Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat

379
die prosedure ingevolge Artikel 4(1) van PAJA na te volg. Die hof beslis dat die
respondent nie direk op PAJA gesteun het in die funderende eedsverklaring nie.
Die respondent het egter gepoog om dit indirek te doen, om sodoende die
voorskrifte van PAJA toe te pas om steun te vind vir sy argument rakende die
samestelling van die Immigrasiewet.
Die hof het sy twyfel uitgespreek oor die korrektheid om PAJA toe te pas om ander
wetgewing te interpreteer : 775
“It is not at all clear that using PAJA as an interpretive tool to assist in
interpreting other legislation, as the respondent contends, is appropriate.
PAJA regulates the manner in which certain powers are to be exercised. If
the power under question is one within the scope of PAJA it must be
exercised consistently with PAJA. If it is not such a power, PAJA has no
application. Questions may arise as to whether legislation may by necessary
implication oust the requirements of PAJA, but they do not arise here. Be that
as it may, I shall nevertheless consider whether section 4 of PAJA can assist
the respondent.”
Met die toepassing van Artikel 4(4), het die hof aangedui dat die voorskrifte van
Artikel 4(1) omseil kan word, indien dit blyk redelik en regverdig te wees. Indien die
konsultasieproses tot ʼn oponthoud sou lei, sou dit meebring dat die regulasies nie
gereed sou wees wanneer die Immigrasiewet in werking tree nie. Sonder die
regulasies sou die Wet nie effektief van toepassing wees nie. Die respondent het
egter nagelaat om die proklamasie wat die Wet die lig laat sien het, aan te val.
Hoofregter Chaskalson beslis soos volg : 776
775 2000(8) BCLR 838 (CC) Paragraaf 50.
776 2000(8) BCLR 838 (CC) Paragraaf 58.
“Counsel for the respondent correctly accepted that the Act would be
unworkable without its own regulations and that the old regulations could not
fill that void. They also accepted that the section 7 process is a time
consuming process which could not possibly have been complied with prior to
12 March when the operative provisions of the Act came into force. The
validity of the Proclamation was not challenged. Thus, even if section 4(1) of
PAJA is applicable to the making of regulations and it is open to the
respondent to challenge the Minister’s failure to comply with its provisions, it
would in the light of these facts have been reasonable and justifiable for the
Minister to depart from the notice and comment provisions when he made the
regulations.”