Is The Repugnancy Clause Still Applicable In South Africa (2023)

For a lot of people, the repugnancy clause is something they’ve heard about only in relation to pornography. However, the repugnancy clause is also relevant to the leather industry – and it still applies in South Africa.

In this blog post, we will explore what the repugnancy clause is and why it still applies in South Africa. We will also provide some tips on how you can protect yourself from potential legal issues with the leather industry.

The Repugnancy Clause

The Repugnancy Clause still applies in South Africa. This clause is a part of the country’s constitution that states that any amendment to the constitution must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote in parliament. The clause has been used to prevent different factions from amending the constitution in a way that would benefit themselves more than the rest of the population.

In recent years, some people have argued that the clause should be removed because it is no longer necessary. They say that because South Africa has a democratically elected government, there is no need for a constitutional amendment process. Others argue that even if there were no clause, it would still be difficult to get two-thirds of parliament to agree on any amendment due to political differences between the parties.

Definition of the Repugnancy Clause

The Repugnancy Clause, also known as the Prohibited Conduct Clause, is a provision of the South African Constitution that prohibits actions that are incompatible with the republic’s fundamental values. The clause has been used to prohibit activities such as apartheid and racial discrimination.

Today, the Repugnancy Clause is still applicable in South Africa. It has been used to prohibit actions such as protests against the government or violence against civilians. The clause has also been used to prevent members of the government from being prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.

The Effect of the Repugnancy Clause on South Africa

There is a lot of debate surrounding the application of the repugnancy clause in South Africa. The clause is found in Section 25A of the Constitution, which states that “a law may not be inconsistent with the Constitution”. This means that if there are laws in place that are incompatible with the Constitution, these laws can be repealed or amended.

Since 1994, there have been numerous discussions about whether or not the repugnancy clause should still be applicable in South Africa. Some people argue that since the country has moved away from apartheid and embraced a democratic system, the clause no longer applies. Others say that while apartheid was morally wrong, it was legally sanctioned and therefore should still be enforced.

The legal situation is complicated by the fact that Section 25A does not explicitly state whether or not the repugnancy clause applies to national or provincial legislation. This ambiguity has led to several court cases being decided on this topic. In 2011, for example, the Constitutional Court ruled that Sections 10 and 11 of the Policing Act were inconsistent with section 25A of the Constitution and had to be repealed.

In general, it seems likely that Section 25A will continue to apply in South Africa for some time yet. However, this issue remains highly controversial and there is a risk that it could eventually be overturned or replaced by more progressive legislation

What is the Repugnancy Clause?

The repugnancy clause is a legal doctrine that allows the government of one country to refuse to recognize the validity of laws or regulations of another country. The doctrine is based on the principle that two countries are separate legal systems and cannot simultaneously operate under the same laws or regulations. The repugnancy clause is often used when one country considers a law or regulation of another country to be unconstitutional or in violation of its own law.

The Origins of the Repugnancy Clause

The Repugnancy Clause is a provision of the South Africa Constitution that allows for the removal of a sitting government if it does not meet the approval of a majority of the population. The clause has been used multiple times in South Africa’s history, most notably during the apartheid era when it was used to remove white-dominated governments that were not supported by the black majority.

The clause has come under scrutiny in recent years, as there are allegations that it is being used to remove President Jacob Zuma from office. Zuma has been accused of corruption and rape, and his support among South African voters has dwindled as a result. Opponents of Zuma have called for him to be removed using the clause, but so far no mechanism exists for doing so.

Some have argued that the clause is no longer applicable in South Africa because it was designed specifically for an apartheid society where whites were ruling over blacks. In today’s society, where races are more evenly balanced, it is argued that the clause cannot be used to remove a government without first meeting certain standards, such as providing proof of corruption or sexual assault.

Since the repugnancy clause is a part of the South African Constitution, it is still applicable and enforceable. This means that any provisions in the Bill of Rights that are inconsistent with each other cannot be enforced simultaneously. This would include provisions on property rights and freedom of religion, which would have to be addressed separately.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *