Questions About Interpreting and Applying the Constitution | The Manamela Case

A minority judgment of Justices Cameron and O’Regan held that it was constitutionally justifiable to require persons found in possession of recently stolen property to prove on the balance of probabilities that they had acquired the property honestly. Writing jointly for the majority, Justices Madala, Sachs, and Yacoob held that it was justifiable to limit the right to silence by requiring the person in possession to provide an explanation. But it was not justifiable to place an onus on them to prove innocent acquisition. If their story, even if improbable, could reasonably be true, they would be entitled to acquittal. Their judgment emphasized that in doing the necessary proportionality analysis, the Court should not proceed mechanically ticking off different factors. Rather, it should look holistically at the balance between the public interest served by the limitation and the extent to which the rights of the accused were being limited.