S v Makwanyane and Another (233/92) [2000] ZASCA 23 (4 May 2000)

S v Makwanyane and Another (233/92) [2000] ZASCA 23 (4 May 2000)

The court held that life imprisonment, as provided for under the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, is not unconstitutional. The statutory regime ensures that persons sentenced to life imprisonment have a real prospect of parole or release, subject to judicial and executive oversight. The limitation of rights to dignity and freedom of movement inherent in life imprisonment is reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution. The court rejected the argument that the delay in implementing the 1998 Act should result in a lesser sentence, noting that the appellants retain remedies should the statutory protections not be realized. Accordingly, the death sentences were set...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 23
Parties
Appellant: T Makwanyane; Appellant: M Mchunu; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2000
Case Number
233/92
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Following Constitutional Court Ruling
Outcome
Death sentences set aside and replaced with life imprisonment; sentences to run concurrently and backdated to 28 April 1992.
Judges
EM Grosskopf, FH Grosskopf, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Life Imprisonment, Bill of Rights Limitation, Sentencing Principles, Parole and Release, Human Dignity, Right to Freedom of Movement
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Life Imprisonment Bill of Rights Limitation Sentencing Principles Parole and Release Human Dignity Right to Freedom of Movement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T Makwanyane

Appellant

M Mchunu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Following Constitutional Court Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether life imprisonment as a replacement for the death penalty is constitutional under the Bill of Rights.
  2. 2 Whether life imprisonment infringes the rights to dignity and freedom of movement under the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the statutory framework for parole and release renders life imprisonment constitutionally permissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that life imprisonment, as provided for under the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, is not unconstitutional. The statutory regime ensures that persons sentenced to life imprisonment have a real prospect of parole or release, subject to judicial and executive oversight. The limitation of rights to dignity and freedom of movement inherent in life imprisonment is reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution. The court rejected the argument that the delay in implementing the 1998 Act should result in a lesser sentence, noting that the appellants retain remedies should the statutory protections not be realized. Accordingly, the death sentences were set...

Court Disposition

Death sentences set aside and replaced with life imprisonment; sentences to run concurrently and backdated to 28 April 1992.

Orders

  • The death sentences on counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 are set aside and replaced with sentences of life imprisonment.
  • The four sentences of life imprisonment and the sentences on counts 7 and 8 shall run concurrently in terms of section 32(2) of Act 8 of 1959.