1. INTRODUCTION

In the past, the Government easily violated human rights. There were no stringent mechanisms to control decisions and actions of the government, as a result of this, abuse of power and violation of human rights occurred regularly. The courts were also reluctant to review these powers because, they were restricted by rules, for example there was a rule that judicial control does not extend to government’s policy decisions, another rule was that a reviewing court may not substitute it’s opinion for that of the administrative body, unless the official has acted mala fide or in bad faith. This is supported by case of Shidiack v Union Government , where it was held that, if the administrative organ has duly and honestly applied himself to the question which has been left to his discretion, it is impossible for the court of law either to make him change his mind or to substitute it’s conclusion for his own.

It is true that for any government to function effectively, it must be bestowed with discretionary powers, discretionary powers involves the exercise of a choice between two or more options on the part of the decision maker. The exercise of these discretionary powers must be checked and controlled by other branches of government, but this was not the case in South Africa. In the past the only manner in which those powers could be controlled was common law basis, but as a result of a narrowly defined grounds of judicial review of government action and decisions, the system of Parliamentary supremacy allows the government to easily exclude the courts power of review via the so-called ouster clauses. The promulgation of the interim and the final constitution has brought about dramatic changes in the field of administrative law, specifically with regard to administrative actions.

The changes brought by the interim constitution , with