IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO.: 40/2008
In the matter between –
MOUTSE DEMARCATION FORUM AND 15 OTHERS Applicants
and
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA AND 17 OTHERS Respondents
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANTS’ WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
___________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
1. On 21 April 2009, a further affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent recording that Cabinet has decided that “a formal, structured and comprehensive consultation process is necessary” in the Moutse region, in order to determine
“the proportion of people in support of [remaining in Limpopo or being reincorporated into Mpumalanga]”. The affidavit further states that Cabinet cannot commit to a timeline for this process because it will be undertaken by the new administration.
2
2. On 23 April 2009, this Court issued further directions:
2.1. directing the applicants and remaining respondents to file affidavits in response to the second respondent’s affidavit, by 28 April 2009;
2.2. directing written submissions to be filed by 6 May 2009 by any party that wished to do so; and
2.3. recording that the matter remained enrolled on 21 May 2009 and requiring that any application for postponement be brought in good time.
3. In accordance with the directions, the applicants filed a further affidavit on 28 April 2009. That affidavit sets out the history of the matter and records, in particular, the repeated delays occasioned by the approach adopted by the second respondent and the continuing prejudice suffered by the applicants. It also clearly states that the applicants are ready to proceed on the issues of both public participation and rationality, and will not seek a postponement.
Applicants’ affidavit of 28 April 2009, para 4-14
4. To date, none of the respondents has applied for a postponement.
5. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the matter should proceed and that this honourable Court should issue directions:
5.1. ordering any of the respondents to file written submissions they wish on the rationality challenge; and
5.2. directing that the matter be heard on the merits on 21 May 2009.
3
6. In the event that any of the respondents seeks a further postponement of the matter, it is submitted that such application should be refused unless the respondent sets out, on oath:
6.1. a timeline for the further conduct of public consultations and the decisions following such consultations; and
6.2. an indication of how and where such public consultations will occur.
GILBERT MARCUS SC
STEVEN BUDLENDER
ISABEL GOODMAN
Chambers, Sandton 6 May 2009
