Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/81

(b)

the right to respect for human dignity guaranteed in section 10;

(c)

the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment as set out in section 11(2).

[217]⁠For the reasons set out in Didcott J's judgment, I place more emphasis on the right to life. Section 9 of the Constitution proclaims it in unqualified terms. It is the most fundamental of all rights,^[1] the supreme human right.^[2] I do not consider it necessary or desirable to define the exact scope of the right, save to make two points, namely:

(a)

It does mean that every person has the right not to be deliberately put to death by the State as punishment, as envisaged in section 277 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(b)

I do not exclude the application of the limitations clause to the right to life. Any law which seeks to limit the right will have to comply with the requirements of section 33(1) of the Constitution. For the reasons set out in Chaskalson P's judgment, the requirements have not been met; the State has been unable to justify the limitation which is imposed on the right to life by section 277 of the Criminal Procedure Act. I cannot accept that it is "reasonable," as required by section 33(1) of the Constitution, to override what is the most fundamental of all rights, without clear proof that the deterrence value of the penalty is substantially higher than that which the imposition of a suitably long period of imprisonment has. This has not been proved. Because of the view I take, I find it unnecessary to deal with the other requirements of section 33(1) of the Constitution.

[218]⁠The emphasis I place on the right to life is, in part, influenced by the recent experiences of our people in this country. The history of the past decades has been such that the value of life and human dignity have been demeaned. Political, social and other factors created a climate of violence resulting in a culture of retaliation and vengeance. In the process, respect for life and for the inherent dignity of every person became the main casualties. The State has been part of this degeneration, not only because of its role in the conflicts of the past, but also by retaining punishments which did not testify to a high regard for the dignity of the person and the value of every human life.

[219]⁠The primacy of the right to life and its relationship to punishment needs to be emphasized also in view of our constitutional history. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty meant, virtually, that the State could do anything, enact any law, subject only to procedural correctness.^[3]

[220]⁠When the Constitution was enacted, it signalled a dramatic change in the system of governance from one based on rule by parliament to a constitutional state in which the rights of individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution. It also signalled a new dispensation, as it were, where rule by force would be replaced by democratic principles and a governmental system based on the precepts of equality and freedom.

[221]⁠It may well be that for millions in this country, the effect of the change has yet to be felt in a material sense. For all of us though, a framework has been created in which a new culture must take root and develop.

---

1. See the remarks of Lord Bridge in Bugdaycay v Secretary of State 1987(1) All ER 940 at 952b.
2. See paragraph 82 of Chaskalson P's judgment.
3. S v Tuhadeleni and Others 1969(1) SA 153 (A) at 172D–173F; Baxter, Administrative Law, page 30 (1984).