Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 73/22) [2025] ZACC 22; 2026 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) (10 October 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: Constitutional Court South Africa: Constitutional Court You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Constitutional Court >> 2025 >> [2025] ZACC 22 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 73/22) [2025] ZACC 22; 2026 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) (10 October 2025) Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 73/22) [2025] ZACC 22; 2026 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) (10 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format Links to summary PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZACC/Data/2025_22.html sino date 10 October 2025 CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 73/22 In the matter between: MINISTER OF COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS Applicant and SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY First Respondent CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES Second Respondent CONSTANCE MOGALE Third Respondent LAND ACCESS MOVEMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA Fourth Respondent MASHONA WETU DLAMINI Fifth Respondent VICTOR MODIMAKWANE Sixth Respondent NATIONAL KHOI AND SAN COUNCIL Seventh Respondent CONGRESS OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS OF SOUTH AFRICA Eighth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Ninth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Tenth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Eleventh Respondent SPEAKER OF THE KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Twelfth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE LIMPOPO PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Thirteenth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE MPUMALANGA PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Fourteenth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Fifteenth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Sixteenth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE WESTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Seventeenth Respondent CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS Eighteenth Respondent In re: CONSTANCE MOGALE First Applicant LAND ACCESS MOVEMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA Second Applicant MASHONA WETU DLAMINI Third Applicant VICTOR MODIMAKWANE Fourth Applicant and SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY First Respondent CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES Second Respondent SPEAKER OF THE EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Third Respondent SPEAKER OF THE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Fourth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Fifth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Sixth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE LIMPOPO PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Seventh Respondent SPEAKER OF THE MPUMALANGA PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Eighth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Ninth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Tenth Respondent SPEAKER OF THE WESTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Eleventh Respondent MINISTER OF COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS Twelfth Respondent CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS Thirteenth Respondent PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Fourteenth Respondent CONGRESS OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS OF SOUTH AFRICA Fifteenth Respondent NATIONAL KHOI AND SAN COUNCIL Sixteenth Respondent Neutral citation: Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others In re Mogale and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2025] ZACC 22 Coram: Madlanga ADCJ, Dambuza AJ, Goosen AJ, Kollapen J, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Opperman AJ, Rogers J and Theron J Judgment: Theron J (unanimous) Order issued on: 29 May 2025 Reasons issued on: 10 October 2025 Summary: Suspended declaration of invalidity — urgent application for extension of a suspension of invalidity — prejudice to Traditional and Khoi-San communities — extension granted REASONS FOR ORDER THERON J (Madlanga ADCJ, Dambuza AJ, Goosen AJ, Kollapen J, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Opperman AJ and Rogers J concurring): Introduction [1] This application to extend the suspension of invalidity of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act [1] (Act) was brought on 27 March 2025 and flows from this Court’s decision in Mogale . [2] The applicant sought an extension of the suspension period to 29 May 2027. [2] On 30 May 2023, this Court declared that Parliament had failed to comply with its obligation to facilitate public involvement before passing the Act, and consequently, the Act was adopted in a manner that is inconsistent with the Constitution.  This Court declared the Act invalid, and suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of 24 months to enable Parliament to re-enact the statute or to pass another statute in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution.  The 24-month suspension period was due to expire on 30 May 2025. [3] This matter was decided without a hearing and on 29 May 2025, this Court issued the following order: “ 1.        The declaration of invalidity in paragraph 2 of the order of this Court in Mogale and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2023] ZACC 14 is further suspended from 29 May 2025 to 29 May 2027. [3] 2.         The applicant and first and second respondents are directed to pay the costs occasioned by this application. 3.         Reasons for this order shall be given at a later date.” [4] These are the reasons for the order made. Application for extension [5] In this application, the applicant, the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Minister), sought to extend the suspension period for a further two years, until 29 May 2027.  The first respondent, the Speaker of the National Assembly (Speaker), supported the relief sought by the applicant.  The third to sixth respondents were the applicants in Mogale and filed notices to abide the decision of this Court. [4] The third to fifth respondents also filed papers seeking remedial relief aimed at ensuring that the Minister and Parliament timeously and properly do what is required of them within the new timeframe imposed by this Court. Issues [6] This matter raises the following issues: (a)            Whether it is just and equitable to further extend the suspension of the declaration of invalidity; and (b)            If the period of suspension is to be extended, what specific relief should be granted. Analysis Power of this Court to grant an extension [7] This Court has held that it has the power to extend orders made in terms of section 172 of the Constitution. [5] This power is located in section 172(1)(b) which provides that when deciding a constitutional matter, a court may make any order that is just and equitable. [6] The predominant consideration governing the exercise of this power is the interests of justice. [7] It is a power that should be exercised with caution. [8] [8] The factors to be considered to determine whether to grant an extension include: (a) the sufficiency of the explanation provided for failing to comply with the original period of suspension; (b) the prejudice likely to be suffered if the suspension is not extended; (c) the prospects of correcting the defect within the extended period; and (d) the need to promote a functional and orderly state administration for the benefit of the general public. [9] Explanation for non-compliance [9] The Minister and the Speaker of Parliament set out the reasons why Parliament failed to remedy the defect in the legislation by 29 May 2025.  In essence, it was the Minister’s case that Parliament would have been able to comply with the order within eight months had it not been for two unforeseen events.  First, the alleged incorrect finding in the provisional certification that there was no need for a notice in terms of section 154(2) of the Constitution, [10] and second, the Deputy President’s announcement in February 2024, that no new legislation should be introduced in Parliament until the establishment of the seventh Administration after the 2024 national elections. [10] I set out the backdrop against which this explanation must be measured.  On 8 June 2023, Parliament was alerted to the urgency of remedying the Act by the Constitutional and Legal Services Office (CLSO).  Parliament was advised to decide, by 30 November 2023, whether the Act would be remedied by way of a Bill introduced by the Executive, or by a Committee Bill, in other words a Bill developed and introduced by a Parliamentary Committee. [11] On 27 July 2023, the CLSO requested a timeline from the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Department) to ensure compliance with this Court’s order in Mogale .  The Department was reminded of the fact that 2024 was an election year and that this could exacerbate time pressure for the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill (TKL Bill). [12] The applicant explained that until 27 July 2023, he was not certain of the role of the Department in taking steps to ensure the order of this Court in Mogale was complied with.  There was uncertainty between the applicant and Parliament as to what process needed to be followed in order to reintroduce the TKL Bill to Parliament. [13] At a meeting held on 16 August 2023 between the Department and the CLSO, the latter made it clear that the only ways to bring legislation to Parliament were through an Executive Bill or a Bill introduced by a Parliamentary Committee.  It was later resolved that the process to be followed in this instance was by way of an Executive Bill, where a Bill is developed and introduced in Parliament by the Executive. [14] An Executive Bill was drafted and referred to the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Legal Adviser on 30 October 2023.  On 8 December 2023, the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment System request was submitted to the Presidency for certification.  This entails that departments are mandated to analyse the socio-economic impact of policies or Bills and is an essential step in the legislative process.  Once the final assessment report is received, it goes to different groupings of Ministers and Directors-General (clusters) for sign off, followed by public comment and thereafter, it is sent to Cabinet to be introduced to Parliament.  In the present instance, the Department advised the Presidency that in order to meet this Court’s 24-month timeframe, the clusters and Cabinet stages of the process must be finalised by April 2024. [15] The Department had planned, after the preliminary certification, to place the TKL Bill before the Forum of Directors-General in early 2024.  Thereafter, the TKL Bill would have been presented to Cabinet.  The Office of the Chief State Legal Adviser finalised its preliminary certification opinion on 22 December 2023. [16] On 7 February 2024, the Deputy President issued a directive that Parliament should prioritise consideration of Bills that were due to be passed by Parliament before the 2024 elections, and that no additional legislation should be submitted to Cabinet until the end of the sixth Administration. [11] The TKL Bill was not listed as a priority Bill. [17] On 18 September 2024, Cabinet approved the TKL Bill for tabling in Parliament.  On 20 September 2024, the Department sought an urgent opinion from the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Legal Adviser on whether the TKL Bill had to be published for public comment in terms of section 154(2) of the Constitution before it was introduced in Parliament.  This was the first unforeseen event relied upon by the Minister. [12] [18] The opinion was delivered on 27 September 2024; it confirmed that the TKL Bill had to be published for public comment in the Government Gazette before being tabled in Parliament.  Accordingly, it could not be tabled in Parliament on 31 October 2024 as planned.  A second opinion was sought from senior counsel on 22 November 2024 on the issue of compliance with section 154(2) of the Constitution, which opinion confirmed that the TKL Bill had to be published in the Government Gazette prior to being tabled in Parliament. [19] The TKL Bill was published in the Government Gazette on 29 November 2024.  Following the receipt of submissions from the public that the 30-day comment period was inadequate, the Minister extended the period within which members of the public could comment on the TKL Bill to 28 February 2025.  Given that the Department, inter alia, still had to take into account public comments received and obtain Cabinet approval prior to tabling the TKL Bill, it anticipated that the TKL Bill would only be tabled in Parliament by 31 July 2025.  It was at that stage that it became clear that the Department would not be able to meet the deadline of 29 May 2025. [20] Taking into account factors such as the local government elections scheduled to be held in 2026 and Parliamentary Committees’ budgetary reporting processes, Parliament could not guarantee that the TKL Bill would be processed by the end of 2026.  It was on this basis that the Minister, supported by the Speaker, sought an extension of the suspension of invalidity until 29 May 2027. Prejudice to be suffered if the suspension is not extended [21] The Minister submitted that the Khoi-San community would be prejudiced if the extension was not granted.  The third respondent agreed that there would have been “severe repercussions” in the event that the Act became invalid.  Sections 51 to 58 of the Act recognised Khoi-San community structures and the Minister had appointed a commission to receive, research and investigate applications for recognition of the Khoi-San communities and make recommendations to the Minister for their recognition.  If the extension had not been granted, the invalidity of the Act would have taken effect, and as a consequence the commission would have been disestablished and its functions rendered obsolete.  Further, without the enabling statute, the Khoi-San communities would continue to be excluded from the Houses and Councils of Traditional Leadership, as was the case under the repealed Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, [13] which served to remove traditional leaders and Khoi-San leaders from formal leadership structures. [22] The Minister drew this Court’s attention to various provisions of the Act which were already in effect, and that the invalidity of the Act would have wide-reaching implications if this Court refused to grant the extension.  He referred to sections 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the Act which make provision for the recognition of traditional leaders.  Some traditional leaders have been legally recognised in terms of these provisions.  If this Court was minded not to grant the extension, these structures would not be recognised and the consequence would be that there would be no interim measure to regulate matters relating to traditional communities and traditional leadership.  This would result in an untenable state of affairs. [23] Sections 16 and 17 of the Act introduced traditional leadership councils and promoted transformation through participation of community members.  Without the extension, the transformation of councils, specifically kingship and queenship councils, would be unlikely, resulting in increased instability and friction in the affected communities.  The Minister also indicated that sections 27, 49 and 50 of the Act, which established Houses of Traditional and Khoi-San leaders, are currently in operation.  If the extension were not granted, the Houses would be automatically disestablished, leading to instability and exclusion from governmental development programmes. [24] The fourth to sixth respondents submitted that they were “compelled reluctantly” to support a further extension of the suspension of invalidity period, given the prejudicial consequences which would follow if the extension was not granted, namely the undermining of the dignity and citizenship rights of rural people living in former Bantustans and the threat to Khoi-San peoples’ ability to assert traditional leadership rights. [25] These respondents submitted that if Parliament failed to re-enact the Act or enact a new law, the Act would be invalid retrospectively and any conduct pursuant to the Act would be void or voidable, including the appointment of traditional leaders.  This would seriously erode the efforts to establish Khoi-San leadership structures, leaving a lacuna in which no legislation would make provision for the Khoi-San. Will Parliament be able to remedy the defect within the extended period? [26] The Minister submitted that there were good prospects that the TKL Bill would be enacted within the two-year extension period.  In this regard, the Minister submitted a detailed timeline to this Court taking into account Parliament’s planned programme.  The Minister further undertook to take reasonable measures to ensure the timeline is strictly adhered to. [27] The Speaker noted that there were four primary events which will cause some delay: (a) the 2026 local government elections would affect the parliamentary programme, which meant that the programme could not yet be confirmed; (b) the Parliamentary Committees’ Budgetary Review and Recommendations Reporting processing will be taking place during October to November 2025, resulting in limited meeting slots; (c) the Appropriation Bill and Budget Votes would be processed in March 2026, further limiting meeting slots; and (d) the public interest in the TKL Bill might result in the extension of the legislative process.  The Speaker submitted that these anticipated periods of activity mean that the TKL Bill was unlikely to be processed by the end of 2026. [28] The fourth respondent raised a number of concerns regarding the Department’s ability to adhere to its proposed timeline.  It was submitted that the Minister, the Department and Parliament’s past performances did not provide a “basis for optimism” in relation to public participation for the TKL Bill.  The fourth respondent further highlighted concerns regarding the deadline for public submissions; the education and awareness programme; and the absence of a stakeholder analysis.  Based on these concerns, the fourth respondent strongly advocated for this Court to grant supervisory relief to ensure that the Minister, the Department and Parliament report on their progress in having the TKL Bill enacted. Should the extension be granted? [29] The explanation proffered by the Minister was not completely satisfactory.  The Minister does not explain why the TKL Bill was not considered a high-priority Bill, to be dealt with by Parliament before the 2024 elections were held.  The Deputy President’s announcement that no new legislation, except priority legislation, was allowed to be passed before the establishment of the seventh Administration ought to have been anticipated and catered for. [30] The Minister’s explanation regarding the Department’s apparent misapprehension that the TKL Bill did not have to be published for public comment in terms of section 154(2) of the Constitution was a fundamental error on his part.  In any event, the Department only sought the urgent opinion late in 2024.  It is clear that the national elections of 2024 resulted in the TKL Bill being deprioritised.  It would appear that there was a lack of political motivation to take the requisite steps to timeously remedy the constitutional deficiencies of the Act. [31] Deliberate non-compliance with this Court’s orders is offensive to the rule of law.  In Teddy Bear Clinic , this Court deplored such conduct and said: “ All state institutions must – with due deference to the rule of law, the separation of powers and the accepted checks and balances – treat this Court with the respect which the Court accords to organs of state in its dealing with them.” [14] [32] Non-compliance with this Court’s order in this matter presents significant prejudice to traditional communities.  The Court explained the importance and impact of the Act in Mogale , where it stated: “ This case is about the significance of participatory democracy for millions of South Africans who for the most part live away from centres of power, in rural areas and in some of the poorest parts of our country.  These are people who have the least access to power, wealth and influence.  This case is about their ability to participate in the making of law that governs virtually every aspect of their daily lives, including access to land, basic services and rights to the benefits of the land upon which they live.” [15] [33] The Minister’s unsatisfactory explanation for the delay must be weighed against the potentially disastrous consequences which would arise should the extension not be granted.  The Act is undoubtedly significant legislation, with far-reaching implications for traditional communities. [16] The Act has already been partly implemented and the recognition granted to Khoi-San communities and traditional leaders, as well as the reconstitution of a large number of traditional councils, potentially depend on its enactment and validity. [17] These considerations were important in determining what the interests of justice demand and were taken into account when this Court first suspended the order of invalidity. [18] [34] To have the Act, an important statute representing a step forward in the recognition of traditional and Khoi-San leadership structures, lapse would continue to sideline a significant proportion of our population.  This Court cannot countenance such a consequence. [35] In the circumstances, it was in the interests of justice for this Court to invoke its powers under section 172 of the Constitution to suspend the period of invalidity.  It was on this basis that the further extension was granted. What relief should this Court grant? [36] The Minister sought an extension of two years to allow Parliament to enact constitutionally compliant legislation.  All the respondents agreed that the extension should be granted and, with differing levels of enthusiasm, supported the relief sought. [37] In addition, the third to fifth respondents sought an order setting out the steps and prescribed dates for the public participation process to be followed by Parliament, the Minister and the ninth to seventeenth respondents (the Speakers of the various provincial legislatures).  In effect, the relief they sought was aimed at ensuring sufficient public participation and that the public consultation process occurred within the timeframe imposed by this Court.  They also sought an order that the Minister, the Speaker and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces report at regular intervals on whether they have complied with the timetable proposed by the Minister, and if not, what they would do to remedy the failure. [38] The remedy sought by the third to fifth respondents was essentially a structural interdict.  This Court has the power to grant such an interdict in order to ensure that the Constitution is upheld. [19] However, when considering how such a power should be exercised, due regard must be given to the roles of the legislative and executive arms of state, [20] the separation of powers [21] and generally, “whether considerations of justice and equity . . . dictate that the order be made”. [22] [39] It is not generally this Court’s role to interfere with the legislative process, unless there is a constitutional imperative to do so.  Structural interdicts allow this Court to look into the conduct of Parliament and to direct its functions.  This type of invasive oversight interferes with Parliament’s ability to regulate its own processes and should be employed only in exceptional circumstances.  In OUTA , this Court, in considering temporary restraining orders against the exercise of statutory power, stated: “ The common law annotation to the Setlogelo test is that courts grant temporary restraining orders against the exercise of statutory power only in exceptional cases and when a strong case for that relief has been made out.  Beyond the common law, separation of powers is an even more vital tenet of our constitutional democracy.  This means that the Constitution requires courts to ensure that all branches of government act within the law.  However, courts in turn must refrain from entering the exclusive terrain of the executive and the legislative branches of government unless the intrusion is mandated by the Constitution itself.” [23] [40] This Court, in Mogale , suspended the order of invalidity in order to afford Parliament the opportunity to correct the constitutionally deficient public participation process in re-enacting the Act or enacting an entirely new Act. [24] This Court made it clear that the new legislative process would be determined by Parliament and did so for good reason. [25] It would be inappropriate for this Court to direct the legislative process, except where the Constitution demands it. [41] A structural interdict requiring Parliament to report on its progress, whether to this Court or to the fourth and fifth respondents, is inappropriate in the current case.  This Court has not positively mandated Parliament to take steps to enact the TKL Bill, but, in the interests of justice, afforded Parliament the opportunity to re-enact it or enact another statute, while causing as little prejudice to the interests of justice as possible.  Parliament’s obligation to facilitate a constitutionally compliant public participation process in terms of sections 59(1)(a), 72(1)(a) and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution remains extant whenever it seeks to enact legislation, including the TKL Bill or another statute.  The third to fifth respondents’ concern that there is a risk of non-compliance by Parliament with its proposed schedule is understandable, but does not weigh more heavily than the separation of powers consideration in this case. Costs [42] Even though the Minister and Parliament did not wilfully fail to cure the defect within the two-year period, the delay and the consequent need for the current application must primarily be laid at their feet.  The Minister and the Department were lax, misguided and inattentive to the urgency of the matter.  The third to fifth respondents did not oppose the relief sought by the Minister and the Speaker.  The third to fifth respondents provided valuable information to this Court in supporting the relief sought by the Minister, and although their prayer for further and alternative relief was unsuccessful, their participation in this application came about because of the actions of the Minister and Parliament.  Parliament comprises the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces and on this basis, both houses are liable for costs. [43] In these circumstances, the Minister, the Speaker, and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces are directed to pay the costs occasioned by this application. [1] 3 of 2019. [2] Mogale v Speaker of the National Assembly [2023] ZACC 14 ; 2023 (6) SA 58 (CC); 2023 (9) BCLR 1099 (CC). [3] The order in Mogale reads: “ 1.          It is declared that Parliament has failed to comply with its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement before passing the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019 (Act). 2.            The Act was, as a consequence, adopted in a manner that is inconsistent with the Constitution and is therefore declared invalid.” 3.            The order declaring the Act invalid is suspended for a period of 24 months to enable Parliament to re-enact the statute in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution, or to pass another statute in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution. 4.            Those respondents that opposed the application are directed to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of three counsel, in the following proportion: (a)          The sixth, eleventh and twelfth respondents are directed to pay the costs occasioned by their respective opposition to the application. (b)          The first and second respondents are to pay all remaining costs.” [4] In this application, some of the initial applicants were replaced by related parties.  The third respondent is Ms Tshepo Fokane, the national coordinator of the Alliance for Rural Democracy, a group of civil society organisations and activists who contest policy and legislation that negatively impact rural citizens in the former Bantustans.  Ms Fokane, is the successor to Ms Constance Mogale, the first applicant in Mogale , who has since passed away.  The fourth respondent is the Land Access Movement of South Africa, an independent federation of community-based organisations advocating for land and agrarian rights, and substantive democracy through facilitating sustainable development and was the second applicant in Mogale .  The fifth respondent, Mr Mashona Wetu Dlamini, was the third applicant in Mogale. Mr Dlamini is cited in his representative capacity as a member of the council of the Umgungundlovu community and of the Amadiba Traditional Council.  The sixth respondent is Mr Victor Modimakwane, a member of the Bakgatla ba Kgafela community and the fourth applicant in Mogale . [5] Speaker of the National Assembly v New Nation Movement NPC [2023] ZACC 12 ; 2023 (7) BCLR 897 (CC) ( New Nation ) at para 22. [6] Speaker of the National Assembly v Women’s Legal Centre Trust [2024] ZACC 18 ; 2025 (1) BCLR 103 (CC) at para 17; and New Nation id at para 22. [7] New Nation above n 5 at para 22. [8] Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Ramuhovhi [2019] ZACC 44 ; 2020 (3) BCLR 300 (CC) at para 9. [9] Acting Speaker of the National Assembly v Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children [2015] ZACC 16 ; 2015 (10) BCLR 1129 (CC) ( Teddy Bear Clinic ) at para 12. [10] Section 154(2) of the Constitution reads: “ Draft national or provincial legislation that affects the status, institutions, powers or functions of local government must be published for public comment before it is introduced in Parliament or a provincial legislature, in a manner that allows organised local government, municipalities and other interested persons an opportunity to make representations with regard to the draft legislation.” [11] The sixth Administration was established on 25 May 2019 and ended on 29 June 2024.  The seventh Administration was established on 30 June 2024, after the national elections. [12] See [9]. [13] 41 of 2003. [14] Teddy Bear Clinic above n 9 at para 15. [15] Mogale above n 2 at para 46. [16] Id at para 82. [17] Id at para 84. [18] Id . [19] Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (No 2) [2002] ZACC 15 ; 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1033 (CC) at para 129 . [20] Id at para 98 . [21] National Treasury v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance [2012] ZACC 18 ; 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC); 2012 (11) BCLR 1148 (CC) ( OUTA ) at para 44. [22] Head of Department, Mpumalanga Department of Education v Hoërskool Ermelo [2009] ZACC 32 ; 2010 (2) SA 415 (CC); 2010 (3) BCLR 177 (CC) at para 96. [23] OUTA above n 21 at para 44. [24] Mogale above n 2 at para 84. [25] Id . sino noindex make_database footer start