have to be considered by Parliament, such period should be two years.[1] It should be noted that pending the rectification by Parliament, the successful applicant and persons in his position received no relief from the order.
[134]In Dawood[2] provisions in immigration law concerning the granting of certain privileges to spouses and other family members of South Africans were held to be unconstitutional because of lack of guidance to the officials concerned concerning the factors relevant to the refusal of temporary permits. O’Regan J pointed out that:
“It would be inappropriate for this Court to seek to remedy the inconsistency in the legislation under review. The task of determining what guidance should be given to decision-makers and, in particular, the circumstances in which a permit may justifiably be refused is primarily a task for the Legislature and should be undertaken by it. There is a range of possibilities that the Legislature may adopt to cure the unconstitutionality.”[3] (Footnote omitted.)
Her judgment went on, however, to provide temporary guidance to the officials as to how their discretion should be exercised.[4] The result was that a temporary form of relief was fashioned, leaving it to the legislature to determine the final text of the corrective decisions.
[135]What these cases highlight is the need to look at the precise circumstances of each case with a view to determining how best the values of the Constitution can be
- ↑ Id
- ↑ Dawood, Shalabi and Thomas v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 (3) SA 936 (CC); 2000 (8) BCLR 837 (CC).
- ↑ Id at para 63.
- ↑ Id at 70.
