Judicial Review of Executive Power: Legality, Rationality and Reasonableness (2)

Abstract

For the sake of context, the abstract of this contribution is repeated below (see (2015) 30(1) SAPL for Part 1 of this article). Early in the life of the South African democratic dispensation, the Constitutional Court distinguished the conduct of the President as the head of the executive branch of government from an administrative action. However, it held that executive conduct was, like all exercise of public power, constrained by the constitutional principles of legality and rationality. So, as a necessary incident of the rule of law, the executive may not exercise powers or perform duties not conferred upon it by the Constitution and the law. The cases decided since then demonstrate in practical and theoretical terms the democratic aphorism that no one is above the law and everyone is subject to the Constitution and the law. In the process, the Constitutional Court has entertained appeals for the review of executive powers such as where, inter alia, the President had acted on wrong advice or terminated the appointment of the head of the National Intelligence Agency; the legality of Ministerial Regulations and of the rationality of the presidential appointment of the Director of the National Prosecuting Authority. The role of reasonableness as a ground of review of executive conduct rather than administrative action has been demonstrated in the many cases where the distinction has been made between the rationality test and the reasonableness test. The conclusion, therefore, is that, through their interpretation of the Constitution and review of executive powers, the courts have developed a code of principles regarding the rule of law, good government, and democracy.