Historically South African law has been dominated by Western law. Indigenous law and the jural postulates which underpin that law are insufficiently accommodated in the South African legal order. The Western component of the official legal system is regarded as institutionally and politically superior and is as such perceived to be the dominant system. In contrast indigenous law is regarded as a servient system. The monopolistic control of the legal order by the Western section of the population resulted in the creation of a legal order primarily suited to its own needs. The fact that few of the values of indigenous law are reflected in the official legal system and the fact that there is a measure of conflict and tension between the fundamental precepts of indigenous law and those of Western law, gave rise to a crisis of legitimacy of the official legal system in South Africa. This in turn lead to the emergence of unofficial alternative structures for the administration of justice. Indigenous law should receive full recognition and enjoy the same status as Western law. To accomplish this, legislative measures which entrench a distorted indigenous law, limit the application of indigenous law, or affect its status in the South African legal order, should be revoked. Even in a multicultural society such as that of South Africa, there is a common nucleus of core values that are shared by the whole society. But different cultures have different conceptions of these basic values and their role in legal, political and social ordering. The Bill of Rights should give due recognition to the postulates which underscore both Western and indigenous law. This should be done by providing that the values the Bill entrenches, must be interpreted in their proper cultural perspective where circumstances so demand. But this will be possible only if the level of knowledge of indigenous law and its fundamental precepts is drastically improved. / LL.D

Historically South African law has been dominated by Western law. Indigenous law and the jural postulates which underpin that law are insufficiently accommodated in the South African legal order. The Western component of the official legal system is regarded as institutionally and politically superior and is as such perceived to be the dominant system. In contrast indigenous law is regarded as a servient system. The monopolistic control of the legal order by the Western section of the population resulted in the creation of a legal order primarily suited to its own needs. The fact that few of the values of indigenous law are reflected in the official legal system and the fact that there is a measure of conflict and tension between the fundamental precepts of indigenous law and those of Western law, gave rise to a crisis of legitimacy of the official legal system in South Africa. This in turn lead to the emergence of unofficial alternative structures for the administration of justice. Indigenous law should receive full recognition and enjoy the same status as Western law. To accomplish this, legislative measures which entrench a distorted indigenous law, limit the application of indigenous law, or affect its status in the South African legal order, should be revoked. Even in a multicultural society such as that of South Africa, there is a common nucleus of core values that are shared by the whole society. But different cultures have different conceptions of these basic values and their role in legal, political and social ordering. The Bill of Rights should give due recognition to the postulates which underscore both Western and indigenous law. This should be done by providing that the values the Bill entrenches, must be interpreted in their proper cultural perspective where circumstances so demand. But this will be possible only if the level of knowledge of indigenous law and its fundamental precepts is drastically improved. / LL.D

Text in Afrikaans / Summaries in Afrikaans and English / Die beginsel van die onafhanklikheid van die regbank word verskans in die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika van 1996. 'n Onafhanklike regbank is noodsaaklik ten einde te voldoen aan die primere funksie van die regbank, naamlik die bewerkstelliging van geregtigheid. Openbare vertroue in die onafhanklikheid van die regbank verhoog die legitimiteit van hierdie instelling, wat noodsaaklik is vir nakoming en eerbiediging van die howe se beslissings deur die gemeenskap. In die verlede het kritici beweer dat die regbank 'n legitimiteitskrisis beleef op grond daarvan dat polilieke oorwegings 'n rol gespeel het by die aanstelling van regsprekende amptenare, dat die regbank nie verteenwoordigend genoeg is van die bevolking wat betref ras en geslag nie en dat die howe in die verlede in sommige gevalle te owerheidsgesind was en soms diskriminerende wetgewing sonder veel skroom of teenspraak aanvaar en toegepas het. Kritici het daarop gewys dat die opbloei in die volkshowe as alternatief tot die formele howe, as voorbeeld dien van die algehele miskenning van en wantroue in die reg bank. 'n Kritiese evaluering van hierdie aangeleenthede is gedoen aan die hand van 'n regsvergelykende ondersoek. Daar is tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die Regterlike Dienskommissie en die Landdrostekommissie 'n belangrike hervorming teweeg gebring het op die gebied van aanstelling van regterlike amptenare. Verder is bevind dat die juriestelsel nie 'n realistiese oplossing bied om die regbank meer verteenwoordigend van die gemeenskap te maak nie, maar dat die assessorestelsel blyk 'n meer praktiese en geskikte alternatief te wees. Dit het verder geblyk dat daar van regterlike beamptes verwag word om, in die lig van die Grondwet van 1996 en 'n stelsel van grondwetlike oppermagtigheid, 'n aktivistiese waarde-ge6rienteerde of waarde-aktiverende benadering by wets- en grondwetuitleg te volg. Daar is verder bevind dat die informele howe behoue moet bly, maar aangepas behoort te word by veranderende omstandighede, in die lig van die Grondwet en die handves van fundamentele regte. Ten slotte is voorstelle gemaak as moontlike oplossing vir bepaalde probleme wat geidentifiseer is. / The principle of the independence of the judiciary is entrenched in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996. An independent judiciary is essential in order to fulfill the primary function of a judiciary, namely the realisation of justice. Public confidence in the independence of the judiciary increases the legitimacy of this institution, which is essential for respect for and compliance with the decisions of the court by the community. In the past critics maintained that the judiciary is experiencing a legitimacy crisis, due to the fact that political considerations have played a role in the appointment of judicial officials, that the judiciary is not representative of the community in respect of race and sex and that the courts have been too executive-minded in the past and have at times accepted and applied discriminatory legislation without much hesitation or contradiction. Critics alleged that the proliferation of people's courts as an alternative to the formal courts, was an indication of the general denial of and loss of confidence in the judiciary. A critical evaluation of these aspects was undertaken by way of a comparative study. It lead to the conclusion that the Judicial Service Commission and the Magistrates Commission brought about an important reform regarding the appointment of judicial officials. It was found that the jury system does not constitute a realistic solution to make the judiciary more representative of the community, but that the assessor system seems to be a more practical alternative. It became apparant that in view of the Constitution of 1996 and our system of constitutional supremacy, it is expected of judicial officals to follow an activistic value-orientated or value-activated approach during legislative and constitutional interpretation. It is furthermore concluded that the informal courts should be retained, but that they should be adapted to the changing circumstances in view of the Constitution and the bill of rights. Finally, suggestions are made in order to address certain problems which have been identified. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.D.

Text in Afrikaans / Summaries in Afrikaans and English / Die beginsel van die onafhanklikheid van die regbank word verskans in die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika van 1996. 'n Onafhanklike regbank is noodsaaklik ten einde te voldoen aan die primere funksie van die regbank, naamlik die bewerkstelliging van geregtigheid. Openbare vertroue in die onafhanklikheid van die regbank verhoog die legitimiteit van hierdie instelling, wat noodsaaklik is vir nakoming en eerbiediging van die howe se beslissings deur die gemeenskap. In die verlede het kritici beweer dat die regbank 'n legitimiteitskrisis beleef op grond daarvan dat polilieke oorwegings 'n rol gespeel het by die aanstelling van regsprekende amptenare, dat die regbank nie verteenwoordigend genoeg is van die bevolking wat betref ras en geslag nie en dat die howe in die verlede in sommige gevalle te owerheidsgesind was en soms diskriminerende wetgewing sonder veel skroom of teenspraak aanvaar en toegepas het. Kritici het daarop gewys dat die opbloei in die volkshowe as alternatief tot die formele howe, as voorbeeld dien van die algehele miskenning van en wantroue in die reg bank. 'n Kritiese evaluering van hierdie aangeleenthede is gedoen aan die hand van 'n regsvergelykende ondersoek. Daar is tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die Regterlike Dienskommissie en die Landdrostekommissie 'n belangrike hervorming teweeg gebring het op die gebied van aanstelling van regterlike amptenare. Verder is bevind dat die juriestelsel nie 'n realistiese oplossing bied om die regbank meer verteenwoordigend van die gemeenskap te maak nie, maar dat die assessorestelsel blyk 'n meer praktiese en geskikte alternatief te wees. Dit het verder geblyk dat daar van regterlike beamptes verwag word om, in die lig van die Grondwet van 1996 en 'n stelsel van grondwetlike oppermagtigheid, 'n aktivistiese waarde-ge6rienteerde of waarde-aktiverende benadering by wets- en grondwetuitleg te volg. Daar is verder bevind dat die informele howe behoue moet bly, maar aangepas behoort te word by veranderende omstandighede, in die lig van die Grondwet en die handves van fundamentele regte. Ten slotte is voorstelle gemaak as moontlike oplossing vir bepaalde probleme wat geidentifiseer is. / The principle of the independence of the judiciary is entrenched in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996. An independent judiciary is essential in order to fulfill the primary function of a judiciary, namely the realisation of justice. Public confidence in the independence of the judiciary increases the legitimacy of this institution, which is essential for respect for and compliance with the decisions of the court by the community. In the past critics maintained that the judiciary is experiencing a legitimacy crisis, due to the fact that political considerations have played a role in the appointment of judicial officials, that the judiciary is not representative of the community in respect of race and sex and that the courts have been too executive-minded in the past and have at times accepted and applied discriminatory legislation without much hesitation or contradiction. Critics alleged that the proliferation of people's courts as an alternative to the formal courts, was an indication of the general denial of and loss of confidence in the judiciary. A critical evaluation of these aspects was undertaken by way of a comparative study. It lead to the conclusion that the Judicial Service Commission and the Magistrates Commission brought about an important reform regarding the appointment of judicial officials. It was found that the jury system does not constitute a realistic solution to make the judiciary more representative of the community, but that the assessor system seems to be a more practical alternative. It became apparant that in view of the Constitution of 1996 and our system of constitutional supremacy, it is expected of judicial officals to follow an activistic value-orientated or value-activated approach during legislative and constitutional interpretation. It is furthermore concluded that the informal courts should be retained, but that they should be adapted to the changing circumstances in view of the Constitution and the bill of rights. Finally, suggestions are made in order to address certain problems which have been identified. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.D.

Le Traité sur l’Union Européenne assigne à la Cour de Justice la mission de veiller au respect du droit dans l’application et l’interprétation des traités. A ce titre, elle interprète le droit de l’Union de manière à garantir une application uniforme du droit dans tous les Etats membres. De même, la Cour Commune de Justice et d’Arbitrage (CCJA) est chargée, conformément au Traité relatif à l’Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires (OHADA), d’assurer dans les Etats Parties, l'interprétation et l'application communes du droit uniforme. Ces cours de justice partagent avec les juridictions nationales l’application judiciaire du droit né des traités. Mais les traités n’ont pas réalisé une fusion du système juridictionnel qu’ils ont créé avec celui des Etats membres et, une hiérarchie juridictionnelle n’a pas été établie entre la Cour de justice et les juridictions nationales. Se pose alors la question des moyens par lesquels ces cours de justice arrivent à imposer une application uniforme du droit dans les Etats membres. Après analyse, on relève qu’à travers l’attribution des pouvoirs juridictionnels, les traités ont conféré une autorité supranationale à la Cour de justice européenne et la Cour de justice de l’OHADA. En plus de cette autorité conférée qu’elles ne se contentent pas d’entretenir à l’égard des juridictions nationales, elles génèrent aussi de l’autorité dans le cadre de leur activité juridictionnelle. Ainsi, ces cours œuvrent pour une meilleure intégration régionale. De leur propre gré, elles n’hésitent pas à adopter des positions impérieuses de plus en plus conquérantes. Ce phénomène fait donc évoluer la conception classique des sources de l’autorité de ces cours. La CCJA bénéficie des prérogatives les plus offensives d’origine textuelle, au contraire de la Cour de justice européenne qui, quant à elle, apparaît plus conquérante dans sa jurisprudence. / According to the treaty on the European Union, the Court of justice ensures that, in the interpretation and application of the treaties the law is observed. As such, it interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries. In the same way, the treaty of the Organization for the Harmonization of the Business Law in Africa (OHBLA) has conferred to the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA) the power to rule on, in the contracting states, the interpretation and enforcement of the treaty. Both regional courts share with national courts the power to apply the law resulting from the treaties.But there has not been a fusion of the judicial system of the member states and the community judicial system. No judicial hierarchy has been established between community courts and national courts. This brings the question of by which means the regional courts can enforce the uniform application of the law in the member states. After analysis, it appears that by granting jurisdictional power, the treaties gave a supranational authority to the European Court of Justice and the CCJA. In addition to the power granted to them, the courts also generate authority through their jurisdictional activities. Thus, the courts work for a better integration of the judicial systems by adopting more and more conquering authoritarian positions. This phenomenon has led to a change in the classical conception of the sources of power of the courts. The CCJA enjoys more power from treaties than the European Court of Justice which is more offensive in case law setting.