31:
374:
argued that the criminalisation of prostitution is not discriminatory because the law criminalises prostitution by men as well as by women. Moreover, the majority agreed with the minority (though for slightly different reasons) that the appellants' other constitutional arguments failed. It therefore
343:. Although the minority dismissed the appellants' arguments from the rights to human dignity, freedom of person, privacy, and economic activity, respectively, the minority was persuaded by the argument that the prostitution provision indirectly brought about unfair
220:, the court held unanimously that it is constitutional to criminalise brothel-keeping. However, the bench split six-to-five on the constitutionality of section 20(1)(aA) of the Act, which criminalises prostitution. Writing on behalf of the minority, Justices
375:
held that the prohibition is constitutional; the court therefore declined to confirm the High Court's order and instead set it aside, dismissing the women's applications and reinstating their criminal sentences. Ngcobo's opinion was joined by Chief
Justice
286:, which was charged with confirming the invalidity of the prostitution provision; in addition, the first and second women appealed the unfavourable finding on the brothel-keeping provisions. The state opposed both applications, represented by
315:. On this basis, the court agreed unanimously to uphold the High Court's finding that the prohibition on brothel-keeping is constitutionally compliant, thereby dismissing the appeals of the first and second appellants.
279:
found in the appellants' favour on the prostitution provision, finding that it is unconstitutional to criminalise prostitution. However, the challenge to the brothel-keeping provisions was dismissed.
407:
activists and some legal commentators. Ntombizozuko Dyani-Mhango observed that the majority judgment's deference to the political branches was characteristic of Ngcobo's jurisprudence.
727:
707:
625:
352:
355:. O'Regan and Sachs held that insofar as the law makes the prostitute (typically a woman) the primary offender and her patron (typically man) nothing more than an
367:. On these grounds, the minority would have confirmed the High Court's order that section 20(1)(aA) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional and invalid.
294:, and their applications were supported by several amici curiae. Argument was heard from 5 to 6 March 2002, and judgment was handed down on 9 October 2002.
232:
indirectly but unfairly against women, while the majority dismissed this view on the grounds that both men and women are barred from conducting sex work.
323:
However, the bench divided six-to-five on the constitutionality of the prohibition on prostitution. The minority judgment was co-written by
Justices
712:
692:
702:
283:
198:
41:
249:
308:
717:
275:, contending that the relevant provisions of the Sexual Offences Act are unconstitutional. In August 2001, the High Court's
416:
276:
108:
421:
312:
649:"Reflecting on Former Chief Justice Ngcobo's Approach to Gender Equality: Revisiting the Jordan and Volks Judgments"
272:
104:
697:
253:
217:
307:
Unlike the High Court, the
Constitutional Court decided the constitutionality question with reference to the
30:
722:
271:
Though the women did not dispute their involvement in sex work, they appealed their convictions to the
559:
481:
443:"Better Late than Never: Lessons from S v Jordan in Strengthening Women's Participation in Litigation"
648:
442:
388:
159:
360:
265:
521:"Women's Sexuality in the South African Constitutional Court: Jordan v. S. 2002 (6) SA 642 (CC)"
668:
606:
579:
540:
501:
462:
392:
376:
348:
340:
291:
163:
135:
123:
660:
571:
532:
493:
454:
336:
131:
380:
364:
257:
202:
139:
324:
221:
151:
371:
344:
210:
686:
384:
229:
143:
311:, which had prevailed at the time of the offence, rather than with reference to the
575:
497:
287:
261:
206:
84:
264:, an offence under section 20(1)(aA). In particular, the sex worker had been paid
328:
225:
155:
664:
536:
458:
356:
332:
127:
672:
610:
583:
544:
505:
466:
520:
209:. It was handed down on 9 October 2002 with a majority judgment by Justice
178:
Ngcobo J (Chaskalson, Kriegler, Madala, du
Plessis and Skweyiya concurring)
103:
2002 (1) SA 797 (T); 2001 (10) BCLR 1055 (T); 2002 (1) SACR 17 (T) in the
404:
245:
240:
The applicants, three women, were arrested in 1996 at their workplace, a
147:
598:
241:
268:
25,000 to administer a pelvic massage to an undercover policeman.
201:
which confirmed the constitutionality of statutory prohibitions on
599:"The Constitutional Court Upholds the Criminalisation of Sex Work"
482:"Sex Work from a Feminist Perspective: a Visit to the Jordan Case"
626:"Sin and simulacra: some comments on the Jordan case: regspraak"
560:"Crossing Jordan: Constitutional Space for (un)Civil Sex ?"
260:, an offence under section 2, and a sex worker was convicted of
186:
O'Regan and Sachs JJ (Langa, Ackermann and
Goldstone concurring)
363:
in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional commitment to
256:– the brothel's owner and receptionist were convicted of
359:, it reinforces sexist double standards and perpetuates
370:
However, writing for the six-person majority, Justice
182:
174:
169:
119:
114:
96:
91:
80:
72:
57:
47:
37:
23:
403:The majority judgment was unpopular among many
331:, with the concurrence of Deputy Chief Justice
252:, they were convicted of contraventions of the
8:
728:South African anti-discrimination case law
708:Constitutional Court of South Africa cases
603:Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity
262:conducting indecent sexual acts for reward
29:
20:
228:argued that the prostitution prohibition
216:Hearing a challenge to provisions of the
433:
87:; 2002 (6) SA 642; 2002 (11) BCLR 1117
564:South African Journal on Human Rights
486:South African Journal on Human Rights
290:; the appellants were represented by
7:
284:Constitutional Court of South Africa
199:Constitutional Court of South Africa
42:Constitutional Court of South Africa
647:Dyani-Mhango, Ntombizozuko (2017).
519:Bonthuys, Elsje (1 December 2006).
14:
353:Section Nine of the Constitution
713:South African criminal case law
693:2002 in South African case law
659:(1&2): 33 pages–33 pages.
576:10.1080/19962126.2004.11864818
498:10.1080/19962126.2004.11864812
52:The State v Jordan and Others
1:
417:Decriminalisation of sex work
277:Transvaal Provincial Division
109:Transvaal Provincial Division
703:Prostitution in South Africa
630:Journal of South African Law
422:Prostitution in South Africa
653:Southern African Public Law
447:Southern African Public Law
744:
273:High Court of South Africa
105:High Court of South Africa
537:10.1007/s10691-006-9034-x
254:Sexual Offences Act, 1957
218:Sexual Offences Act, 1957
28:
718:Sex laws in South Africa
624:Kroeze, Irma J. (2003).
61:9 October 2002
16:South African legal case
665:10.25159/2522-6800/3569
480:Krüger, Rósaan (2004).
459:10.25159/2522-6800/3591
282:The matter went to the
558:Fritz, Nicole (2004).
525:Feminist Legal Studies
441:Spies, Amanda (2015).
387:, and Acting Justices
347:, in violation of the
85:[2002] ZACC 22
597:Louw, Ronald (2003).
197:is a decision of the
194:S v Jordan and Others
101:S v Jordan and Others
309:Interim Constitution
292:David Unterhalter SC
361:gender stereotypes
250:Magistrate's Court
393:Thembile Skweyiya
377:Arthur Chaskalson
349:right to equality
341:Richard Goldstone
313:1996 Constitution
258:keeping a brothel
248:. Charged in the
190:
189:
735:
698:Prostitution law
677:
676:
644:
638:
637:
621:
615:
614:
594:
588:
587:
555:
549:
548:
516:
510:
509:
477:
471:
470:
438:
337:Laurie Ackermann
115:Court membership
68:
66:
33:
21:
743:
742:
738:
737:
736:
734:
733:
732:
683:
682:
681:
680:
646:
645:
641:
623:
622:
618:
605:(57): 104–110.
596:
595:
591:
557:
556:
552:
518:
517:
513:
479:
478:
474:
440:
439:
435:
430:
413:
401:
381:Johann Kriegler
365:gender equality
321:
305:
303:Brothel-keeping
300:
288:Wim Trengove SC
238:
203:brothel-keeping
64:
62:
17:
12:
11:
5:
741:
739:
731:
730:
725:
720:
715:
710:
705:
700:
695:
685:
684:
679:
678:
639:
616:
589:
570:(2): 230–248.
550:
531:(3): 391–406.
511:
492:(1): 138–150.
472:
453:(2): 505–518.
432:
431:
429:
426:
425:
424:
419:
412:
409:
400:
397:
389:Ben du Plessis
372:Sandile Ngcobo
345:discrimination
320:
317:
304:
301:
299:
296:
237:
234:
211:Sandile Ngcobo
188:
187:
184:
180:
179:
176:
172:
171:
167:
166:
121:
120:Judges sitting
117:
116:
112:
111:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
82:
78:
77:
74:
70:
69:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
740:
729:
726:
724:
721:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
704:
701:
699:
696:
694:
691:
690:
688:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
643:
640:
635:
631:
627:
620:
617:
612:
608:
604:
600:
593:
590:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
554:
551:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
515:
512:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
476:
473:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
437:
434:
427:
423:
420:
418:
415:
414:
410:
408:
406:
398:
396:
394:
390:
386:
385:Tholie Madala
382:
378:
373:
368:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:and Justices
334:
330:
326:
318:
316:
314:
310:
302:
297:
295:
293:
289:
285:
280:
278:
274:
269:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
235:
233:
231:
230:discriminated
227:
223:
219:
214:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:Case opinions
168:
165:
161:
160:du Plessis AJ
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
124:Chaskalson CJ
122:
118:
113:
110:
106:
102:
99:
97:Appealed from
95:
90:
86:
83:
79:
75:
71:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
723:Sex case law
656:
652:
642:
633:
629:
619:
602:
592:
567:
563:
553:
528:
524:
514:
489:
485:
475:
450:
446:
436:
402:
369:
325:Kate O'Regan
322:
319:Prostitution
306:
281:
270:
239:
222:Kate O'Regan
215:
207:prostitution
193:
192:
191:
100:
92:Case history
51:
18:
379:, Justices
329:Albie Sachs
226:Albie Sachs
175:Decision by
164:Skweyiya AJ
136:Goldstone J
132:Ackermann J
73:Docket nos.
687:Categories
428:References
357:accomplice
333:Pius Langa
236:Background
140:Kriegler J
65:2002-10-09
24:S v Jordan
673:2522-6800
611:1013-0950
584:0258-7203
545:1572-8455
506:0258-7203
467:2522-6800
399:Reception
152:O’Regan J
128:Langa DCJ
81:Citations
76:CCT 31/01
411:See also
405:feminist
298:Judgment
246:Pretoria
148:Ngcobo J
144:Madala J
242:brothel
183:Dissent
156:Sachs J
63: (
58:Decided
671:
609:
582:
543:
504:
465:
38:Court
669:ISSN
607:ISSN
580:ISSN
541:ISSN
502:ISSN
463:ISSN
391:and
383:and
339:and
327:and
224:and
213:.
205:and
162:and
661:doi
572:doi
533:doi
494:doi
455:doi
395:.
351:in
244:in
689::
667:.
657:32
655:.
651:.
632:.
628:.
601:.
578:.
568:20
566:.
562:.
539:.
529:14
527:.
523:.
500:.
490:20
488:.
484:.
461:.
451:30
449:.
445:.
158:,
154:,
150:,
146:,
142:,
138:,
134:,
130:,
126:,
107:,
675:.
663::
636:.
634:3
613:.
586:.
574::
547:.
535::
508:.
496::
469:.
457::
266:R
67:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
