1 / 9

Overview: Unconstitutional Provisions

PRESENTATION TO SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS RE: COMPETITION AMENDMENT BILL 17 FEBRUARY 2009 Andrew Smith of Bowman Gilfillan on behalf of BLSA. Overview: Unconstitutional Provisions. Section 73A Reverse onus Prohibition on defence funding by firm

esben
Download Presentation

Overview: Unconstitutional Provisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. PRESENTATION TO SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRSRE: COMPETITION AMENDMENT BILL17 FEBRUARY 2009Andrew Smith of Bowman Gilfillan on behalf of BLSA

  2. Overview: Unconstitutional Provisions • Section 73A • Reverse onus • Prohibition on defence funding by firm • Prohibition on firm paying fine • Section 10A • Lack of exemption • Public participation • Vagueness • Section 10A • Extent of criminal offences

  3. Section 73A – Reverse Onus • Long line of Constitutional Court cases - reverse onus provisions unconstitutional • S v Zuma 1995 (4) BCLR 401 (CC) • Violation of section 35 of Constitution • State to prove beyond reasonable doubt • Right to be presumed innocent • Right to remain silent • Here, presumption that firm committed cartel behaviour • Essential element of crime • Absent evidence by accused will be proved (right to silence (Fereira v Levin 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) and s 12?) • Risk of conviction despite reasonable doubt but proved on lower standard of proof in civil forum • Therefore violates section 35 • But is it justifiable? • No reason other than convenience • Complex nature of offence requires proof • Unfair to director as not party to Competition proceedings and not fact peculiarly within his or her knowledge (not necessarily manager)

  4. Section 73A – Prohibiting Assistance by Firm • Constitutional right to • Adequate time and facilities for defence (s 35(3)(a)) • Legal practitioner of choice (s 35(3)(f)) • Rights limited by s73A • Prevents choice and assistance • Violates equality rights when compared to public sector • Is it justifiable? • No legitimate purpose • Less restrictive means exist • Due to technical nature of proceedings too little too late

  5. Section 10A – Complex Monopolies • Compared to other acts of prohibited conduct unequal treatment as: • No exemption provisions • No up front defence relating to economic benefit • Vagueness means will affect business decisions • Fuel industry • Banking industry

  6. Public Participation • Should this not occur, fatal to legislative process • Doctors for Life 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC) • No instructions but raised by other parties • Urge Committee to satisfy itself

  7. Vagueness • Not even courts know what section 4(1)(b) means • ANSAC III 2005 (6) SA 158 (SCA)at para 56 • ‘Tribunal has not yet in express terms construed s 4(1)(b) and established its scope (nor what falls outside its scope). Nor is the scope of the prohibition in our view self-evident…’ • Acknowledge some acts prima facie within s 4(1)(b) may have pro-efficiency and pro-competitive effect (para 55) • Yet criminalise this conduct which requires no proof of anti-competitive effect or a defence that there is a pro-competitive effect • Is knowing acquiescence sufficient? • Section 10A ambiguous? • Could violate rule of law

  8. Conclusions • Bowman Gilfillan approached to advise BLSA • Briefed Adv Wim Trengove SC with existing opinions • Agrees that there are provisions which are unconstitutional • All external legal opinions by Senior Counsel agree s 73A unconstitutional • Serious doubts raised about other provisions • Efficacy of legislation – resolve concerns now

  9. Solutions • Removal of offending provisions? • Allow public participation? • BLSA offers assistance

More Related