No anti-government agenda - Moseneke

Moseneke told a packed lecture hall at the annual Claude Leon human rights lecture at the University of Cape Town that every judge on the Constitutional Court approached their work with 'remarkable sincerity'. 'There is no place for attacks on judges suggesting an arcane dishonest agenda against the government,' he said. Moseneke said questions had sprung up about the legitimacy of the Constitution in the past months. He said that all judges knew that they must find that 'rich equilibrium' between constitutional supremacy and the will of the people. 'Quite often they do so admirably,' he said. The function of the Constitutional Court, he said, was 'ultimately supportive of democracy' and upheld protections that ensured democratic practises. Constitutional supremacy was needed to protect against abuse of public power and that a robust Constitution could make the government 'stronger, more responsive, predictable, just, consistent and legitimate'. The government had 'by and large' implemented orders of the court. Full Mail & Guardian Online report

Without mentioning names, Moseneke said that some thought the Constitution was a series of concessions arrived at during its making and that these had not allowed the full voice of the people to be heard. According to a Business Day report, he said the suggestion was further that the Constitution was an obstacle to the will of the people and undermined the majority and its elected public representatives. Moseneke said that under the Constitution, the government's actions were scrutinised with the principle that 'reasonable regulation' was acceptable but that anything that went beyond that was 'invalid'. The will of the majority, as given expression by its elected representatives, must be given effect so long as it was reasonable and rational, he said. It could not be claimed that the power of Parliament and the executive was everything, he said. Moseneke pointed out that under apartheid, Parliament was supreme and the laws it made could not be challenged in the courts - 'human rights would be at the behest of Parliament'. He said the founding fathers and mothers of SA's constitutional order had chosen a different course. Those who questioned the pervasive constitutional supremacy as subverting the will of the people 'should be reminded of our hellish apartheid past', which was arbitrary and unequal. Full Business Day report