1. 2001 (1) SA 883 (’Heath’).
2. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996.
3. Heath (n 1) [21]. The Court noted: ‘The Constitutions of the United States and Australia, like ours, make provision for the separation of powers by vesting the legislative authority in the Legislature, the executive authority in the Executive, and the judicial authority in the Courts. The doctrine of separation of powers as applied in the United States is based on inferences drawn from the structure and provisions of the Constitution, rather than on an express entrenchment of the principle. In this respect, our Constitution is no different’. The Court also referred to previous cases in which it had found that the Constitution provides for a separation of powers, enforced the separation or commented on the doctrine. SeeRe Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, ex p Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly1996 (4) SA 744 (CC) [106]–[113];Executive Council, Western Cape Legislature v President of the Republic of South Africa1995 (4) SA 877 (CC) [99]–[101];De Lange v Smuts NO1998 (3) SA 785 (CC) [60]–[61];Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: Re ex p President of the Republic of South Africa2000 (2) SA 674 (CC) [45];Bernstein v Bester1996 (2) SA 751 (CC) [105]. A post-Heathseparation of powers challenge to a mandatory sentencing law failed inS v Dodo2001 (3) SA 382 (CC). For a critique of the Court's decision in theHeathcase on the basis that it is a backwards step in the fight against crime and corruption, see J Sarkin ‘Evaluating the Constitutional Court's Decision inSouth African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath & Othersin the Context of Crime and Corruption in South Africa' (2001) 118 South African LJ 747.
4. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 s 165(2).
5. Heath (n 1) [35].