makwanyane and Another (1995) para 225.

[15] S v makwanyane and Another (1995) para 308 I wish to be transparent and indicate that I have made use of grammarly in formulating the sentences and assisting with punctuation in this Article however all the substantive ideas are from S v makwanyane (1995)  para 308.

[16] S v makwanyane and Another para 308

[17] S v makwanyane and another (1995) para 151

[18] I wish to be transparent that I have made use grammarly in formulating this sentence, however, all the substantive ideas are my own.

[19] The  constitution republic of south Africa section 10

[20] S v makwanyane and another (1995) paragraph 6 I wish to be transparent and made use of Grammarly in formulating sentences and assisting with punctuation.

[21] S v makwanyane and another (1995) paragraph 151 subsection (a) (b)

[22] S v makwanyane and another para 225

[23] S v makwanyane and another paragraph 308