User:Nolis
| Cape Province vs Supreme Auditorium of Cape Province | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Tribunal of the Cape |
| Full case name | In enacting provisions on commerce concerning alcohol, do provinces violate the Constitutional power granted to the Federal government to regulate "certain sectors"? |
| Decided | January 11, 2003 |
| Citation(s) | Ck 1120 (2002), Case rejected, cite original jurisdiction as defined by SNA Tribunals act |
| Case opinions | |
| Article 4 of the Fundamental Statutes of the Constitution grants the Supreme National Assembly the sole power to enact, or not to enact, limits on interstate commerce, and having granted that power as regards to alcohol to the Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Executive, the Preserving our distilling and brewing heritage act of Natal province is overturned. | |
Cape Province vs Supreme Auditorium of Cape Province Ts. 981 (2003) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Tribunal of the Cape, in which the court ruled that the Supreme National Assembly, and by extension the Capetian federal government, had the sole power and purview over interprovincial commerce, including provincially-domestic enacted provisions. The decision struck down many provincial laws governing interprovincial commerce and led to the further centralization of political power from the Cape's provinces to the federal government in Cape Town. The decision sparked debate as to the specific rights of provinces, the separation of powers, and the role of the Supreme Tribunal in governing the organs of state; as this was the first case in Capetian history involving a dispute over the jurisdiction of major governmental organs.
The case was sparked by the Preserving our distilling and brewing heritage act enacted by the province of Natal in November of 2000 - the law stipulated an additional 14% sales tax on alcohol sold within the province that was not brewed or distilled within it, or does not contain at least 51% Natal-origin raw ingredients. Such additional sales taxes, although rare, existed throughout the country - although never applied in such a blanket, unilateral manner to such a major industry. Cape Province, a major alcohol producer, had little recourse. The predominant opinion of the day was that such sales taxes came purely under the purview of the respective legislating provinces, and that these legislative rights came under the protections granted to them by the constitution under the Capetian view of symmetric federalism. In response, Cape Province enacted the equivalent tax towards Natal's wine exports.
The case was brought forth by the Supreme Auditorium of Cape Province; unlike its homonymous federal counterpart, serves as the province's independent auditory body and prosecutor. The Supreme Auditorium, after collusion with the provincial legislature and executive, contended that such taxes were unconstitutional as they applied to imported products and therefore came under the sole purview of the federal government and its Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Executive. In effect, the province would sue itself. Considered frivolous, the original case was thrown out of the Cape Province Superior Court and was recommended to the legislature for interpretation under its sovereignty rights. However, with Cape Province's legislature colluding and choosing not to enact its parliamentary sovereignty rights, the case was brought before the Supreme Tribunal under its power of original jurisdiction.
In January 2003, the Supreme Tribunal issued a 4-3 decision in favour of the Supreme Auditorium holding that provinces enacting domestic legislation that "controls the economic activity of other provinces" is considered interprovincial commerce and therefore falls under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme National Assembly and the federal government that derives from it.
RNP split apart