Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Ntuli ZACC 7

Case Name: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v  Ntuli ZACC 7 

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Ntuli is a landmark judgment  delivered by the Constitutional Court of South Africa that firmly affirms prisoners’  constitutional right to access further education, as protected under section 29(1)(b) of the South  African Constitution. The case specifically invalidated a nationwide, uniformly applied policy  that outright prohibited the use of personal computers within prison cells for educational  purposes. 

Court Details 

The judgment was delivered by Majiedt J, who authored the unanimous decision. The bench  included Justices Madlanga ADCJ, Kollapen J, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Rogers J, Seegobin AJ,  Theron J, Tolmay AJ, and Tshiqi J, all concurring in the ruling. 

Date of Judgment 

The Court issued its verdict on 30 April 2025, after hearing oral arguments on 14 November  2024. 

Parties Involved 

Applicants (Appellants): Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (First Applicant),  National Commissioner of Correctional Services (Second Applicant), Head of Correctional  Centre, Johannesburg Medium C (Third Applicant). 

Respondent: Mbalenhle Sydney Ntuli, a maximum-security inmate serving a 20-year sentence  at Johannesburg Medium C. 

Amicus Curiae: Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS).

Facts of the Case 

Ntuli, a registered student at Oxbridge Academy, was undertaking data processing studies and  required a personal computer both as an essential learning tool and as an object of study.  Previously, he was permitted to have a desktop computer in his cell at Medium B Correctional  Centre. However, after his transfer to Johannesburg Medium C in July 2018, access was denied, citing the 2007 Policy on Formal Education Programmes, which explicitly prohibited  computers in cells. 

The correctional facility’s dedicated computer room operated limited hours from 09:00 to 12:00  and 13:00 to 15:00 on weekdays, while being plagued by noise disturbances and inadequate  resources. Ntuli’s daily schedule included approximately six hours outside his cell for meals,  hygiene, and chores, which severely limited his ability to study effectively. Ntuli challenged  the policy in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, in 2019,  arguing that it infringed on his rights to further education,1 human dignity, 2 conditions of  detention,3and non-discrimination.4 

The High Court declared the policy unconstitutional and unconstitutional under the  PEPUDA,5finding it discriminatory. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s  ruling but suspended the declaration of invalidity for 12 months, pending a comprehensive  review, and provided interim relief. 

Issues Raised 

• Whether the Policy’s blanket prohibition on personal computers in cells  constitutes an unjustifiable limitation of the right to further education under  section 29(1)(b). 
• Whether the Policy limits rights to dignified detention (section 35(2)(e), access  to reading material), human dignity (section 10), and access to information  (section 16(1)(b)/(d)). 
• Whether the Policy qualifies as a “law of general application” under section 36(1)  and is justifiable. 
• Validity of SCA orders, including policy revision, interim relief, and costs.

Arguments of the Parties 

Applicants’ Key Contentions: 

• No infringement of section 29(1)(b); Policy regulates, not denies, education via  computer rooms/personal computers there (sufficient under the Constitution). Permission at Medium B was a violation of the facilities. 
• Security risks justify ban: smuggled cell phones create hotspots for internet/crime (e.g.,  gang instructions); daily searches yield breaches; courts defer to executive (separation  of powers). 
• No positive duty for cell computers; respondent’s course needs overstated (initially  denied registration, later withdrawn). 

Respondent’s Key Contentions: 

• Computer essential for data processing (not feasible on paper); room access is  inadequate (limited hours, noise, chores); 8 wasted cell hours daily. 
• Blanket ban unjustifiably limits section 29(1)(b), 35(2)(e) (electronic reading material),  section 10 (dignity via generalised assumptions), section 9(3) (discrimination vs.  public/other inmates); ultra vires Act/Regulations (sections 18, 38(1)(c); reg 13). 
• Cited residuum principle (Bateman;6 Goldberg;7Hofmeyr)8international law – Nelson  Mandela Rules, ICESCR General Comment 13.9

Amicus (JICS): 

• Education is non-derogable; Policy diminishes access to tools/reading materials  (sections 29(1)(b), 35(2)(e)); state has a negative duty under section 7(2) not to  interfere; aligns with international obligations. 

Judgment 

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed; SCA constitutional invalidity confirmed. Policy  unconstitutional/invalid to the extent prohibiting personal computers in cells where reasonably  required for further education; set aside (suspended 12 months). 

Key Orders: 

1. Second Applicant (Commissioner) revise policy within 12 months, disseminate to  centres, and post notices. 
2. Interim: Registered students needing computers (support/compulsory) use personal  computers (no modem) in cells, subject to inspection; breach allows removal post representations. 
3. Applicants pay costs (High Court, SCA, Constitutional Court; two counsel). High Court PEPUDA finding (unfair discrimination) set aside by SCA (no cross-appeal). 

Legal Reasoning (Ratio Decidendi) 

Incarceration retains Bill of Rights (residuum principle evolved: Makwanyane; Sonke), subject  to justifiable limits.10Section 29(1)(b) (“further education”) broadly includes tertiary/computer based; encompasses tools (computers as means/object, digital materials). 

Policy: Law of general application (section 13(4) Act delegated legislation). Blanket ban limits  section 29(1)(b) (inadequate room access: 5 weekday hours; no facilities everywhere; noise;  respondent’s 18-hour lockup wastes study time). 

No justification (section 36): 

• Applicants’ “no infringement” fails (room access illusory). 
• Security unsubstantiated (no evidence of computer breaches; cell phones hotspot  independently; other corded items allowed). 
• Negative duty (section 7(2)): State must not diminish rights (Juma Musjid; Rail  Commuters). 

Policy contradicts the Act’s purpose (section 41: education access; reg 102(a)); international  law (ICESCR; Mandela Rules rule 104). 

Unnecessary to decide sections 35(2)(e)/10/16 limits (section 29 dispositive). SCA orders  varied: no JICS consultation/Minister involvement (executive domain). 

Conclusion and Significance 

The judgment underscores the importance of balancing rehabilitation objectives with security  concerns, advocating for nuanced, case-by-case policies rather than broad bans. It marks a  significant development in transformative constitutionalism within the correctional system,  emphasising the essential role of education in prisoner rehabilitation.

OSCALA Citations Full Reference(S): 

Cases 

Goldberg v Minister of Prisons 1979(1) SA 14(A). 

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Ntuli 2025 ZACC 7 (Constitutional  Court of South Africa, 30 April 2025). 

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Ntuli 2023 ZASCA 146, 2024 (1) All SA 333  (Supreme Court of Appeal). 

Minister of Justice v Hofmeyr (240/91) [1993] ZASCA 40; 1993 (3) SA 131 (AD); [1993] 2  All SA 232 (A) (26 March 1993). 

Ntuli v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (High Court of South Africa, Gauteng  Local Division, Johannesburg, Case No 2019/083, 27 September 2019). 

Whittaker & Morant v Roos & Bateman 1912 AD 92. 

Legislation 

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. 

Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998. 

Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. Higher Education Act 101 of 1997. 

Subordinate Legislation 

Correctional Services Regulations, Government Notice R323, Government Gazette 35277 (25  April 2012). 

International Instruments 

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966,  entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3 (ratified by South Africa 12 January 2015).

United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela  Rules) (General Assembly resolution 70/175, 17 December 2015). 

Secondary Sources 

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘General Comment No 13: The Right to  Education (Article 13 of the Covenant)’ (8 December 1999) UN Doc E/C.12/1999/10.

1 Under section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution. 

2 Under section 10 of the Constitution. 

3 Under section 35(2)(e) of the Constitution. 

4 Under section 9 of the Constitution. 

5 Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.

6 Whittaker & Morant v Roos & Bateman 1912 AD 92. 

7 Goldberg v Minister of Prisons 1979(1) SA 14(A). 

8 Minister of Justice v Hofmeyr (240/91) [1993] ZASCA 40; 1993 (3) SA 131 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 232 (A) (26  March 1993) 

9 The human right to education under Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural  Rights

10 Section 36 of the Constitution.