[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-501787-105":59,"doc-detail-501787-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","applicants-supplementary-written-argument","Applicants' Supplementary Written Argument","","Supplementary written argument submitted to the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Case Number 73/05. The applicants address whether provincial approval under section 74(8) must comply with the obligations in section 118(1)(a), and whether any non-compliance affects the validity of the section 74(8) approval and the consequences for the Twelfth Amendment and affected municipal areas. The submissions also consider whether constitutional amendments must satisfy the principle of rationality and whether the Twelfth Amendment complies, concluding with submissions for resolution of the issues.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/applicants-supplementary-written-argument/501787/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/applicants-supplementary-written-argument/501787.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Đào","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-17","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":52},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the purpose of the supplementary written submissions in this case?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"They are delivered in accordance with the Court’s directions and address specific constitutional questions for resolution, including the move of Matatiele into the Eastern Cape and related legal consequences.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Do the applicants argue that section 74(8) requires compliance with section 118(1)(a)?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Yes. The submissions argue that section 74(8) requires the provincial legislature involved in redrawing boundaries to comply with the obligations in section 118(1)(a).",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"If the section 118(1)(a) obligations were not complied with, what consequences are addressed?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The submissions address whether non-compliance would render the section 74(8) approval invalid and then consider the effect on the Twelfth Amendment, affected municipal areas, and elections held there.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},501787,1791029253,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":52,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},1374402968488,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA  \nCase Number: 73/05  \nIn the matter between : MATATIELE MUNICIPALITY  \nPOVERTY ALLEVIATION NETWORK  \nCEDARVILLE AND DISTRICT FARMERS ASSOCIATION  \nMATATIELE DRAKENSBERG TAXI ASSOCIATION  \nMATATIELE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE  \nGOVERNING BODY OF THE KING EDWARD HIGH SCHOOL  \nGEORGE MOSHESH TRIBAL AUTHORITY  \nMALUTI CHAMBER OF BUSINESS  \nMATATIELE AND MALUTI COUNCIL OF CHURCHES  \nMPHARANE COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION  \nZIZAMELE PRESCHOOL TRAINING PROJECT  \nAND  \nPRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA  \nMINISTER OF PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT  \nMINISTER OF JUSTICE AND  \nCONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT  \nTHE PREMIER OF THE EASTERN CAPE  \nFIRST APPLICANT  \nSECOND APPLICANT  \nTHIRD APPLICANT  \nFOURTH APPLICANT  \nFIFTH APPLICANT  \nSIXTH APPLICANT  \nSEVENTH APPLICANT  \nEIGHTH APPLICANT  \nNINTH APPLICANT  \nTENTH APPLICANT  \nELEVENTH APPLICANT  \nFIRST RESPONDENT  \nSECOND RESPONDENT  \nTHIRD RESPONDENT  \nFOURTH RESPONDENT  \nTHE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE PROVINCE OF THE EASTERN CAPE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT  \nTHE PREMIER OF KWAZULU-NATAL  \nTHE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE PROVINCE OF KWAZULU-NATAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT  \nMUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD  \nSISONKE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY  \nALFRED NZO DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY  \nO. R. TAMBO DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY  \nUMZIMKULU MUNICIPALITY  \nUMZIMVUBU MUNICIPALITY  \nFIFTH RESPONDENT  \nSIXTH RESPONDENT  \nSEVENTH RESPONDENT  \nEIGHTH RESPONDENT  \nNINTH RESPONDENT  \nTENTH RESPONDENT  \nELEVENTH RESPONDENT  \nTWELFTH RESPONDENT  \nTHIRTEENTH RESPONDENT  \nApplicants’ Supplementary Written Argument  \nContents  Page Number  \nA. Introduction 4  \nB. The relationship between section 74(8)  \nand 118(1)(a) 4-8  \nC. What are the obligations in section 118(1)(a)  \nand were they complied with? 9-11  \nD.  \nE.  \nF.  \nG.  \nH.  \nDoes non-compliance with section 118(1)(a) render the approval in section 74(8) invalid?  \nIf the 74(8) decision is invalid what is the effect on the Twelfth Amendment?  \nIf the Twelfth Amendment is invalid what is the effect on the affected municipal areas and the elections held there?  \nMust a constitutional amendment comply with the constitutional principle of rationality, and if so, did the Twelfth Amendment comply with that principle?  \nConcluding Submissions  \n12 -13  \n14  \n14-17  \n17-28  \n28-29  \nA.  Introduction  \n1.  \nThese supplementary written submissions are delivered in accordance with this Court’s directions in its judgment on 27 February 2006. Six questions arepresented for resolution and in addition the second and third respondents (“respondents”) were given the opportunity to explain the decision to move Matatiele into the Eastern Cape. We deal with each issue in the order presented in the judgment.  \nB.  The Relationship between Section 74(8) and 118(1)(a)  \n2.  \nThe question presented is whether the provisions of section 74(8) of the Constitution require a provincial legislature whose boundary is being redrawn by a proposed constitutional amendment to comply with the provisions of section 118(1)(a) of the Constitution. We submit that it does.  \n3.  \nAs the majority judgment noted, section 74(8) is a “veto” power vesting in a province, the purpose of which is to protect provincial territorial integrity, when a constitutional amendment “alters provincial boundaries, powers, functions or institutions...”.1  \n1 Section 74(3)(b)(ii) .  \n4.  \nAlthough the respondents contend that section 74(8) does not apply to the amendment in question we submit that it does. Its ambit is clear. Section 74(8) applies whenever a bill contemplated in 74(3)(b), “or any part” of that Bill“concerns only a specific province or provinces.” The Twelfth Amendment Bill falls within that ambit.  \n5.  \nSection 74(8) differs materially from the equivalent provision in the Interim Constitution which was discussed in Premier KwaZulu-Natal and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others.2 In that case it was held that the proviso to section 62(2) ","cbCaikdTnE6OdA0z","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikdTnE6OdA0z","pdf",112536,29,"English","# A. Introduction\n## B. The relationship between section 74(8) and 118(1)(a)\n## C. What are the obligations in section 118(1)(a) and were they complied with?\n## D. Does non-compliance with section 118(1)(a) render the approval in section 74(8) invalid?\n## E. If the 74(8) decision is invalid, what is the effect on the Twelfth Amendment?\n## F. If the Twelfth Amendment is invalid, what is the effect on affected municipal areas and elections held there?\n## G. Must a constitutional amendment comply with the principle of rationality, and did the Twelfth Amendment comply?\n# Concluding Submissions","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of the supplementary written submissions in this case?\",\"answer\":\"They are delivered in accordance with the Court’s directions and address specific constitutional questions for resolution, including the move of Matatiele into the Eastern Cape and related legal consequences.\"},{\"question\":\"Do the applicants argue that section 74(8) requires compliance with section 118(1)(a)?\",\"answer\":\"Yes. The submissions argue that section 74(8) requires the provincial legislature involved in redrawing boundaries to comply with the obligations in section 118(1)(a).\"},{\"question\":\"If the section 118(1)(a) obligations were not complied with, what consequences are addressed?\",\"answer\":\"The submissions address whether non-compliance would render the section 74(8) approval invalid and then consider the effect on the Twelfth Amendment, affected municipal areas, and elections held there.\"}]","Applicants' Supplementary Written Argument | PDF",1791024667,73]