Who's Who Legal Award 2010: South African Firm of the Year and PLC Which Lawyer? 2010: South African Law Firm of the Year...
Dunstan Mlambo has been appointed by the President as Judge President of the Labour and Labour Appeal Courts and Anton Steenkam...
DealMakers Deal of the Year 2009: Advising SAB Miller and SAB on a ground-breaking transaction isn’t something you ...
articles
Unconstitutionality of the Competition Amendment Bill By Andrew Smith and Emmylou Wewege
It is hoped that the President will refer the Competition Amendment Bill to the Constitutional Court rather than sign it into to law so as to resolve its unconstitutionality and avoid unnecessary litigation. Failure to do so will spark constitutional challenges which will prevent it from being implemented while that litigation unfolds.
The Competition Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Competition Act 89 of 1998 by introducing various new provisions. We consider only those provisions which introduce criminal liability for any firm’s director or manager who is engaged in hard-core cartel conduct. Aspects of these provisions of the Bill appear to be unconstitutional.
The constitutional problems were acknowledged by President Motlanthe, who, earlier this year, rather than assenting to the Bill, referred it back to Parliament due to concerns about its constitutional validity. The Bill was considered by Parliamentary committees but was referred back to the President unchanged.
The President now has a difficult decision to make. In terms of section 79(4) of the Constitution he may assent to the Bill, in which case it becomes an Act. He may also decide to refer it to the Constitutional Court due to his concerns about its constitutional validity.
The Bill provides that if a director or manager is found guilty of engaging in or knowingly acquiescing in prohibited conduct involving hard-core cartel behaviour, he or she may be imprisoned for up to 10 years or have to pay a fine of up to R500 000, or both. Three aspects of this provision are possibly unconstitutional.
i) A reverse onus
The onus is on the State to prove all the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 73A(5) of the Bill states that a finding by the Competition Tribunal of prohibited conduct by a firm, or where a firm effectively admits to such conduct by entering into a consent order agreement, is prima facie proof in a criminal trial of a director or manager of that firm that the prohibited conduct has occurred. This creates a “reverse onus”, as the State need no longer prove this element of the crime.
A reverse onus is not automatically unconstitutional. There is a two-stage test:
First, does the provision violate the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the accused's guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt? This is so if the provision creates the risk of conviction of the accused despite the existence of a reasonable doubt about his guilt. Section 73A(5) creates such a risk because an accused may be convicted despite the absence of any evidence that the firm had engaged in a prohibited practice.
Secondly, is it a justifiable limitation in terms of section 36(1) of the Constitution? The principal considerations are the purpose of the reverse onus provision and the risk it creates of the conviction of an accused despite the existence of a reasonable doubt. The apparent purpose of the reverse onus provision in this case is to ensure that the finding of prohibited conduct occurs in the Tribunal rather than in the criminal courts.
This is not, however, a legitimate purpose because an accused is entitled, in terms of section 35(3) of the Constitution, to a trial "before an ordinary court", which the Tribunal and the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) are not. The risk of conviction despite the existence of a reasonable doubt is real, because the accused may not have been party to the proceedings in the Tribunal or the CAC which determined that the firm had engaged in the prohibited practice.
Section 73A(5) is accordingly not a justifiable limitation of the presumption of innocence.
ii) Prohibition on defence funding
Section 73A(6)(b) prevents a company from financially assisting in the defence of an employee charged in terms of this section unless the prosecution is abandoned or the director or manager is acquitted. This is a clear and unjustifiable violation of the right to a fair trial. Its purpose appears vindictive and is a means which is wholly inappropriate to achieve its aim. It unjustifiably violates the accused’s right to prepare his or her defence and to choose his or her legal representative – rights entrenched in section 35 of the Constitution. This section also unconstitutionally presumes guilt rather than innocence.
iii) Prohibition on funding of a fine
Section 73A(6)(a) prohibits a firm from assisting in the payment of any fine imposed in terms of this section. Coupled with section 73A(6)(b), 73A(6)(a) shows the excessive means being employed to prevent cartel conduct; means that may not be constitutional.
We believe it would be preferable for the President to refer the Bill to the Constitutional Court. This would bring clarity and avoid unnecessary litigation. If it is not referred, we anticipate various constitutional challenges to the amended Act which will prevent it from being implemented while that litigation unfolds.
* Various arguments in this note were developed from consultations with Wim Trengove SC
Andrew Smith is a senior associate and Emmylou Wewege is a candidate attorney at Bowman Gilfillan.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
China Construction Bank "CCB"
CCB made available to FirstRand Bank Limited a US$ 100 million Standby Loan Facility
view all deals & matters
view all news & current matters
CCB made available to FirstRand Bank Limited a US$ 100 million Standby Loan Facility
view all deals & matters
view all news & current matters
Chambers and Partners
2010 ranked us first in the following departments:
view all awards and rankings
Competition/Antitrust
Corporate/M&A
IT & Telecommunications
view all awards and rankings
Merger Control 2011 South African Chapter
Merger Control 2011 South Africa chapter
view all articles
Merger Control 2011 South Africa chapter
view all articles
Bowman Gilfillan is involved in a continuous transformation process and in 2004 adapted a Transformation Charter. The Transformation Charter was revised in 2008 with recommendations for the next 3 years.
read more
read more
Bowman Gilfillan is proud to be one of the first large commercial firms to develop and implement a comprehensive pro bono policy. In accordance with this policy we pursue meritorious public-law cases and act for indigent clients in a number of ongoing matters. As a responsible corporate citizen, Bowman Gilfillan encourages its practitioners to seek to provide legal services to deserving organisations and individuals on a pro bono (free) basis. A number of pro bono matters have been taken on in a wide variety of fields, from education to healthcare and other social services and partnerships have been established with recognised public interest legal services providers such as the Legal Resources Centre and the Aids Law Project.
Bowman Gilfillan has also entered into an arrangement with CIDA City Campus, particularly in business subjects, in terms of which we prepare the lecture materials for, and present lectures to, their second year students. We also provide CIDA with legal advice. All of this is done free of any charge, as part of our social responsibility programme.
read more
Bowman Gilfillan has also entered into an arrangement with CIDA City Campus, particularly in business subjects, in terms of which we prepare the lecture materials for, and present lectures to, their second year students. We also provide CIDA with legal advice. All of this is done free of any charge, as part of our social responsibility programme.
read more
We are an independent corporate law firm with well established relationships with some of the leading law firms in the major financial centres of the world.
Bowman Gilfillan has formed an association with Coulson Harney Advocates, a corporate and commercial law firm in Kenya. The association provides Coulson Harney with a springboard for its involvement in legal advisory work around Africa.
|
|
|
|
