Babi na Biyu na Kundin Tsarin Mulkin Afirka ta Kudu

Babi na Biyu na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Afirka ta Kudu ya ƙunshi Dokar 'Yancin Dan Adam, yarjejeniyar haƙƙin ɗan adam da ke kare haƙƙin farar hula, siyasa da zamantakewa da tattalin arziki na dukan mutane a Afirka ta Kudu. Hakkin da ke cikin Dokar ya shafi dukkan doka, gami da doka ta kowa, kuma ya ɗaure dukkan rassan gwamnati, gami na zartarwa na kasa, majalisar dokoki, bangarorin shari'a, gwamnatocin larduna, da majalisun birni. Wasu tanadi, kamar wadanda ke hana nuna bambanci mara adalci, suma suna aiki da ayyukan mutane masu zaman kansu.

 Tarihi 

An tsara kundin hakkin dan Adam na farko na Afirka ta Kudu a shekara ta 1988, wanda Kader Asmal da Albie Sachs suka fi yin tasiri wajen rubuta shi daga gidan Asmal a Dublin, Ireland. An haɗa wannan rubutu a babi na 3 na tsarin mulki na wucin gadi na Afirka ta Kudu na shekarar 1993, wanda aka tsara a cikin tattaunawar da aka yi domin kawo ƙarshen wariyar launin fata. Wannan "kundin hakki na wucin gadi", wanda ya fara aiki a ranar 27 ga Afrilu 1994 (rana ta farko da aka gudanar da zaɓen ba tare da wariyar launin fata ba), ya ƙunshi hakkin zamantakewa da na siyasa kawai (hakkin kariya). Kundin hakki na yanzu, wanda ya maye gurbin kundin hakki na wucin gadi a ranar 4 ga Fabrairu 1997 (ranar da tsarin mulkin ƙarshe ya fara aiki), ya ci gaba da ƙunsar waɗannan hakkoki kuma ya ƙara wasu sabbin hakkoki na tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da al'adu.

 Amfani da Dokar 'Yancin 

Matsayin iko da aikace-aikacen Dokar 'Yancin an tsara shi ta sashe na 7 da 8, sassan buɗewa na lissafin, waɗanda ake kira "Hakkin" da "Aikace-aikace" bi da bi. Sashe na 7 ya kafa Dokar 'Yancin a matsayin "tushen dimokuradiyya a Afirka ta Kudu" kuma yana buƙatar jihar ta "girmamawa, karewa, ingantawa da cika haƙƙoƙi a cikin Dokar' Yancin", kodayake ya kuma lura cewa haƙƙoƙin suna ƙarƙashin iyakancewa (..

 Masu riƙe da haƙƙin 

 Mutane na halitta 
A cewar sashi na 7 (1), Dokar 'Yancin "ta adana haƙƙin dukan mutane a ƙasarmu". Rubutun takamaiman tanadi yana ba da mafi yawan haƙƙoƙi ga "kowane mutum", ban da wasu haƙƙoƙin da aka ƙuntata ga ƙananan ƙungiyoyin masu cin gajiyar (yawanci ga 'Yan Afirka ta Kudu). A game da haƙƙoƙin da aka ba "kowane mutum", Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta gudanar a cikin Khosa v Ministan Ci gaban Jama'a cewa sashi na 7 (1) ya nuna cewa ya kamata a karanta kalmar "kowane" a zahiri, ma'ana cewa ana ba da irin waɗannan haƙƙoƙi ga 'yan kasashen waje a cikin Afirka ta Kudu ba kawai ga' yan ƙasa ba. [Little-Roman 1]

 Mutanen shari'a 
Wasu hakkoki na tsarin mulki an ba da su ga masu shari'a da kuma mutane na halitta. Sashe na 8 (4) ya ba da bayyane cewa, "Mutumin shari'a yana da 'yancin haƙƙin haƙƙin haƙƙoƙi har zuwa matakin da ake buƙata ta yanayin haƙƙin haƙƙi da yanayin wannan mutumin mai shari'a. " A cikin Tsohon Shugaban Majalisar Tsarin Mulki: A cikin sake Tabbatar da Kundin Tsarin Mulki, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta ji cewa fadada haƙƙin tsarin mulki ga mutane masu shari'a zai rage haƙƙin mutane na halitta. Duk da haka ya ki amincewa da wannan ƙin yarda a cikin waɗannan kalmomi:Yawancin "yancin da aka yarda da su a duniya" za a amince da su ne kawai idan aka ba su ga masu shari'a da kuma mutane na halitta. Misali, 'yancin magana, don a ba da sakamako mai kyau, dole ne a ba da shi ga kafofin watsa labarai, wanda sau da yawa mallakar ko sarrafawa ta mutane masu shari'a. Duk da yake gaskiya ne cewa wasu hakkoki ba su dace da jin daɗin mutane ba, rubutun s 8 (4) musamman ya amince da wannan. Rubutun ya kuma fahimci cewa yanayin mutum mai shari'a na iya la'akari da shi ta hanyar kotu wajen tantance ko wani haƙƙi yana samuwa ga irin wannan mutumin ko a'a. [Little-Roman 1]Dangane da la'akari da tsarin mulki na farko, yanayin haƙƙin, wasu haƙƙoƙi - kamar haƙƙin rayuwa da haƙƙin amincin jiki - kare yanayin mutum wanda kawai mutane na halitta ke da shi.[1]: 36 Sabanin haka, wasu hakkoki suna da amfani ga mutane masu shari'a, kamar haƙƙin ƙungiyoyin kwadago don tsarawa. Game da wasu hakkoki, halin da ake ciki ba shi da tabbas kuma yana buƙatar fassarar da ta fi girma a kan shari'a-da- shari'a. Misali, la'akari da sashi na 14 na haƙƙin sirri, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta gudanar a cikin Darakta na Bincike: Laifukan Tattalin Arziki masu tsanani v Hyundai Motors cewa mutane masu shari'a "suna jin daɗin haƙƙin sirri ne, kodayake ba daidai ba ne da mutane na halitta", saboda, "Rashin hankali haƙƙin da ya zama mafi tsanani yayin da yake kusa da shi ke motsawa ga kusanci na sirri na rayuwar ɗan adam". 18 Kwanan nan, la'akari da sashi na 10 na haƙƙin mutunci, kotun ta gudanar a cikin Reddell v Mineral Sands Resources cewa mutane masu shari'a ba su da haƙƙin tsarin mulki na mutunci, saboda, a kan karatun da aka yi niyya, sashi na 10.

Dangane da yanayin mutumin da ke da iko wanda aka tabbatar da cewa yana da haƙƙin tsarin mulki, dokar shari'a ta yanzu ta nuna cewa manufofi ko manufar mutumin da ke cikin shari'a wani abu ne mai mahimmanci, wani bangare saboda suna iya bayyana dangantaka tsakanin mutumin da ke ƙarƙashin shari'a da mutanen da ke "tsaye a baya" kuma suna amfani da shi don yin amfani da haƙƙoƙinsu na asali.: 37 A cikin FNB v Kwamishinan Ayyukan Haraji na Afirka ta Kudu, wanda ya tabbatar da cewa kamfanoni masu zaman kansu suna da haƙƙin mallaka a sashi na 25, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta san cewa, a kusan dukkanin lokuta, hannun jari a cikin kamfanoni masu masu zaman kansu sun ba da "a ƙarshe" ga mutane na halitta, kuma, "Dakkin mallaka na mutane na halitta za a iya cika su ne kawai idan an ba da irin waɗannan haƙƙin ga kamfanoni da kuma ga mutane na asali". [Little-Roman 1]: 43-45 Sabanin haka, a cikin SITA da Gijima, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta yanke hukuncin cewa hukumomin jihohi ba masu cin gajiyar sashi na 33 ba ne don aiwatar da gudanarwa kawai, saboda haƙƙoƙi dole ne su dace kuma jihar kanta ce mai ɗaukar nauyin da wannan haƙƙin ya ɗora. [Little-Roman 2]

 Rashin kulawa 
A cewar Iain Currie da Johan de Waal, mutane na iya watsi da haƙƙin yin amfani da wasu haƙƙoƙin tsarin mulki: irin wannan watsi ba ya tabbatar da ingancin halayyar da ba ta dace da tsarin mulki ba, amma ya kunshi jajircewar mutum ba don yin kira ga rashin ingancin tsarin mulki na wannan hali ba. Currie da de Waal sun ba da shawarar tasirin waiver ya dogara da yanayin da manufar haƙƙin da ake tambaya - ya bambanta da 'yanci mara kyau, ba za a iya watsi da haƙƙin mutunci da rayuwa ba - amma cewa, a duk lokuta, kotuna na iya la'akari da waiver (tare da alhakin wanda aka azabtar gaba ɗaya) a cikin tantancewa da magance keta haƙƙin.
 Masu ɗaukar nauyi 

 Tasirin Tsaye 
Tabbatar da darajar babbar mulkin kundin tsarin mulki kamar yadda aka tanadar a sashi na 2 na Kundin Tsarin Mulkin Afirka ta Kudu, sashi na 8(1) yana cewa, "Dokar Haƙƙin Bil Adama tana aiki akan dukkan dokoki, kuma tana da alaƙa da majalisar dokoki, bangaren zartarwa, bangaren shari’a da dukkan hukumomin gwamnati." Kamar yadda Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta tabbatar a cikin shari’ar *Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association: In re Ex Parte President*, wannan tanadi, tare da wasu sassa masu sauƙaƙa a kundin tsarin mulki, shine tushe na tsarin duba dokokin shari’a a Afirka ta Kudu. Sashi na 7(1) kuma wajibcin gwamnati ta mutunta da cika haƙƙin tsarin mulki. Saboda haka, an kafa sosai cikin kundin tsarin mulki cewa Dokar Haƙƙin Bil Adama tana da tasirin tsaye, inda haƙƙin mutane masu zaman kansu ke haifar da wajibcin da gwamnati ke ɗauka.

 Tasirin Tsaye tsakanin Mutane 
Sashi na 8 kuma yana ba da izini cewa Dokar Haƙƙin Bil Adama tana da tasirin a tsakanin mutane, gwargwadon yadda sashi na 8(2) ya tanada cewa, "Wani tanadi na Dokar Haƙƙin Bil Adama yana da alaƙa da mutum na halitta ko na doka idan, kuma gwargwadon yadda yake da amfani, bisa la’akari da yanayin haƙƙin da yanayin nauyin da haƙƙin ke ɗauka." Sashi na 8(3) yana buƙatar cewa, lokacin da kotu ke aiwatar da Dokar Haƙƙin Bil Adama a haka, to tana iya haɓaka dokar gama gari yadda ya dace. *Khumalo v Holomisa* da *Ramakatsa v Magashule* su ne shari’o’i masu muhimmanci dangane da aiwatar da haƙƙin tsarin mulki a tsakanin mutane a cikin rigingimun sirri. A cikin shari’ar *Khumalo*, kotu ta gano cewa "aikace-aikacen kai tsaye tsakanin mutane" yana da muhimmanci saboda "tsanani na haƙƙin tsarin mulki da ake magana akai, tare da yuwuwar cin zarafin wannan haƙƙin daga wasu mutane banda gwamnati ko hukumomin gwamnati." Baya ga waɗannan dalilai, Currie da de Waal sun nuna cewa manufar tanadin da aka bayar na iya zama muhimmi wajen tantance ko yana da alaƙa da halayyar masu zaman kansu, kuma wasu haƙƙoki – kamar haƙƙin sashi na 12(1) na 'yanci daga tashin hankali da haƙƙin sashi na 9(4) na 'yanci daga nuna bambanci – sun kasance a sarari suna da alaƙa da halayyar sirri.

 Haƙƙoƙin da aka lissafa 

 Daidaito 

Haƙƙin farko da Dokar Haƙƙoƙi ta kare shine haƙƙin daidaito, wanda ke cikin sashe na 9 na Kundin Tsarin Mulki, wanda ya ƙunshi tanadi mai ƙarfi game da daidaito na doka da daidaito na zamantakewa da kuma haramtawa a fili game da nuna bambanci mara adalci. A mataki mafi faɗi, sashe na 9(1) yana ba da cikakken daidaito a gaban doka. Sashe na 9(2) ya faɗaɗa wannan tanadi, yana cewa "Daidaito ya haɗa da cikakken jin daɗin dukkan haƙƙoƙi da 'yanci daidai." Duk da haka, sashe na 9(2) ya kuma bayyana cewa, "Don inganta samun daidaito, ana iya ɗaukar matakan doka da sauran matakan da aka tsara don karewa ko inganta mutane, ko nau'o'in mutane, waɗanda rashin adalci ya raba su." Sashe na 9(2) an yi amfani da shi don tabbatar da matakan inganta harkokin rayuwa a Minister of Finance v Van Heerden da South African Police Service v Barnard.

Sashe na 9(3) zuwa 9(5) sun yi magana a fili game da nuna bambanci mara adalci. Halin nuna bambanci ko doka ana bi da su daban-daban dangane da dalilai na nuna bambancin da ake magana a kai, kuma, musamman, dangane da ko ya zama nuna bambanci a kan ɗayan "dalilai da aka lissafa" waɗanda aka bayyana a fili a sashe na 9(3). Waɗannan abubuwan da ake kira dalilai da aka lissafa sune jinsi, jinsi na mace ko namiji, jima'i, ciki, matsayin aure, asalin kabilanci ko zamantakewa, launi, yanayin jima'i, shekaru, nakasa, addini, lamiri, imani, al'ada, harshe da haihuwa.

Nuna bambanci mara adalci a kan dalili da aka lissafa ba a yarda da shi ba, ba tare da la'akari da ko kai tsaye ne ko ba kai tsaye ba, kuma ba tare da la'akari da ko gwamnati ce ta aiwatar da shi ba (a cikin keta sashe na 9(3)) ko kuma mutum ne (a cikin keta sashe na 9(4)). Bugu da ƙari, nuna bambanci a kan dalili da aka lissafa ana ɗauka mara adalci: a cikin sashe na 9(5), irin wannan nuna bambanci "mara adalci ne sai dai idan an tabbatar da cewa nuna bambancin adalci ne". A gefe guda, a cikin shari'o'in nuna bambanci a kan wani dalili na daban, wanda ba a lissafa ba, matsayin kundin tsarin mulki ya fi girma, saboda sashe na 9(3) ne kawai ya shafi: a ƙarƙashin wannan tanadi, gwamnati "ba za ta iya nuna bambanci kai tsaye ko ba kai tsaye ga kowa ba" a kan kowane dalili, amma, a cikin yanayin dalilai marasa lissafa, dole ne a nuna cewa nuna bambancin mara adalci ne.

Sashe na 9(4) ya ƙara ba da tanadi cewa dole ne a kafa dokokin ƙasa "don hana ko haramta nuna bambanci mara adalci"; dokar da aka kafa ita ce Dokar Inganta Daidaito da Hana Nuna Bambanci mara Adalci ta 2000, wacce aka fi sani da Dokar Daidaito, wacce za a iya aiwatar da ita a Kotun Daidaito.

 Mutuncin Dan Adam 

Sashe na 10 ya ba da tanadi cewa, "Kowa yana da mutunci na halitta kuma yana da hakkin a mutunta mutuncinsa kuma a kare shi". Wannan haƙƙin mutunci yana ɗaya daga cikin wurare da yawa waɗanda mutunci ya fito a cikin Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Afirka ta Kudu da dokar kundin tsarin mulki, kuma, duk da yake ana yawan la'akari da shi tare da sauran haƙƙoƙi, da wuya ya zama mai yanke hukunci da kansa. Don haka a cikin Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs, Mai Shari'a Kate O'Regan ta rubuta don Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki baki ɗaya cewa:
Mutuncin Dan Adam... yana sanar da yanke hukunci da fassara na kundin tsarin mulki a matakai daban-daban. Daraja ce da ke sanar da fassarar yawancin, watakila duka, sauran haƙƙoƙi... Sashe na 10, duk da haka, ya bayyana a fili cewa mutunci ba kawai daraja ce mai mahimmanci ga Kundin Tsarin Mulkinmu ba, haƙƙi ne mai yanke hukunci kuma mai aiwatarwa wanda dole ne a mutunta shi kuma a kare shi. A lokuta da yawa, duk da haka, inda aka keta darajar mutuncin dan adam, babban keta dokar kundin tsarin mulki da aka samu na iya zama na haƙƙi mafi takamaimai kamar haƙƙin amincin jiki, haƙƙin daidaito ko haƙƙin kada a fallasa mutum ga bauta, bayi ko aikin tilas.Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT35/99) ; 2000 (3) SA 936; 2000 (8) BCLR 837 (CC). Duk da haka, Dawood da kanta alama ce ta babban nau'in keɓancewa ga wannan ƙa'idar gabaɗaya, inda mutunci da kansa ya yi aiki a matsayin mai yanke hukunci, ƙa'idar farko; waɗannan keɓancewa sun fi shafan haɗin kai na kusa kamar aure, kotun Dawood ta riƙe cewa haƙƙin rayuwar iyali yana karewa a kaikaice ta sashe na 10 idan dangantakar iyali tana da "mahimmancin ma'ana" ga mutane da yawa.

 Rayuwa 

Sashe na 11 yana kare haƙƙin rayuwa na duniya. An fi alaƙanta shi da kawar da hukuncin kisa a Afirka ta Kudu, wanda shine sakamakon hukuncin Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki a cikin S v Makwanyane. Ko da yake an yanke hukuncin Makwanyane a ƙarƙashin Kundin Tsarin Mulki na wucin gadi, Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki daga baya ta tabbatar da hukuncin a ƙarƙashin Kundin Tsarin Mulki na 1996, ciki har da Mohamed v President. Sashe na 11 kuma yana da alaƙa da amfani da ƙarfin kisa a cikin kamawa ko cikin kare kai, kamar yadda Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta yi la'akari da shi a cikin Ex Parte Minister of Safety and Security: In re S v Walters.

Kamar yadda aka nuna ta hanyar Makwanyane ratio, haƙƙin rayuwa na duniya ne kuma ba a rasa shi ta hanyar rashin adalci ko laifin laifi. Duk da haka, a cikin Christian Lawyers Association v Minister of Health, Babbar Kotun Transvaal ta kafa cewa tayi ba su da haƙƙin rayuwa a cikin sashe na 11.

 'Yancin kai da tsaro 

Sashe na 12 yana kare saitin haƙƙoƙin mutum biyu na duniya. Na farko, a ƙarƙashin sashe na 12(1), yana kare haƙƙin "yanci da tsaro na mutum", ciki har da haƙƙin "kada a hana shi 'yanci ba tare da dalili ba ko ba tare da dalili ba" da haƙƙin kariya daga tsarewa ba tare da shari'a ba; daga azabtarwa; daga mummunan, rashin mutuntaka ko wulakanci; da kuma daga "kowane nau'in tashin hankali daga tushen jama'a ko masu zaman kansu". Stuart Woolman ya ga sashe na 12(1) a matsayin mai ba da "duka kariyar abu da kariyar hanyar don kowane hana 'yancin jiki". Na biyu, sashe na 12(2) ya tabbatar da haƙƙin amincin jiki da amincin tunani, ciki har da haƙƙin mutum "don yanke shawara game da haihuwa", "don tsaro a cikin jikinsu da ikon sarrafa shi", da kuma "kada a fallasa shi ga gwaje-gwaje na likitanci ko kimiyya ba tare da izinin su ba". Mai alaƙa da wannan iyalin haƙƙoƙin sashe na 12 shine kariyar sashe na 13 game da fallasa mutum ga bauta, bayi, ko aikin tilas.

Yawancin waɗannan haƙƙoƙi sun taka muhimmiyar rawa a cikin shari'ar farko ta Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki, musamman idan aka "raka su ta hanyar prism na mutunci" ta kotun. Sashe na 12 a ƙarshe yana da muhimmanci musamman ga alhakin jiha a ƙarƙashin dokar ƙasar Afirka ta Kudu da kuma ga yadda gwamnati ke bi da waɗanda aka tsare da waɗanda aka yanke wa hukunci. Hukuncin Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki masu dacewa a wannan haɗin sun haɗa da De Lange v Smuts, S v Dodo, Zealand v Minister of Justice, da Mohamed v President.

Kai tsaye, kariya ga 'yancin haihuwa, wanda ke cikin sashe na 12(2)(a), yana tabbatar da matsayin doka na zubar da ciki a Afirka ta Kudu. A cikin Christian Lawyers Association v Minister of Health II, Mai Shari'a na Babbar Kotun Transvaal Phineas Mojapelo ya tabbatar da Dokar Zaɓin Ƙarewar Ciki ta 1996 a kan cewa sashe na 12(2) yana kare haƙƙin zubar da ciki; don haka dokar da ke tabbatar da wannan haƙƙin ba kawai kundin tsarin mulki ne ya ba da izini ba amma, "a wata ma'ana", kundin tsarin mulki ne ya buƙace shi.Christian Lawyers Association v National Minister of Health and Another 2005 (1) SA 509 (T), 518, 2004 (10) BCLR 1086 (T). Haka kuma mai yiwuwa ne, a irin wannan salon, sashe na 12(2)(a) yana nufin haƙƙin samun maganin hana haihuwa.

 Sirri 

Sashe na 14 yana kare haƙƙin sirri na duniya. Baya ga haƙƙin sirri gabaɗaya, tanadin yana kare takamaiman fannoni guda huɗu na sirri, waɗanda suka shafi bincike da kwace da sadarwa ta sirri: yana haramta binciken gida, mutum, ko dukiya; kwace kayansu; ko keta "sirrin sadarwarsu".

Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki, tana nazarin abun ciki na haƙƙin sirri a karon farko, ta riƙe a cikin Bernstein v Bester cewa iyakar haƙƙin sirri ya kai ga yanayin da mutum yana da halaltaccen tsammanin sirri (kamar gwajin Amurka). Bugu da ƙari, a cewar Mai Shari'a Laurie Ackermann, kotun ta riƙe cewa haƙƙin yana da ƙarfi a cikin yanayin mutum:
shine kawai wurin tsarki na mutum, kamar rayuwar iyalinsa, zaɓin jima'i da yanayin gida, wanda aka kare shi daga cin zarafi ta hanyar haƙƙoƙin al'umma masu karo da juna... An san sirri a cikin yanayin mutum na gaskiya, amma yayin da mutum ya shiga cikin dangantakar jama'a da ayyukan kamar kasuwanci da zamantakewa, iyakar sararin samaniya na mutum yana raguwa daidai.Bernstein and Others v Bester NO and Others (CCT23/95) ; 1996 (4) BCLR 449; 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC). Sauran muhimman shari'o'i game da haƙƙin sirri sun haɗa da Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa, Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors, Case v Minister of Safety and Security, De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions, da Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v Prince, duk hukunce-hukuncen dokar laifi ta Afirka ta Kudu ko hanyar laifi.

 'Yancin Addini da Tunani 

Sashe na 15(1) yana ba da haƙƙin duniya na 'yancin lamiri; 'yancin addini; da 'yancin tunani, imani, da ra'ayi. Haƙƙin 'yancin addini ya haifar da mafi yawan shari'o'in shari'a, ciki har da shari'o'i kamar Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education da Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie. A cikin Christian Education, da kuma a cikin batun farko na S v Lawrence; S v Negal; S v Solberg, Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta amince da ma'anar 'yancin addini na Kotun Koli ta Kanada, kamar yadda aka bayyana a cikin R v Big M Drug Mart. A ƙarƙashin wannan ma'anar, 'yancin addini "ya haɗa da duka haƙƙin samun imani da haƙƙin bayyana irin wannan imani a aikace". Bugu da ƙari, haƙƙin yin addini da kafa ƙungiyoyin addini an kare shi a fili a wani wuri a cikin Dokar Haƙƙoƙi .

Sasshe na 15(2) da 15(3) sun fayyace iyaka da ma'anar 'yancin da aka kare a sashe na 15(1). Sashe na 15(2) ya bayyana cewa, "Za a iya gudanar da ibadun addini a cibiyoyin gwamnati ko waɗanda gwamnati ke tallafawa, muddin— waɗannan ibadun sun bi ƙa'idojin da hukumomin gwamnati suka kafa; an gudanar da su bisa ga adalci; kuma halarta kyauta ce kuma ta son rai." Masu tattaunawar kundin tsarin mulki sun haɗa wannan tanadin a fili don hana muhawara game da addu'a a makarantun gwamnati. A halin yanzu, sashe na 15(3) yana shafan dokar iyali ta Afirka ta Kudu da yiwuwar tattara dokokin al'ada a wannan yanki: yana ba da tanadi cewa za a iya kafa doka don gane "aure da aka yi a ƙarƙashin kowane al'ada, ko tsarin dokar addini, na mutum ko na iyali; ko tsarin dokar mutum da iyali a ƙarƙashin kowane al'ada, ko waɗanda mutanen da suka yi wani addini suka bi", muddin irin wannan amincewa ya dace da Kundin Tsarin Mulki.

 'Yancin Faɗar Albarkacin Baki 

Sashe na 16(1) yana kare haƙƙin duniya na 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki, ciki har da kariya ta musamman ga 'yancin jarida, "yancin kirkire-kirkire na fasaha", da 'yancin ilimi. Duk da haka, an iyakance iyakar 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki a fili ta hanyar sashe na 16(2), wanda ya ba da tanadi cewa haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki "bai kai ba" ga farfagandar yaƙi, tayar da tarzoma mai gabatowa, ko "bayar da shawarar ƙiyayya wanda ya dogara ne akan jinsi, kabila, jinsi ko addini, kuma wanda ya zama tayar da hankali don haifar da cutarwa".

A cikin Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority, Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta tabbatar da cewa nau'ikan magana da aka lissafa a sashe na 16(2) sun faɗi a waje da iyakokin magana da kundin tsarin mulki ya kare; duk da haka, ta kuma riƙe cewa sashe na 16(1) yana kare duk wani bayanin da ba a cire shi a fili a ƙarƙashin sashe na 16(2) ba, kuma duk wani tsari na irin wannan bayanin yana iyakance haƙƙin sashe na 16(1).Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others (CCT36/01) ; 2002 (4) SA 294; 2002 (5) BCLR 433 (CC). Don haka, daidai da Islamic Unity Convention, kotunan Afirka ta Kudu sun fassara 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki da faɗi. Musamman, Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta riƙe a cikin De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions cewa hotunan batsa na yara wani nau'i ne na magana da aka kare, ko da yake "ba shi da wani amfani", "bai shafi mahimman ƙimar haƙƙin ba", kuma "ana samun shi a gefen haƙƙin".De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others (CCT5/03) ; 2004 (1) SA 406 (CC); 2003 (12) BCLR 1333 (CC). Kotun Koli ta Appeal (Afirka ta Kudu) ta riƙe cewa magana ta kasuwanci ma ta zama magana da aka kare.

Dokar Daidaito ta 2000 ta ƙunshi haramtattun dokoki kan maganganun ƙiyayya waɗanda suka fi iyakokin da sashe na 16(2) ke nufi. A cikin Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission, Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta yi la'akari da ko waɗannan haramtattun dokoki sun dace da haƙƙin sashe na 16 na 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki.

 Taro da zanga-zanga 

Sashe na 17 yana ba da haƙƙin duniya na taruwa, yin zanga-zanga, yin piket, da kuma gabatar da koke-koke, muddin an yi amfani da haƙƙin "cikin lumana kuma ba tare da makami ba". Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta sha riƙe obiter cewa waɗannan haƙƙoƙin sashe na 17 suna da nufin inganta 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki a cikin al'ummar dimokuraɗiyya. Har ila yau, ta yi la'akari da abun ciki na haƙƙoƙin sashe na 17 kai tsaye a cikin shari'o'i ciki har da South African Transport and Allied Workers Union v Garvas, Pilane v Pilane,. da Mlungwana v S.

 'Yancin haɗin kai 

Sashe na 18 yana kare haƙƙin duniya na 'yancin haɗin kai. Kamar haƙƙoƙin sashe na 17, waɗannan haƙƙoƙin an sha alaƙanta su da 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki. Yana rubuta wa Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki a cikin Pilane, Mai Shari'a Thembile Skweyiya ya yi sharhi:
Ya girgiza ni cewa amfani da haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki za a iya inganta shi ta hanyar haɗin gwiwar rukuni. Hakazalika, haƙƙoƙin haɗin gwiwa za a iya haɓaka su ta hanyar sauƙin canja wurin asalin rukuni da manufa, waɗanda aka bayyana ta hanyar sunansa, alamunsa da lakabinsa. Waɗannan haƙƙoƙoƙi suna da alaƙa kuma suna taimakon juna. Shiga siyasa, wanda amfani da waɗannan haƙƙoƙin ya motsa, zai iya kuma ya kamata ya taimaka wajen tabbatar da lissafi a kowane nau'i na jagoranci da kuma ƙarfafa kyakkyawan shugabanci.Pilane and Another v Pilane and Another (CCT 46/12) ; 2013 (4) BCLR 431 (CC). Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta tattauna 'yancin haɗin kai a tsayi a cikin New Nation Movement v President, inda Mai Shari'a Mbuyiseli Madlanga ya riƙe cewa haƙƙin 'yancin haɗin kai yana nufin ba kawai haƙƙin inganci don 'yancin kafa ƙungiya ba har ma da haƙƙin mara kyau, wanda ke kare "yancin rashin haɗin kai ko kaɗan, idan wannan shine zaɓin mutum". A kan wannan tushe, Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta riƙe cewa sashe na 17, wanda aka karanta tare da haƙƙin sashe na 19(3)(b) na tsayawa takarar ofis, ya haifar da haƙƙin tsayawa takarar ofis a matsayin mai zaman kansa maimakon a matsayin memba na jam'iyyar siyasa.
 Haƙƙoƙin 'yan ƙasa 

 Haƙƙoƙin siyasa 

Sashe na 19 yana ba da cikakkun haƙƙoƙin siyasa ga 'yan ƙasar Afirka ta Kudu. Sashe na 19(1) yana kare 'yancin 'yan ƙasa "don yin zaɓin siyasa", ciki har da haƙƙin kafa jam'iyyar siyasa, shiga cikin ayyukan jam'iyyar siyasa, da kuma yakin neman zaɓe ga jam'iyyar siyasa ko manufa. Sashe na 19(2) yana kare haƙƙin 'yan ƙasa na zaɓe na gaskiya, adalci da na yau da kullun ga dukkan hukumomin majalisa. A ƙarshe, sashe na 19(3) yana kare haƙƙin manyan 'yan ƙasa na jefa ƙuri'a a asirce a zaɓe don kowace hukumar majalisa, da kuma haƙƙin tsayawa takarar ofishin jama'a kuma, idan an zaɓe shi, don riƙe ofishin.

Waɗannan sassan suna da alaƙa da tarihin Afirka ta Kudu na jefa ƙuri'a ta hanyar launin fata da kuma hana haƙƙin zaɓe a ko'ina; don haka suna da alaƙa da sashe na 20, wanda ya bayyana cewa, "Ba wani ɗan ƙasa da za a hana shi zama ɗan ƙasa". A cikin Ramakatsa v Magashule, Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta ce game da sashe na 19 cewa:
Iyaka da abun ciki na haƙƙoƙin da aka kafa ta wannan sashe za a iya tabbatar da su ta hanyar tsarin fassara wanda dole ne a sanar da shi ta hanyar mahallin da yake na tarihi da kuma na kundin tsarin mulki. A lokacin mulkin wariyar launin fata, yawancin mutanen ƙasarmu an hana su haƙƙoƙin siyasa waɗanda tsiraru ke jin daɗinsu... An haramta yawancin ƙungiyoyin da manufofinsu shine inganta haƙƙoƙi da bukatun baƙar fata. Waɗannan ƙungiyoyi sun haɗa da jam'iyyar ANC ta yanzu. Shiga cikin ayyukan waɗannan ƙungiyoyi ya zama babban laifi wanda ke ɗauke da babban hukunci. Manufar sashe na 19 shine hana wannan babban hanawa na haƙƙoƙin siyasa ga 'yan ƙasar ƙasar sake faruwa.Ramakatsa and Others v Magashule and Others (CCT 109/12) ; 2013 (2) BCLR 202 (CC).Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki tana da babban jigon shari'o'in shari'a kan fassarar haƙƙoƙin siyasa, ciki har da yawancin a dokar zaɓe. Baya ga New Nation Movement da Ramakatsa, muhimman shari'o'i sun haɗa da UDM v President, New National Party v Government, August v Electoral Commission, da Minister of Home Affairs v NICRO.

 Haƙƙoƙin farar hula 

A ƙarƙashin taken "Yancin Motsi da Zama", sashe na 21(3) ya ba da tanadi cewa 'yan ƙasa suna da "haƙƙin shiga, zama a ciki da zama ko'ina a cikin Jamhuriyar", kuma sashe na 21(4) ya ba da tanadi game da haƙƙin 'yan ƙasa na fasfo. Waɗannan kariyar suna da alaƙa da tsoffin dokokin izinin wucewa da Dokar Yankuna na Rukuni, duka manufofin wariyar launin fata da aka ƙi; na ƙarshe wani ƙari ne ga Kundin Tsarin Mulki na 1996, ba tare da makamancin sa ba a cikin Kundin Tsarin Mulki na wucin gadi. Mafi kai tsaye amfani da haƙƙoƙin sashe na 21 a cikin shari'ar kundin tsarin mulki shine a cikin Geuking v President, inda aka yi jayayya cewa haƙƙin sashe na 21(3) na "zama a" Afirka ta Kudu dole ne a yi la'akari da shi lokacin da gwamnati ta amince da miƙa ɗan ƙasa a ƙarƙashin Dokar Miƙawa ta 1962; duk da haka, kotun ta ƙi wannan jayayya.Geuking v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT35/02) ; 2003 (3) SA 34 (CC); 2004 (9) BCLR 895 (CC).

Sashe na 22 yana tabbatar da haƙƙin 'yan ƙasa na 'yancin ciniki, 'yancin aiki, da 'yancin sana'a. Ya kuma ba da tanadi cewa za a iya tsara aiwatar da sana'a, aiki, ko sana'a ta doka. Haƙƙoƙin sashe na 22 an fi yawan shari'ar su a cikin shari'o'i da suka shafi yarjejeniyoyi na hana ciniki. A cikin wannan mahallin, a cikin Reddy v Siemens, Mai Shari'a na Aiki Frans Malan ya ba da shawarar, a madadin Kotun Koli ta Appeal baki ɗaya, cewa 'yancin kwangila "wani muhimmin ɓangare ne" na haƙƙin sashe na 22.Reddy v Siemens Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd (251/06) ; 2007 (2) SA 486 (SCA); (2007) 28 ILJ 317 (SCA). Hakazalika, Babban Mai Shari'a Pius Langa ya rubuta a cikin Phumelela Gaming and Leisure v Gründlingh cewa:
Dokar Haƙƙoƙi ba ta inganta ƙa'idodin gasa a fili ba, amma haƙƙin 'yancin ciniki, wanda aka kafa a sashe na 22 na Kundin Tsarin Mulki, a ra'ayina, ya dace da tsarin gasa a cikin harkokin ciniki da kuma amincewa da kariyar gasa a matsayin mai amfani ga jin daɗin jama'a.Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited v Gründlingh and Others (CCT31/05) ; 2006 (8) BCLR 883 (CC); 2007 (6) SA 350 (CC).Magabacin sashe na 22 a cikin Kundin Tsarin Mulki na wucin gadi ba a iyakance aikace-aikacensa ga 'yan ƙasar Afirka ta Kudu ba don haka zai iya karɓar waɗanda ba 'yan ƙasa ba har ma da mutane na shari'a a cikin kariyar da yake bayarwa. A lokacin tsarin tabbatar da kundin tsarin mulki, Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta yi la'akari da ƙalubale ga wannan ƙuntatawa na iyaka amma ta ƙi shi a kan cewa sashe na 22 ya kasance mai dacewa.
 'Yancin motsi 

Duk da yake sassan 21(3) da 21(4) an takaita su ga ƴan ƙasar Afirka ta Kudu, sassan 21(1) da 21(2) ba a takaita su ba. Suna bayar da, bi da bi, haƙƙin duniya na 'yancin motsi da kuma haƙƙin duniya na "barin Jamhuriyar". A shari'ar Affordable Medicines Trust v Minister of Health, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta yi la'akari da amfani da haƙƙin 'yancin motsi ga tsarin lasisi inda za a iya amfani da lasisin magunguna a wasu wurare kawai; a wannan shari'ar, ta riƙe cewa "haƙƙin yanke shawara inda mutum zai yi sana'arsa" yana ƙarƙashin tsari a ƙarƙashin sashe na 22 na Tsarin Mulki, tunda haƙƙi ne da ya shafi yin sana'a.Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v Minister of Health and Another (CCT27/04) ; 2006 (3) SA 247 (CC); 2005 (6) BCLR 529 (CC).

 Alakar aiki 

Sashe na 23 ya bayyana haƙƙoƙin aiki da yawa, na mutum da na ƙungiya a cikin yanayi kuma yana amfani ga ma'aikata da masu ɗaukan ma'aikata. Sassan 23(1) da 23(2) sun shafi haƙƙoƙin ma'aikata na duniya. Sashe na 23(1) yana ba da haƙƙin "ayyukan aiki masu adalci", yayin da sashe na 23(2) ke ba da haƙƙin yajin aiki da haƙƙin kafawa, shiga, da shiga cikin ayyukan ƙungiyar ƙwadago. Haka kuma, a ƙarƙashin sashe na 23(3), kowane ma'aikaci yana da haƙƙin kafawa, shiga, da shiga cikin ayyukan ƙungiyar masu ɗaukan ma'aikata. Sashe na 23(4) ya tanadi cewa kowace ƙungiyar ƙwadago da ƙungiyar masu ɗaukan ma'aikata suna da haƙƙin "tantance mulkinsu, shirye-shiryen da ayyukansu; tsarawa; da kuma kafawa da shiga ƙungiyar tarayya", yayin da sashe na 23(5) ya tanadi cewa kowace ƙungiyar ƙwadago, ƙungiyar masu ɗaukan ma'aikata, da ma'aikaci suna da haƙƙin shiga cikin ciniki na haɗin gwiwa. Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta fassara waɗannan haƙƙoƙin a shari'o'i ciki har da SANDU v Minister of Defence I, SANDU v Minister of Defence II, NEHAWU v University of Cape Town, da NUMSA v Bader Bop.

Sashe na 23 ya kammala da tanadin, a sashe na 23(5) da sashe na 23(6) bi da bi, cewa ana iya kafa dokokin ƙasa don daidaita ciniki na haɗin gwiwa da kuma gane tsarin tsaro na ƙungiya da ke cikin yarjejeniyoyin haɗin gwiwa. Don haka, a wata sanarwa ta farko ta ƙa'idar rarrabuwar kawunansu, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta riƙe a SANDU II cewa masu shigar da ƙara da ke neman tilasta haƙƙinsu na sashe na 23(5) na ciniki na haɗin gwiwa ya kamata su dogara ga duk wata doka (ciki har da dokokin da aka ƙaddamar) da aka kafa don daidaita aiwatar da wannan haƙƙin, maimakon dogara kai tsaye ga rubutun sashe na 23(5).

 Muhalli 

Sashe na 24 ya bayyana haƙƙoƙin muhalli na duniya guda biyu. Na farko, wanda aka tanadar a sashe na 24(a), shine haƙƙin daidaikun mutane "zuwa muhalli wanda ba shi da cutarwa ga lafiyarsu ko jin daɗinsu". Na biyu, wanda aka tanadar a sashe na 24(b), shine haƙƙin "a kare muhalli, don amfanin al'ummomi na yanzu da na gaba, ta hanyar matakan doka da sauran matakan da suka dace"; irin waɗannan matakan dole ne "su hana gurɓatawa da lalacewar muhalli; inganta kiyayewa; da kuma tabbatar da ci gaban muhalli mai dorewa da amfani da albarkatun ƙasa yayin inganta ci gaban tattalin arziki da zamantakewa mai adalci."

A shari'ar Eskom v Vaal River Development Association, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta riƙe cewa takunkumin samar da wutar lantarki, wanda Eskom ta yi a Lekwa Local Municipality da Ngwathe Local Municipality, ya shafi haƙƙin mazauna na sashe na 24(a), saboda takunkumin ya yi mummunan tasiri ga maganin najasa da kuma ingancin samar da ruwa. Alkali Madlanga ya yi sharhi, "Idan kwararar kashin ɗan adam kai tsaye zuwa kogin Vaal bai keta haƙƙin samun muhalli wanda ba shi da cutarwa ga lafiya ko jin daɗi ba, ban san me ke keta ba."Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Vaal River Development Association (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 44/22) ; 2023 (5) BCLR 527 (CC); 2023 (4) SA 325 (CC).
 Dukiya 

Sashe na 25, wanda ake kira sashi na dukiya, ya bayyana haƙƙoƙin dukiya na tsarin mulki. Idan aka kwatanta da na ƙasashen duniya, yana da cikakkun bayanai fiye da yadda aka saba, kuma an yi ta muhawara mai zafi game da haƙƙoƙin dukiya a lokacin tattaunawar tsarin mulki, wani ɓangare saboda mahimmancin alamomin sake fasalin ƙasa a zamanin bayan wariyar launin fata. A watan Yuni da Satumba na 1993, alal misali, an yi zanga-zanga a Kempton Park da Pretoria ta al'ummomin da ke neman amincewar tsarin mulki ga haƙƙinsu na komawa ƙasar da aka kora su daga gare ta; a lokaci guda, wasu al'ummomin sun ƙudura cewa sashe na 25 ya kamata ya tabbatar da kare haƙƙoƙin mallakar sirri. 

Jigon haƙƙoƙin dukiya na tsarin mulki shine sassan 25(1) da 25(2), waɗanda ke kare mutane daga kwace dukiya da kuma kwace dukiya bi da bi. Dangane da waɗannan tanade-tanaden, kwace ko kwace dukiya yana da izini ne kawai idan ya faru "bisa ga dokar da aka yi amfani da ita gabaɗaya". Bugu da ƙari, sashe na 25(1) ya ƙara da cewa kwace dukiya ba za a yi shi ba tare da dalili ba, kuma sashe na 25(2) ya ƙara da cewa kwace dukiya dole ne ya kasance "don amfanin jama'a ko don amfanin jama'a" kuma "bisa ga biyan diyya, adadin wanda da lokaci da yadda za a biya shi waɗanda waɗanda abin ya shafa suka amince da su ko kuma kotu ta yanke ko ta amince". A shari'ar FNB v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services, wata shari'ar farko game da fassarar sashi na dukiya, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta riƙe cewa babban manufar waɗannan tanade-tanaden shine "samun daidaitaccen ma'auni" tsakanin kare haƙƙoƙin dukiya da amfanin jama'a. A cikin shari'ar guda ɗaya, kotun ta ƙi bayyana dukiya gabaɗaya, amma ta riƙe cewa sashe na 25 tabbas ya shafi mallakar abubuwa masu motsi da ƙasa.First National Bank of SA Limited t/a Wesbank v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Another; First National Bank of SA Limited t/a Wesbank v Minister of Finance (CCT19/01) ; 2002 (4) SA 768; 2002 (7) BCLR 702 (CC). 

Sashe na 25(3) ya ba da ƙarin jagora game da yanayin da za a iya ba da izinin kwace. Yana buƙatar cewa, "Adadin diyya da lokaci da yadda za a biya dole ne su zama masu adalci da daidaito, suna nuna daidaitaccen ma'auni tsakanin amfanin jama'a da bukatun waɗanda abin ya shafa, idan aka yi la'akari da duk yanayin da ya dace". Sassan 25(3)(a)–(e) suna ba da jerin abubuwa biyar waɗanda ba a iyakance su ba waɗanda ake ɗauka a matsayin "yanayin da ya dace". Fassarar buƙatun sashe na 25(3) na "diyya mai adalci da daidaito" ta kasance mai cike da cece-kuce. Musamman, a cikin mahallin shawarwarin siyasa na kwace ƙasa ba tare da diyya ba, an yi muhawara mai mahimmanci game da ko sashe na 25(3) yana ba da izinin kwace inda aka saita adadin diyya zuwa sifili. A cikin 2021, Majalisar Dokoki ta yi la'akari da kuma ƙi da Dokar Gyaran Tsarin Mulki ta Goma Sha Takwas, wanda zai gyara sashe na 25 kuma a bayyane ya ba da izinin kwace ba tare da diyya ba.

Sauran tanade-tanaden sashe na 25 sun shafi amfani da haƙƙoƙin dukiya ga binciken jihar na sake fasalin ƙasa, don haka suna samar da tsarin tsarin mulki don sake fasalin ƙasa. Babban tushe ga wannan tsarin shine sashe na 25(8), wanda ya tanadi cewa, "Babu wani tanadi na wannan sashi da zai iya hana jihar ɗaukar matakan doka da sauran matakan don cimma ƙasa, ruwa da sake fasalin da ke da alaƙa, don gyara sakamakon wariyar launin fata na baya". Bugu da ƙari, sashe na 25(4) ya tanadi cewa "ƙudurin ƙasa ga sake fasalin ƙasa, da kuma sake fasali don samar da daidaitaccen damar samun duk albarkatun ƙasa na Afirka ta Kudu" wani ɓangare ne na "amfanin jama'a" kamar yadda aka yi amfani da shi a sassan 25(2) da 25(3).

Sauran tanade-tanade, mafi takamaiman game da sake fasalin ƙasa an fahimci su a matsayin ba da haƙƙoƙin zamantakewa da tattalin arziƙi masu alaƙa da ƙasa. Sashe na 25(5) ya shafi rarraba ƙasa: yana tilasta wa jiha "ɗaukar matakan doka da sauran matakan da suka dace, a cikin albarkatun da take da su, don haɓaka yanayin da ke ba da damar 'yan ƙasa su sami damar samun ƙasa a kan daidaitaccen tsari". Sashe na 25(6) ya shafi sake fasalin mallakar ƙasa: ya tanadi cewa, "Mutum ko al'umma waɗanda mallakar ƙasarsu ba ta da tabbas a shari'a sakamakon dokokin wariyar launin fata na baya ko ayyuka suna da haƙƙin, gwargwadon yadda Dokar Majalisar Dokoki ta tanadi, ko dai mallakar da take da tabbas a shari'a ko kuma gyara mai kwatankwacin". Sashe na 25(9), bugu da ƙari, yana tilasta wa Majalisar Dokoki ta kafa irin wannan dokar. A ƙarshe, sashe na 25(7) ya tanadi dawo da ƙasa: "Mutum ko al'umma da aka kwace musu dukiya bayan 19 ga Yuni 1913 sakamakon dokokin wariyar launin fata na baya ko ayyuka suna da haƙƙin, gwargwadon yadda Dokar Majalisar Dokoki ta tanadi, ko dai maido da wannan dukiyar ko kuma gyara mai adalci", 19 ga Yuni 1913 kasancewar ranar da aka shelanta Dokar Baƙar Fata ta 27 ta 1913.

 Gidaje 

Sashe na 26 ya ba da haƙƙoƙin gidaje na duniya guda biyu: "haƙƙin samun isasshen gida", da kuma haƙƙin kariya daga korar da ba ta dace ba. Haƙƙin samun damar yin amfani da gida, wanda aka bayyana a sashe na 26(1), an cika shi, a sashe na 26(2), ta hanyar nauyin da ke kan jiha na ɗaukar matakan da suka dace don cimma "nasarar cigaba" na wannan haƙƙin. Wannan nau'in tanade-tanaden an fassara shi ta Kotun Tsarin Mulki a cikin shari'ar tarihi ta Government v Grootboom, wanda ya riƙe cewa haƙƙin gida yana da hukunci kuma yana da ƙarfi.

Sashe na 26(3), game da haƙƙin tsari mai kyau a cikin korarwa, ya tanadi cewa, "Ba wanda za a kora daga gidansu, ko a ruguza gidansu, ba tare da umarnin kotu ba bayan an yi la'akari da duk yanayin da ya dace." A cikin Jaftha v Schoeman, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta gano cewa wannan haƙƙin yana neman gyara tarihin wariyar launin fata na korar tilas ta hanyar kare tsaro na mallaka. Haƙƙoƙin mutanen da ke fuskantar korarwa ana karesu kai tsaye ta hanyar Dokar Tsawaita Tsaron Mallaka ta 62 ta 1997 da Dokar Hana Korar Ba bisa Ka'ida ba daga kuma Ma'aikata Mara izini na ƙasa ta 19 ta 1998. Duk da haka, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta yi amfani da Tsarin Mulki ga korarwa a shari'o'i ciki har da Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers, President v Modderklip Boerdery, Residents of Joe Slovo Community v Thubelisha Homes, da Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg vs City of Johannesburg; yawancin waɗannan shari'o'in sun shafi korarwa daga ƙasar da aka mamaye ba bisa ka'ida ba.

Bisa ga Jaftha v Schoeman, haƙƙoƙin gida suna da mahimman tasiri ga hanyoyin shari'a na Afirka ta Kudu, musamman game da bayar da takardar umarnin aiwatarwa ga gidajen masu bashi. Shari'o'in da ke magana da sakamakon Jaftha sun haɗa da Menqa v Markom, Standard Bank v Saunderson, da Gundwana v Steko Development.
 Ayyukan Asali da Tsaro na Zamani 

Sashe na 27(1) yana tabbatar da wasu hakkoki guda uku na zamantakewa da tattalin arziki da suka shafi kowa, wanda David Bilchitz ke ganin ya kamata a duba su tare saboda suna dogaro da juna: ba wani mai daraja idan ba tare da sauran ba. Kamar yadda ya ke ga hakkin samun gida, an ba jihadi alhakin daukar matakai da suka dace don cimma "ci gaban aiwatar da kowanne hakki", kamar yadda aka fayyace a sashe 27(2).

Hakkin farko na sashe 27(1) shi ne hakkin samun dama ga ayyukan kiwon lafiya, ciki har da kiwon lafiya na haihuwa; sannan, sashe 27(3) ya fayyace cewa, "Ba wanda za a hana masa magani cikin gaggawa." Manyan shari'o'in da suka kalubalanci wannan hakki sun hada da Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal da Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign No. 2. Shari'ar Soobramoney ta bayyana cewa hakkin sashe 27(3) na magani cikin gaggawa yana da fassarar da ta takaita, wato magunguna na gaggawa daga rashin lafiya mai tsanani da ba a zata ba; ba ya kunshe da magani mai ci gaba don cututtuka na dindindin, ko da kuwa cutar na iya barazana ga rayuwa.

Hakki na biyu a cikin sashe 27(1) shi ne hakkin samun dama ga abinci da ruwa da suka wadatar. Hakkin samun abinci ba ya shahara a shari’a, kodayake yana kasancewa wani la’akari a cikin shari’o’in da ke shafar korar mutum daga ƙasa da suke amfani da ita wajen samar da abinci. Hakkin samun ruwa ya fara bayyana a gaban Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki a cikin shari’ar Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg. Samun ruwa da tsafta yana kasancewa wani ɓangare na samun dama ga gidaje da suka dace kamar yadda sashe 26(1) ya tanadar, misali a cikin Residents of Joe Slovo Community.

A ƙarshe, sashe 27(1) ya tanadar da hakkin samun dama ga tsaro na zamani, ciki har da hakkin samun "taimakon zamantakewa da ya dace" ga waɗanda ba su da ikon tallafawa kansu da wadanda suke dogara da su. Shari’ar da ta fi jan hankali wajen fassara wannan hakki ita ce Khosa v Minister of Social Development, game da hanawa 'yan ƙasashen waje shiga cikin shirye-shiryen jin ƙai na gwamnati. Hakkin samun taimakon zamantakewa ya shiga hannu sosai a cikin shari’ar Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development, game da gazawar Ma’aikatar Ci Gaban Jama’a wajen tabbatar da gudanar da tallafin jin kai cikin tsari a lokacin rikicin tallafin 2017.
 Haƙƙoƙin yara 

Sashe na 28 ya tanadi wasu haƙƙoƙi da yara ke da su, tare da sashe na 28(3) yana bayyana yara a matsayin mutane waɗanda basu kai shekaru 18 ba. Wataƙila mafi mahimmanci, sashe na 28(2) ya tanadi babban matsayin mafi kyawun muradin yaro, wani ka'ida da aka shigo da ita daga Yarjejeniyar Majalisar Ɗinkin Duniya kan Haƙƙoƙin Yara kuma aka haɓaka ta sosai a cikin shari'ar Afirka ta Kudu. Bugu da kari, sashe na 28(1) ya lissafa haƙƙoƙi tara da yara kaɗai ke da su.

Dangane da rayuwar gida da iyali, yara suna da haƙƙin "samun suna da ɗan ƙasa tun daga haihuwa; samun kulawar iyali ko kulawar iyaye, ko kuma ingantaccen kulawa na madadin lokacin da aka cire su daga muhallin iyali; samun abinci na asali, matsuguni, ayyukan kiwon lafiya na asali da ayyukan zamantakewa; [kuma] a kare su daga mugunta, sakaci, cin zarafi ko cin mutunci". Wasu haƙƙoƙi guda biyu sun shafi aikin yara: yara suna da haƙƙin "a kare su daga ayyukan aiki masu cin zarafi" kuma "kada a buƙaci su ko a ba su izinin yin aiki ko samar da ayyuka waɗanda— basu dace da shekarun yaron ba; ko kuma su jefa jin daɗin yaron, ilimi, lafiyar jiki ko ta hankali ko ci gaban ruhaniya, ɗabi'a ko zamantakewa cikin haɗari".

A cikin hanyoyin shari'ar laifuka, yara suna da haƙƙin "kada a tsare su sai dai a matsayin matakin ƙarshe". Yaron da aka tsare "za a iya tsare shi ne kawai na ɗan gajeren lokaci mafi dacewa, kuma yana da haƙƙin a raba shi da waɗanda aka tsare sama da shekaru 18; kuma a kula da shi ta hanya, kuma a ajiye shi a cikin yanayi, da ke la'akari da shekarun yaron". A cikin hanyoyin shari'ar farar hula, yara suna da haƙƙin "samun lauya da jiha ta sanya wa yaron, kuma a kan kuɗin jiha, a cikin shari'o'in farar hula da suka shafi yaron, idan rashin adalci mai yawa zai haifar". A ƙarshe, yara suna da haƙƙin "kada a yi amfani da su kai tsaye a cikin rikicin makamai, kuma a kare su a lokutan rikicin makamai".

 Ilimi 

Sashe na 29 ya tabbatar da haƙƙin ilimi na duniya kuma ya bayyana nauyin da ke kan jiha game da wannan. An bayyana shi a matsayin "haƙƙin haɗe-haɗe": yayin da sashe na 29(1) ke kare haƙƙin zamantakewa da tattalin arziki, sassan 29(2) da 29(3) sun shafi haƙƙoƙin farar hula. Sashe na 29 gabaɗaya ana ganin ya samo asali ne daga yanayin wariyar launin fata wanda aka tattauna Dokar Haƙƙoƙi: haƙƙin ilimi yana da al'amari na "maido da martaba", idan aka ba da tasirin tsarin Ilimin Bantu, amma kuma yana da al'amari na kariya ga waɗanda suka daraja Afrikaans a matsayin harshen koyarwa ko kuma waɗanda ba su da niyyar miƙa kai ga ikon jiha a kan ilimi.

A ƙarƙashin sashe na 29(1)(a), akwai haƙƙin duniya na ilimi na asali, ciki har da ilimi na asali na manya, kuma an tanadi haƙƙin duniya na ƙarin ilimi a sashe na 29(1)(b). A cikin yanayin ƙarin ilimi, kamar yadda yake a cikin gidaje da ayyuka na asali, wajibcin jiha shine ɗaukar "matakan da suka dace" don sa albarkatun "a hankali su kasance masu samuwa kuma masu sauƙin shiga". Haƙƙin ilimi na asali ba a iyakance shi ta wannan hanya ba; a cikin Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School v Essay, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta tabbatar da cewa "nan da nan za a iya aiwatar da shi", ba kamar wasu haƙƙoƙin zamantakewa da tattalin arziki ba.Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School & Others v Essay N.O. and Others (CCT 29/10) ; 2011 (8) BCLR 761 (CC).

Duk da haka, kalmomin sashe na 29(1)(a) ba su nufin cewa ilimi na asali dole ne ya zama kyauta, kuma, a wannan fannin, ba shi da ƙarfi kamar Sanarwar Duniya ta Haƙƙoƙin Ɗan Adam, wanda ke tanadi ilimi na asali kyauta. Duk da haka, kotuna sun fassara haƙƙin sashe na 29(1)(a) na ilimi na asali don faɗaɗa zuwa damar samun kayan aiki da suka wajaba don irin wannan ilimin: a cikin Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All, Kotun Koli ta Tabbatar da cewa sashe na 29(1)(a) ya ba da damar duk ɗalibai a makarantun gwamnati "a ba su kowane littafin karatu da aka tsara don matakin su kafin fara koyarwar darasin da aka tsara littafin karatu don shi".Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All (20793/2014) ; [2016] 1 All SA 369 (SCA); 2016 (4) SA 63 (SCA).

Sashe na 29(2) ya ƙara tanadin cewa, "Kowa yana da haƙƙin samun ilimi a cikin harshen hukuma ko harsunan da ya zaɓa a cibiyoyin ilimi na gwamnati inda ilimin ya dace." Don aiwatar da wannan haƙƙin, ana buƙatar jiha ta "yi la'akari da duk abubuwan da suka dace na ilimi, ciki har da cibiyoyin harshe guda ɗaya, tare da la'akari da— daidaito; yiwuwa; da kuma buƙatar gyara sakamakon dokokin da suka gabata na nuna bambancin launin fata da ayyuka." Idan aka yi la'akari da bambancin harsunan Afirka ta Kudu da kuma muhimmancin manufofin harshe, an yi ta shari'a game da wannan tanadin; shari'o'in da Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta yanke hukunci sun haɗa da Mpumalanga Department of Education v Hoërskool Ermelo.Head of Department: Mpumalanga Department of Education and Another v Hoërskool Ermelo and Another (CCT40/09) ; 2010 (2) SA 415 (CC); 2010 (3) BCLR 177 (CC).

A ƙarshe, sashe na 29(3) ya tanadi haƙƙin duniya na daidaikun mutane "don kafawa da kiyayewa, a kan kuɗinsu, cibiyoyin ilimi masu zaman kansu waɗanda— ba su nuna bambanci a kan tushen launin fata ba; an yi musu rajista da jiha; kuma suna kula da ka'idojin da ba su da ƙasa da ka'idojin da ke cikin cibiyoyin ilimi na gwamnati masu kwatankwacin

 Al'adu, Harshe, da Al'ummomi 

Sassan 30 da 31 sun yi la'akari da ƙarin haƙƙoƙin al'adu, haƙƙoƙin addini, da haƙƙoƙin harshe. Sashe na 30(1) ya tanadi cewa, "Kowa yana da 'yancin amfani da harshen da kuma shiga cikin rayuwar al'adu da ya zaɓa". Wannan 'yancin ya shafi duka a cikin sirri da kuma a cikin jama'a, tunda ba a iyakance aikace-aikacensa ga kowane takamaiman yanayi ba; Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta gano a hukuncin Certification cewa haƙƙin amfani da harshen da mutum ya zaɓa "zai faɗaɗa zuwa ga sadarwa da gwamnati, bisa ga iyakancewar da suka dace inda za a ba da izini."

Sashe na 31 ya shafi "mutanen da ke cikin al'adu, addini ko harshe", wanda ya tanadi "kada a hana su haƙƙin... su ji daɗin al'adunsu, su yi addininsu kuma su yi amfani da harshensu; kuma su kafa, su shiga kuma su kula da ƙungiyoyin al'adu, addini da harshe da sauran sassan jama'a." Tanadin ya kai ga 'yancin kowane memba na al'umma don aiwatar da waɗannan 'yancin "tare da sauran membobin wannan al'ummar", wanda ya bar shi ɗan duhu ko haƙƙoƙin sashe na 31 haƙƙoƙin rukuni ne ko haƙƙoƙin mutum ɗaya. Gabaɗaya ana kiransu "haƙƙoƙin haɗin gwiwa", kuma Alkali Sandile Ngcobo ya rubuta wa tsirarun mutane a cikin Prince v President of the Law Society cewa sashe na 31 "ya jaddada kuma ya kare yanayin haɗin gwiwa na haƙƙoƙin al'adu, addini da harshe", waɗanda aka kare a matakin mutum ɗaya a sashe na 30(1) kuma, a cikin lamarin addini, sashe na 15(1).Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope (CCT36/00) ; 2002 (2) SA 794; 2002 (3) BCLR 231 (CC).

A cikin Christian Education, Alkali Albie Sachs ya nuna, ga kotun gaba ɗaya, cewa sashe na 31 "yana kama da" sashi na 27 na Yarjejeniyar Ƙasashen Duniya kan Haƙƙoƙin Jama'a da Siyasa, sai dai cewa yana nufin "al'ummomi" maimakon "ƴan tsiraru": don haka, "muradin da sashe na 31 ke karewa ba na ƙididdiga ba ne wanda ya dogara da daidaita lambobi, amma inganci ne wanda ya dogara da mutunta bambancin".Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (CCT4/00) ; 2000 (4) SA 757; 2000 (10) BCLR 1051.

Duka sashe na 30 da sashe na 31 sun ƙare tare da iyakoki na ciki a sashe na 30(2) da 31(2) bi da bi; a kowane hali, iyakancewar ita ce tanadin cewa haƙƙoƙin da aka ambata ba za a iya amfani da su ba "ta hanyar da ba ta dace da kowane tanadin Dokar Haƙƙoƙi ba". Dangane da sashe na 31(2), Sachs ya gano a cikin Christian Education cewa iyakancewar ta nemi "bayyana gaskiya game da fifikon Tsarin Mulki", yana hana haƙƙoƙin haɗin gwiwa daga "amfani da su don 'sarrafawa' ayyukan rukuni masu cutarwa na tsarin mulki" ko don kare "halayen zalunci na alaƙar ciki musamman a cikin al'ummomin da abin ya shafa". Idan aka duba ta wannan fuskar, waɗannan iyakoki na ciki sun ɗauki matsayi mai kyau game da abin da ake kira paradox of tolerance.

 Samun Bayanai 

Sashe na 32 ya tanadi haƙƙin duniya na samun bayani iri biyu: "kowane bayani da jiha ke riƙe", a ƙarƙashin sashe na 32(1)(a), da "kowane bayani da wani mutum ke riƙe kuma wanda ake buƙata don aiwatarwa ko kariya ga kowane haƙƙi", a ƙarƙashin sashe na 31(b). Yana daga cikin mafi ci gaban irin wannan tanadi a kowane tsarin mulki a duk duniya.

A cikin hukuncin Certification, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta riƙe cewa sashe na 32 ya hango samun bayanan jiha a matsayin hanya don "manufa mafi faɗi, wato, don tabbatar da cewa akwai buɗaɗɗiyar gudanarwa da mai lissafi a duk matakan gwamnati";Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (CCT 23/96) ; 1996 (4) SA 744 (CC). a cikin shari'o'in da suka biyo baya a ƙananan kotuna, an kuma haɗa shi da ƙa'idodin tsarin mulki na "lissafi, amsawa da buɗaɗɗen hali". Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta tabbatar da wannan alaƙa a cikin My Vote Counts v Minister of Justice, inda kuma ta riƙe cewa samun wasu nau'ikan bayanai – a wannan yanayin, bayani game da tushen kuɗin jam'iyyun siyasa – yana da mahimmanci don ingantaccen aiwatar da haƙƙoƙin siyasa da aka kare a sashe na 19.

Sashe na 32(2) na Tsarin Mulki yana buƙatar aiwatar da dokokin ƙasa don ba da damar haƙƙin samun bayani, tare da tanadin da ya dace "don matakan da suka dace don rage nauyin gudanarwa da kuɗi a kan jiha". Dokar da aka kafa don haka ita ce Dokar Inganta Samun Bayani ta 2 ta 2000 (PAIA). Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta riƙe a cikin My Vote Counts v Speaker cewa, a ƙarƙashin ka'idar subsiyadi, haƙƙoƙin sashe na 32 daga yanzu suna da hukunci a matsayin iƙirari a ƙarƙashin, ko ƙalubale ga, PAIA.

 Ayyukan Gudanarwa Mai Kyau 

A ƙarƙashin taken "Ayyukan Gudanarwa Mai Kyau", sashe na 33 ya tanadi tsarin da ya dace na gudanarwa. Sashe na 33(1) ya tanadi haƙƙin duniya "na ayyukan gudanarwa waɗanda ke da halal, masu ma'ana kuma masu adalci a tsari", yayin da sashe na 33(2) ke buƙatar cewa, "Kowa da haƙƙoƙinsa suka shafa ta hanyar ayyukan gudanarwa yana da 'yancin a ba shi dalilai rubutattu." Abubuwan da ake buƙata guda uku na sashe na 33(1) sun kasance sanannu a cikin dokar gudanarwa ta Afirka ta Kudu a matsayin ƙa'idodin doka gama gari, amma an ba su sabon tushen tsarin mulki ta Dokar Haƙƙoƙi. A cikin wata shari'ar trilogy ta farko – Fedsure Life Assurance v Johannesburg, President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union, da Nel v Le Roux – Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta ƙara daidaita iyakokin "ayyukan gudanarwa", inda ta riƙe cewa ya cire ayyukan majalisa, ayyukan zartarwa, da ayyukan shari'a.

Sashe na 33(3) ya ba da umarni ga aiwatar da dokokin ƙasa don ba da damar haƙƙoƙin sashe na 33, yana ƙara cewa irin wannan dokar dole ne, "ta tanadi nazarin ayyukan gudanarwa ta kotu ko, idan ya dace, wata kotu mai zaman kanta da mara nuna bambanci; ta sanya nauyi ga jiha don ba da damar haƙƙoƙin a sassan (1) da (2); kuma ta inganta ingantaccen gudanarwa." Dokar da aka kafa don haka ita ce Dokar Inganta Adalcin Gudanarwa ta 3 ta 2000.
 Samun dama ga kotuna 

A ƙarƙashin taken "Samun dama ga Kotuna", sashe na 34 ya kunshi haƙƙin duniya na sauraron shari'o'in shari'a cikin adalci. Ya tanadi cewa, "Kowa yana da 'yancin a warware duk wata takaddama da za a iya warware ta hanyar amfani da doka a wani zaman sauraron karar jama'a mai adalci a gaban kotu ko, inda ya dace, wata kotu mai zaman kanta da ba ta nuna son kai ko wani dandalin". Tare da sashe na 32 da sashe na 33, sashe na 34 an gane shi a matsayin mai samar da nau'in "haƙƙin amfani", wani garanti ne na tsari da ke ba wa masu shigar da ƙara damar amfani ko kare sauran haƙƙoƙin su (na ainihi).

A cikin mahallin tarihi, sashe na 34 yana amsa ga shanyewar sake nazarin shari'a a lokacin mulkin wariyar launin fata a ƙarƙashin sashe na hana shari'a da ikon majalisa, da kuma tsarin shari'a da aka raba bisa ga launin fata da Dokar Gudanar da Baƙar Fata ta 38 ta 1927 ta kirkira. Bugu da ƙari, a cikin Chief Lesapo v North West Agricultural Bank, Mai Shari'a Yvonne Mokgoro ta yi sharhi cewa haƙƙin sashe na 34 yana da alaƙa da ƙa'idar tsarin mulki na bin doka kuma, musamman, "ginshiƙi ne a kan 'yan banga, da hargitsi da rashin bin doka da ke haifarwa".Lesapo v North West Agricultural Bank and Another (CCT23/99) ; 2000 (1) SA 409; 1999 (12) BCLR 1420.

Kotun ta riƙe a S v Pennington cewa sashe na 34 ba ya shafi shari'o'in laifuka, waɗanda sashe na 35 ke daidaita su a maimakon haka.S v Pennington and Another (CCT14/97) ; 1997 (10) BCLR 1413; 1997 (4) SA 1076 (CC). Sauran shari'o'in da suka shafi fassarar da amfani da sashe na 34 sun haɗa da Barkhuizen v Napier, Beinash v Ernst & Young, Metcash Trading v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service, Armbruster v Minister of Finance, da Mphahlele v First National Bank. Bugu da ƙari, a cikin President v Modderklip Boerdery, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta yi la'akari da yanayin wajibcin jiha na aiwatar da sashe na 34.President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (CCT20/04) ; 2005 (5) SA 3 (CC); 2005 (8) BCLR 786 (CC).

 Kamawa, Tsarewa, da Shari'a 

Mafi tsawo sashe na Dokar Haƙƙoƙi, sashe na 35 ya ƙunshi cikakken jerin haƙƙoƙi waɗanda ke kare ingantaccen tsari a cikin shari'o'in laifuka. Sashe na 35(1) ya bayyana haƙƙoƙin mutanen da "aka kama bisa zargin aikata laifi", yayin da sashe na 35(2) ya bayyana haƙƙin mutanen da "aka tsare, ciki har da kowane fursuna da aka yanke masa hukunci". Sashe na 35(3) ya ba da tabbacin haƙƙin kowane mai gabatar da ƙara na shari'a ta adalci, ciki har da, da sauransu, haƙƙin sanarwa game da tuhumar, haƙƙin shari'a ta jama'a, haƙƙin shari'a cikin sauri, haƙƙin samun wakilcin shari'a, haƙƙin a ɗauka mara laifi har sai an tabbatar da laifinsa, haƙƙin yin shiru, haƙƙin kin tuhumar kai, haƙƙin kin hukunci biyu (ana kiransa ne bis in idem a cikin dokar Afirka ta Kudu), da kuma haƙƙin ɗaukaka ƙara ko sake dubawa.

Sashe na 35(5) ya kafa ƙa'idar banbanci, a ƙarƙashin wanda, "Shari'ar da aka samu ta hanyar da ta keta kowane haƙƙi a cikin Dokar Haƙƙoƙi dole ne a ware ta idan amincewar wannan shari'ar zai sa shari'ar ta zama mara adalci ko kuma in ba haka ba ta kasance mai cutarwa ga gudanar da shari'a." Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta fassara wannan tanadin a shari'o'i ciki har da S v Basson. Sauran shari'o'in tarihi da suka shafi sashe na 35 sun haɗa da S v Dzukuda; S v Tshilo, S v Singo, S v Thebus, da S v Bogaards.
 Takaitaccen bayani akan 'yanci 
‘Yancin da ke cikin Kundin ‘Yancin Dan Adam ba su da cikakken iko kuma za a iya takaita su ta hanyar tanade-tanaden da ke bayyane, inda ake iyakance ‘yancin mutum da sharuddan da aka gindaya a sassa daban-daban, misali Sashe na 9 da ya shafi daidaito. Bugu da ƙari, Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta tanadi tanadin iyakancewa gaba ɗaya a Sashe na 36, wanda ke ba da damar iyakance dukkan ‘yancin da ke cikin Kundin ‘Yanci bisa ga dokar da ake amfani da ita gaba ɗaya, kuma “iyakancewa dole ne su zama masu ma’ana da adalci a cikin al’umma mai bude zuciya da dimokuradiyya wacce ke girmama mutunci, daidaito da ‘yanci.” Duk wata iyakancewa dole ne ta zama mai ma’ana kuma sai da dalilin da ya dace. Iyakancewa kuma ya kamata su zama marasa tsauri.

Bangarorin gwamnati, kamar kotuna, majalisar dokoki, ko bangaren zartaswa, na iya iyakance ‘yanci yayin gudanar da aikinsu. Misali, ta hanyar iyakance ‘yancin fursuna. Haka kuma, saboda yadda Kundin ‘Yanci ke aiki a kwance, ana iya iyakance ‘yanci ta ayyuka ko shawarar wasu mutane. Kotuna na da ikon tantance ingancin iyakancewar bisa Sashe na 36.

Sashe na 36 ya lissafa wasu abubuwa da kotuna ke la'akari da su don tantance ko iyakancewar da aka yi tana da ma’ana da adalci:
 Nau’in ‘yancin.
 Muhimmancin iyakancewar.
 Yanayi da girman iyakancewar.
 Dangantaka tsakanin iyakancewar da manufarta.
 Hanyoyin da ba su da tsauri don cimma manufar.

Wadannan abubuwa ba su da cikakken iko kuma kotu na iya la'akari da wasu abubuwa da ta ga dama. Lokacin da ake duba nau’in ‘yanci, kotu za ta yi la’akari da abin da ‘yancin ya kunsa, mahimmancinsa da muradinsa. Misali, yana da wahala a iyakance ‘yancin rai da adalci kamar yadda Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta yanke hukunci a cikin S v Makwanyane, inda aka soke hukuncin kisa. Inganta da kare bukatar jama’a mai inganci da halatta yana da muhimmanci a lokacin nazari akan iyakancewa da manufarta. Bugu da ƙari, Kundin Tsarin Mulki na bukatar a nemi hanyar da ba ta da tsauri don cimma wannan manufa, maimakon iyakance ‘yancin mutum.Rautenbach, Malherbe. "Constitutional Law, 4th Edition," 2004. 

 Kwatanta da wasu dokokin ‘yancin dan adam 
Tanadin iyakancewa da ke cikin Sashe na 36 ana kwatanta shi da irin su a cikin European Convention on Human Rights. Musamman, akwai iyakancewa akan ‘yancin sirri (Sashe na 8(2)), “sai dai wanda ya dace da doka kuma ya zama dole a cikin al’umma dimokuradiyya”, iyakancewar ‘yancin tunani da addini (sashe na 9(2)), “wanda aka kayyade da doka kuma ya zama dole a cikin al’umma dimokuradiyya,” da dai sauransu. A Kanada, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms aka amince da shi a shekarar 1982. Sashe na 1 na wannan Charter, kamar Sashe na 36 a dokar Afirka ta Kudu, ya ce ‘yanci “wanda aka kayyade da iyakancewa mai ma’ana da doka wanda za a iya nuna adalcinsa a cikin al’umma mai ‘yanci da dimokuradiyya.”Brice Dickson, "Human Rights in the 21st Century," Amnesty International Lecture, Queen's University, Belfast, 11 November 1999.

 Hali na gaggawa 
Sashe na 37 na Kundin ‘Yanci ya yi bayani musamman akan hali na gaggawa da kuma matsalolin da ke tattare da warware ‘yancin.
 Aiwana Dokar 'Yancin Dan Adam 

Sasshikan 38 da 39 suna magana ne kan "Aiwana 'yancin dan Adam" da kuma "Fassarar Dokar 'Yanci" bi da bi. Dangane da fassara, Sashe na 39(1) yana cewa fassarar Dokar 'Yanci dole ne ta inganta "kimar da ke karfafa al'umma mai buɗewa da dimokuraɗiyya bisa mutuncin ɗan Adam, daidaito da 'yanci", kuma dole ne ta yi la'akari da dokar kasa da kasa, sannan ta iya la'akari da dokar ƙasashen waje. Sai dai abubuwan da ke cikin wannan sashe sun fi muhimmanci wajen tabbatar da yuwuwar gabatar da ƙara dangane da Dokar 'Yanci.

 Aiwatarwa kai tsaye 

Sashe na 38 yana tabbatar da damar mutum wajen gabatar da ƙarar 'yancin dan Adam, da kansa ko a madadin wasu, ko a matsayin memba na ƙungiya, ko don amfanin jama'a. Ƙididdigar iyakar wannan damar ba ta da yawa. Dangane da Babin Takwas na Kundin Tsari, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ita ce kotun kololuwa a duk batutuwan da suka shafi kundin tsarin mulki, duk da haka ana gabatar da irin waɗannan ƙararraki a Kotun Ƙoli ta Afirka ta Kudu a matakin farko.

 Aiwatarwa ta hanya kai tsaye ba 
Sashe na 39(3) ya bayyana cewa Dokar 'Yanci ba ta musanta wanzuwar wasu haƙƙoƙi da 'yanci da aka amince da su ta hanyar dokokin al'ada, shari'ar al'ada ko dokar da aka tsara, muddin dai sun yi daidai da Dokar 'Yanci. Amma abu mafi muhimmanci shi ne, sashe na 39(2) ya bayyana cewa dole ne a fassara waɗannan dokoki daidai da Dokar 'Yanci:

Lokacin fassarar kowace doka, da lokacin bunƙasa dokar al'ada ko shari'ar al'ada, dole ne kowace kotu, majalisa ko hukumar ta inganta ruhin, manufar da burin Dokar 'Yanci. 

Sashe na 39(2) ana ɗaukar sa a matsayin wata hanya ta biyu, wadda ba kai tsaye ba, wajen aiwatar da Dokar 'Yanci. A wannan hanyar, ba a amfani da Dokar 'Yanci kai tsaye don warware rikici, sai dai ana amfani da ita ta hanyar fassara ko inganta dokar da ba ta cikin kundin tsarin mulki da ke da alaƙa da rikicin. A cewar ka’idar kaucewa, kotuna na iya fifita aiwatarwa ta hanyar fassarar dokar da ba ta cikin kundin tsarin mulki kafin su juya zuwa hanyar kai tsaye.

 Fassarar dokokin da aka tsara 
 Tasirin sashe na 39(2) wajen fassarar dokoki an tattauna shi a cikin shari'ar Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motors, inda Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta bayyana cewa "duk dokoki dole ne a fassara su ta hanyar hangen Dokar 'Yanci" bisa "ruhin sauyi da juyin halitta da ke bayyana duk tsarin kundin tsarin mulki". Har ila yau, wannan fassarar ta buƙaci fifikon fassarar dokar ta hanyar rage karfinta, inda za a fifita fassarar da ba ta tauye kowane haƙƙi na kundin tsarin mulki.

 Bunƙasa shari'ar al'ada 
Dangane da shari'ar al'ada, sashe na 39(2) yana da muhimmanci musamman wajen amfani da Dokar 'Yanci a rikice-rikice na masu zaman kansu. A aikace, sai dai a wasu keɓantattun yanayi, ba a amfani da Dokar 'Yanci kai tsaye a cikin irin waɗannan rikice-rikice – ma’ana, ba a amfani da dokar don tantance sahihancin abin da mutum ya aikata. Madadin haka, saboda ka’idar kaucewa da kuma "gurbacewa da juyayin sashe na 8", kotuna suna fifita amfani da sashe na 39(2) fiye da 8(2): wato suna fifita bunƙasa shari'ar al'ada fiye da amfani da haƙƙin kundin tsarin mulki don soke abin da mutum ya aikata ko dokar al’ada da ke tasiri.

A shari'ar Barkhuizen v Napier, shari'ar kwangila ce inda Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta yanke cewa sharuddan kwangila ba za a gwama su da haƙƙin kundin tsarin mulki ba sai dai da dokar ka’idojin jama’a, matuƙar dai wannan dokar ka’ida tana da ma’anar kundin tsarin mulki. Wasu muhimman shari’o’in da suka ambaci sashe na 39(2) sun haɗa da Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security, S v Thebus, da S v Masiya, tare da Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha a fannin dokar al’ada. A cikin Carmichele, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta jaddada cewa sashe na 39(2) yana ɗora wa kotuna wajibi gaba ɗaya wajen bunƙasa dokar al’ada idan an samu bukatar haka, komai ko wani bangare bai nemi hakan ba; a Thebus, Alkalin Babban Kotun Tsarin Mulki Dikgang Moseneke ya bayyana cewa sashe na 39(2) yana bayar da izini da jagora na kundin tsarin mulki ga ikon kotu wajen sauya dokar al'ada domin ta dace da sauyin zamantakewa, halin ɗabi'a da tattalin arziki. Wannan ikon da kundin tsarin mulki ya bai wa kotuna yana da iyaka, domin ana bukatar a bunƙasa dokar al'ada da hankali a hankali da kuma bisa kowane lamari da ke gaban kotu.

Manazarta
 Bayani 

 Case law