|
CONGRESS OF SOUTH AFRICAN TRADE UNION (COSATU)
Reference: CCT 23/96
29 May 1996
FOR ATTENTION: MS URMILA BHOOLA
Messrs Cheadle, Thompson and Haysom
P 0
Box 30894,
BRAAMFONTEIN
2017
Gentlemen
CERTIFICATION OF
NEW CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT: RE SUBMISSIONS BY COSATU: YOUR REF. U BHOOLA/COS
1003
Your facsimile of 28 May regarding the above matter
refers.
I have been asked by the President of the Constitutional Court to
inform you that COSATU is welcome to comment on clause 241 (the
immunity clause)
in its written submissions.
Yours sincerely
Ms M
Nienaber
----
28 May 1996
ATTENTION: MRS M S NIENABER
The Registrar
Constitutional
Court
Braamfontein
Dear Mrs Nienaber
APPLICATION TO CERTIFY
A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT IN TERMS OF SECTION 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1993:
SUBMISSIONS BY COSATU
Thank you for
your letter of 24 May 1996 regarding the above matter.
We apologise to
the reference to clause 39(4) of the Draft Constitution. referring to an earlier
draft. adopted by the Constitutional
Assembly. We understand that clause 39(4)
has been deleted and has been replaced by clause 241. This is the clause
referred to
as the "immunity clause" in our previous letter and Coastu would
wish to comment on this clause in its written submissions.
Kindly confirm
that this is in order.
Yours faithfully
Urmila Bhoola (Ms)
CHEADLE
THOMPSON & HAYSOM
----
24 May 1996
Cheadle Thompson & Haysom
P 0 Box
30894
BRAAMFONTEIN
2017
Dear Sirs
APPLICATION TO CERTIFY
A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT IN TERMS OF SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1993: SUBMISSIONS
BY COSATU
I have been
asked by the President of the Constitutional Court to inform you that the
following directions have been given in response
to your letter dated 22 May
1996 written on behalf of the Congress of South African Trade Union.
- The
Congress of South African Trade Unions may submit written argument to the Court
in regard to clause 23 of the Constitution.
- Such
written argument shall be brief and succinct and shall be lodged with the
Registrar of the Constitutional Court by not later
than 18 June 1996. It should
deal with the objections to the said clause which may have been lodged with the
Registrar in terms
of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the directions given by the
President of the Constitutional Court on the 13th May 1996.
- Upon
receipt of the written argument referred to in paragraph 2 hereof, further
directions be given indicating whether or not the
Congress of South African
Trade Unions will be permitted to present oral argument at the public hearing in
amplification of its written
argument.
I have also been asked by
the President of the Court to draw your attention to the fact that the
Constitution submitted to the Court
for certification does not contain a Clause
39(4). Was the reference to such a clause in your letter made in error, or was
it intended
to refer to another clause in the Constitution?
Yours
faithfully
M S NIENABER
----
22 May 1996
The Registrar
Constitutional Court
Braamfontein
Dear Mrs
Nienaber
APPLICATION TO CERTIFY A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT IN TERMS
SECTION 71 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA 1993: SUBMISSIONS
BY COSATU
We represent the Congress of South African Trade Unions
("COSATU").
Our client has a material interest in the outcome of the
process of certification of the new Constitution adopted by the Constitutional
Assembly on 8 May 1996. In particular, our client has an interest in the
formulation of the labour rights entrenched in the new Constitution,
which
affects its membership directly. Our client would seek to make submissions to
the Constitutional Court on the labour relations
clause (clause 23) and the
immunity clause (clause 39(4)) on the basis that in these clauses are consistent
with the Constitutional
Principles entrenched in the interim Constitution and
that the new Constitution should accordingly be certified.
However, the
directions issued by the Constitutional Court in terms of Rule 15 of its Rules,
provide only for the following parties
to make submissions:
- . Political
parties represented in the Constitutional Assembly;
- Any
other party wishing to object to the certification of the
Constitution.
The Directions accordingly preclude our client
from making written submissions and presenting oral argument before the
Constitutional
Court in support of the labour rights and immunity clauses.
These are obviously matters which are of fundamental interest to the
entire
labour movement in South Africa. Given its direct interest in the labour
rights, our client believes that it's submissions
would be helpful to the
Court.
We are accordingly instructed to request that our client is
permitted to make written submissions and, if necessary, to present oral
argument before the Constitutional Court, defending the above mentioned clauses
in the new Constitution.
We would also seek the Court's direction as
to:
(1) whether our client would be required to comply with the 1 000 word limit
submissions;
(2) whether it wound have to file full heads of argument; and
(3)
the date by which its' written submissions would have to be
lodged.
Furthermore, bearing in mind that our client would want to
defend the clause mentioned above, it would be helpful if, for the
purposes of preparing it's written submissions, it has access to submissions
made by other parties in regard to the labour relations and immunity clauses.
Our basis for this request is that it in an application
before the Constitution
Court, an amicus curiae would have the opportunity to peruse the applicants' and
respondents' heads of argument.
We await your urgent response in this
regard.
Should you require, any further information or clarification do
not hesitate to contact the writer hereof.
Yours faithfully
Urmila
Bhoola (Ms)
CHEADLE THOMPSON & HAYSOM
| 
