Issued by the ACDP Parliamentary Media Office

ACDP welcomes announcement that Bill to decriminalise prostitution will be withdrawn

Jun 1, 2023

ACDP Whip and member of the Justice and Correctional Services Portfolio Committee, Steve Swart, has welcomed the decision not to table Bill to decriminalise prostitution:

“The ACDP welcomes the announcement by the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mr John Jeffery, during the department’s budget vote debate earlier this week, that the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Bill, 2022 (the Bill) seeking to decriminalise prostitution will, after concerns about its constitutionality were raised, not be tabled in Parliament during this session.

Years ago, the ACDP participated in the drafting of the extensive review of the criminal law relating to sexual offences in the Justice and Constitutional Development Portfolio Committee, which resulted in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Amendment Act. During the then deliberations of the Justice Portfolio Committee it was decided to retain the criminalisation of prostitution in the Sexual Offences Act, and to insert section 11 (criminalising the buyer of sexual services) into the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Amendment Act. This was considered a constitutionally permissible legislative option.

We were then appalled that at a time when South Africa is facing severe moral degradation and dysfunctional families, resulting in high levels of crime and violence (particularly against vulnerable women and children), gangsterism, drug abuse and human trafficking, the department was considering such a far-reaching Bill.

In the ACDP submission to the department in January 2023, we argued that the Bill “flies in the face of the findings and recommendations of the extensive process conducted by the South African Law Reform Commission at the request of the department (see SALRC Report: Project 107: Sexual Offences: Adult Prostitution: 16 June 2015, first published 2017).  Instead, the department chose the extreme position of decriminalising prostitution, which was not recommended by the SALRC.

The department also largely ignored the findings of the Constitutional Court judgment in Jordan v The State 2002(6) SA 642 (CC), which upheld the constitutionality of legislation criminalising prostitution:

“The [Sexual Offences] Act pursues an important and legitimate constitutional purpose, namely to outlaw commercial sex.” (para 14)

“The state contended that the legislation was “designed” to promote the protection or improvement of the quality of life and human development, and as such is sanctioned by section 26.  Prostitution is associated with violence, drug abuse and child trafficking.  These are the legislative facts.” (para 24)

Article 18 of the African Charter of Human Rights, to which South Africa is a signatory, states that, “The family shall be the natural unit and basis of society. It shall be protected by the State which shall take care of its physical health and moral. The State shall have the duty to assist the family which is the custodian of morals and traditional values recognized by the community.”

The Bill directly conflicts with section 18, and would result in a further breakdown of the morals and traditional values recognised by the majority of South Africans.

According to the Collective Against Sexual Exploitation, “The truth is that prostitution is in itself a gross violation of human dignity and is inherently exploitative. It exploits the vulnerability of those who are desperate and socio-economically marginalised. It turns women into merchandise and entraps them in servitude to a system built on and perpetuated by gender inequality. The only way to stop the abuse and exploitation experienced by prostituted persons is by eradicating the system of prostitution. This means that full decriminalisation is simply not an option.”

While the reason given for not continuing with the Bill was constitutional in that no regulatory framework was in place to deal with decriminalisation, we have no doubt that overwhelming opposition to the Bill, particularly from the ACDP,  churches and other faith-based organisations, and organisations such as the Collective Against Sexual Exploitation,  also played a role in this decision, particularly given the looming general elections in 2024.”

-ENDS-

ACDP supports recommendation to remove from office Judge NJ Motata

ACDP supports recommendation to remove from office Judge NJ Motata

House Chair Whilst the highest standards are expected of a Judge, failure to meet those standards will not of itself be enough to justify the removal of a Judge. So important is the judicial independence, that the removal of a Judge can only be justified when the...

Parliament has been subjected to disruptions by the EFF for almost 10 years

ACDP supports impeachment of Judge President MJ Hlophe

Chairperson The ACDP wishes to agree with the Chairperson of the Justice Portfolio Committee, the Hon Magwanishe, when he said, “to whom much is given, much is required,” and the SCA has already found that “a Judge is the pillar of our entire justice system and of the...