Clarifying the constitutional status of the National Prosecuting Authority

Q3 Social Sciences
Loammi Wolf
{"title":"Clarifying the constitutional status of the National Prosecuting Authority","authors":"Loammi Wolf","doi":"10.47348/salj/v140/i2a7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 8 of the Constitution aligns the status of the National Prosecuting Authority (‘NPA’) to the separation of powers typical for constitutional states where two principal organs developed in the third branch of state power during the midnineteenth century to refine Montesquieu’s model of separation of powers. The organs for the ‘administration of justice’ consist of the judiciary (adjudication) and prosecutors (prosecuting crime). Therefore, the status of the NPA entails both structural and functional independence from the executive. The reasons for the NPA’s failures are manifold and complex. The main reason is that the political elite continued to treat the NPA as a part of the executive branch, partly perpetuating the practice under the former Westminster constitutions and partly due to the ANC’s policy of ‘democratic centralism’. This has resulted in a chaotic state organisation of criminal justice where the powers allocated to prosecutors by s 179(2) are not clearly demarcated from policing powers under s 205(3) of the Constitution. For the proper functioning of the NPA to uphold the rule of law, it is important to delineate clearly the powers of the NPA from those of the judiciary, the executive — especially the Minister of Justice — the President, the police, and the watchdog functions of Chapter 9 institutions.","PeriodicalId":39313,"journal":{"name":"South African law journal","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v140/i2a7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chapter 8 of the Constitution aligns the status of the National Prosecuting Authority (‘NPA’) to the separation of powers typical for constitutional states where two principal organs developed in the third branch of state power during the midnineteenth century to refine Montesquieu’s model of separation of powers. The organs for the ‘administration of justice’ consist of the judiciary (adjudication) and prosecutors (prosecuting crime). Therefore, the status of the NPA entails both structural and functional independence from the executive. The reasons for the NPA’s failures are manifold and complex. The main reason is that the political elite continued to treat the NPA as a part of the executive branch, partly perpetuating the practice under the former Westminster constitutions and partly due to the ANC’s policy of ‘democratic centralism’. This has resulted in a chaotic state organisation of criminal justice where the powers allocated to prosecutors by s 179(2) are not clearly demarcated from policing powers under s 205(3) of the Constitution. For the proper functioning of the NPA to uphold the rule of law, it is important to delineate clearly the powers of the NPA from those of the judiciary, the executive — especially the Minister of Justice — the President, the police, and the watchdog functions of Chapter 9 institutions.
澄清国家检察机关的宪法地位
《宪法》第8章将国家检察机关(“NPA”)的地位与宪政国家典型的权力分立保持一致,在19世纪中叶,两个主要机关在国家权力的第三分支中发展起来,以完善孟德斯鸠的权力分立模式。司法机关由司法机关(审判)和检察机关(起诉犯罪)组成。因此,国家行动方案的地位要求在结构和职能上独立于行政部门。新人民军失败的原因是多方面和复杂的。主要原因是政治精英继续将新人民军视为行政部门的一部分,部分原因是延续了前威斯敏斯特宪法下的做法,部分原因是非国大的“民主集中制”政策。这导致国家刑事司法组织混乱,第179(2)条赋予检察官的权力与《宪法》第205(3)条规定的警务权力没有明确区分。为了使国家警察的正常运作以维护法治,重要的是要明确界定国家警察的权力与司法、行政-特别是司法部长-总统、警察和第9章机构的监督职能的权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
South African law journal
South African law journal Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信