S V MAKWANYANE 1995: STANDS THE TEST OF TIME. THE IRON MAN OF JUDGMENTS

Since I could remember, the above-mentioned case has rung through lecture halls from first year to the last year of legal undergraduates degree. It's one of the judgements that if it was a celebrity, I would have been Tom Cruise. It has ran across decades and decades in relevance within the legal academic sphere.

This is a blog post on the critically acclaimed case of S v Makwanyane 1995, the appeal. Please note if it wasnt the Constitutional values of dignity and life being applied and enforced the way they did in this, people would still be hanged, electrocuted or death of poisinous injection but Consitutional court justice Arthur Chaskalson was like " Hold my beer, watch this" and gave birth to S V Makwanyane judgement which i would not be surprised if it is still being taught till this day in Universities.

In writing about the judgment we discuss it using the IRAC principle of Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion. What can i say old habits die hard when you have written over 50 legal tests, exams, assignement reciting IRAC in your head during a 2 hour Jurisprudence exam. And it starts like this.

S v Makwanyane and Another (1995): Background. The Abolition of the Death Penalty and true introduction of Constitutional Supremacy:

In June 1995, South Africa’s brand-new Constitutional Court delivered its first watershed judgment in S v Makwanyane and Another, abolishing the death penalty forever. This decision did more than strike down capital punishment—it set the tone for a transformative era of rights, dignity and constitutional supremacy. Let’s unpack this landmark case using the IRAC method—Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion—and then reflect on why Makwanyane remains an indispensable pillar of our legal landscape today.

Issue: IS THE DEATH PENALTY CONSTITIONALLY VIABLE

At stake was whether the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 authorizing the death penalty were consistent with the interim Constitution’s guarantees of human rights. Specifically:

• Did capital punishment violate the right to life (section 9)?

• Did it infringe the right to dignity (section 10)?

• Was it inconsistent with the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (section 11(2))?

• Should the Court apply its decision retrospectively to all prisoners on death row?

Put simply, the Court had to decide whether society’s age-old sanction of taking life could survive constitutional muster built on values of human dignity and equality.

Rule: THE LEGAL RULES THAT APPLIED

The Court turned to several core constitutional provisions:

Right to Life (section 9)

The interim Constitution enshrined every person’s right to life as inviolable. Any legislation or practice must preserve life wherever possible.

Right to Dignity (section 10)

Dignity is the heart of the post-apartheid vision. Punishments that inherently degrade or dehumanise clash with the Constitution’s founding promise.

Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (section 11(2))

The state may punish lawbreakers, but it may not inflict suffering or humiliation that tramples constitutional protections.

Retrospectivity

The Court needed to decide if its ruling would apply only to future cases or if it would commute existing death sentences—all in the spirit of justice and fairness.

These rights formed the constitutional scaffolding against which the death penalty was tested.

Application: APPLYING A DOCUMENT TO THE REAL WORLD

The Constitutional Court’s majority opinion, penned by Justice Arthur Chaskalson, wove together legal analysis, comparative jurisprudence and moral reasoning.

Life and Its Inviolability

The Court stressed that the right to life is not empty rhetoric. It demanded affirmative protection from the state. Even a convicted murderer retains an irreducible core of human dignity deserving of constitutional shelter.

Dignity and Moral Agency

Dignity is the substance of what it means to be human—a capacity for moral decision-making, self-worth and autonomy. By extinguishing human life, the state denies the offender every future opportunity to exercise that moral agency.

Cruelty, Suffering and the Abolitionist Trend

Drawing on decisions from Canada, the United States, India and Europe, the Court observed a global movement toward abolition. The death penalty, they held, inevitably carries the risk of wrongful execution and causes appalling anguish, both in anticipation and in the botched implementation of sentences.

Balancing Society’s Interest in Punishment

While recognising the public’s legitimate desire for retribution and deterrence, the Court found that these objectives do not justify an irreversible sanction. Life imprisonment and other serious penalties provide ample alternatives.

Retrospective Relief

Embracing constitutional justice, the Court ordered that all 300-400 individuals then under death sentence have their convictions automatically converted to life imprisonment, by stipulating that those already under the sentence of death will have their sentence remain, ofcourse without the execution part actually happening, to which their sentence would be set aside and replaced with with lawful puunishment . This remedy underscored the Constitution’s transformative ethos—redressing past wrongs and preventing ongoing injustice.

In every strand of its reasoning, the Court held fast to the belief that a constitutional democracy must err on the side of human rights protection—even for those who have committed the most heinous crimes.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court declared the death penalty provisions invalid and struck them from the statute book. S v Makwanyane thus cemented a core principle: under South Africa’s new constitutional order, the state may not claim the moral high ground by taking a life.

Why Makwanyane Matters Today

1. Foundational Jurisprudence

As the Court’s inaugural decision, Makwanyane set a precedent for bold, rights-centred adjudication. It signalled that constitutional values of dignity, life, equality are not mere rhetoric but binding constraints on power. Every later case on socio-economic rights, equality or fair procedure owes a debt to the tone Makwanyane struck.

2. The Death-Penalty Debate

Despite high crime rates, South Africa has never reinstated capital punishment. Makwanyane’s moral and legal reasoning continues to steer public discourse away from retribution and toward rehabilitation, restorative justice and victims’ rights.

3. Comparative Influence

Globally, Makwanyane is cited as a powerful example of constitutional abolition. Emerging democracies—especially across Africa—look to its blend of comparative law and human-rights analysis when grappling with their own death-penalty legislation.

4. Human Rights Culture

More than a piece of case law, Makwanyane embodies a societal choice: to affirm the value of every person, even those who have erred. It has helped foster a human-rights culture in South Africa’s institutions—from prisons to schools to parliament.

5. Ongoing Challenges

The case also reminds us that constitutional ideals must be realised in practice. Overcrowded prisons, under-resourced legal aid and slow court processes continue to test the promise of dignity and fair trial. Makwanyane’s spirit demands vigilance: genuine justice requires both principled judgments and effective implementation.

Final Reflections

S v Makwanyane and Another was not just the death knell for capital punishment in South Africa. It was the birth announcement of a new legal order, one where rights are paramount, mercy has legal force, and the judiciary stands as a bulwark against the darkest impulses of retribution. Nearly three decades on, its message resonates with undiminished urgency: in a democratic society, the measure of our civilization is how we treat the least among us, even those who have fallen the hardest.

In celebrating Makwanyane, we recommit ourselves to constitutionalism’s grand project: forging a nation where human dignity is inviolable, life is precious, and justice is as restorative as it is retributive.

I have not read many cases in my lifetime, but i can confidently say that S v Makwanyane 1995 was a legal masterclass. In my experience with the law, i cannot recall where the law was applied as well as it was in this judgement.

DISCLAIMER

This is just an opinion, based on researching and attempting to understand legal principles. I am not a Constitutional law expert. I would like to be one one day, but please note that my post are do not endorse them as authority. They are reading materials, with cool pictures and hopefully cool words. I stand to be corrected on what i have written about. I would actually appreciate correction in the event where i have erred.