Browsing by Author "Pillay, A"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Open Access
    Chapter 6: Proposed revisions of the criminal procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977)
    (Edutech, 2023) Kaliski, S; Sokudela, F; Calitz, F; Pillay, A; Mulutsi, E; Motaung, M; Moabelo, K; Mbedzi, B; Kaliski, Sean
    This legislative proposal document, compiled by a specialized Department of Health Task Team led by Prof S. Kaliski, outlines strategic amendments to Sections 77, 78, and 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), 1977, alongside a concurrent review of Chapter 6 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2002. The primary objective of these interventions is to resolve critical systemic bottlenecks contributing to prolonged backlogs in forensic mental health observations, while aggressively safeguarding the fundamental human rights of accused individuals referred by the courts. Currently, mentally ill individuals charged with non-violent or petty offenses face inhumane wait times of up to a year in remand prisons before undergoing a mandatory 30-day psychiatric evaluation. This delay significantly disrupts early treatment interventions and complicates clinical recovery.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    The Natal and KwaZulu codes: The case for repeal
    (Juta Law, 2003) Bennett, T W; Pillay, A
    Since the new South African Constitution came into force, most of the discriminatory legislation of the colonial and apartheid eras has been repealed. The Natal Code of Zulu Law (Proc R151 of 1987) and the KwaZulu Act 16 of 1985 on the Code of Zulu Law are notable exceptions. Although particular sections of the Codes violate various provisions in the Bill of Rights, this article argues that the Codes should be repealed in their entirety on the ground that their very existence and their continuing application offend the right to equality in s 9 of the Constitution. The inquiry concentrates on the question whether the discriminatory nature of the Codes is nevertheless fair, and, if unfair, whether it may be justified under s 36 of the Constitution (the limitation clause). A factor considered in both the unfairness inquiry under s 9 and the justification inquiry under s 36 is the purpose of the Codes, both now and at the time of their inception. It is our view that possible arguments based on protection of the right to culture and legal certainty are unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny, and, accordingly, the Codes should be repealed.