Hard Cases Make Bad Law: Reflections on the South African Constitutional Court’s Jurisprudence on the Development of African Customary Law in South Africa

Abstract

Judicial interpretation and adjudication are complex and controversial processes that the judiciary has been grappling with for centuries. This persists in modern constitutional judicial processes, particularly when adjudicating ‘hard cases.’ African customary law cases are indeed hard or difficult cases. This is especially so when it comes to the development of African customary law. This article reflects on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of South Africa regarding the development of African customary law. It is concluded that although there were some commendable strides in the development of African customary law in a few cases at its inception, the court has in subsequent judgments faltered. In these ‘hard cases’ the court has, in many instances, adopted a conservative, formalistic, literalistic approach, often using technicalities to either avoid the development of African customary law or simply abdicate its judicial responsibility. This flies in the face of the project of transformative constitutionalism and produces bad law when it comes to the court’s jurisprudence on the development of customary law.