Pharmaceutical Manufacturers v President (2000): The Legality Principle Explained

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers v President (2000): The Legality Principle

Citation: Pharmaceutical Manufacturers v President 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC)
Court: Constitutional Court
Area: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law

📚 View the full case →

🎯 Why It Matters

This landmark case established the principle of legality as a ground of constitutional review. Even the President's conduct must be authorized by law and must be rational.

Key takeaway: All public power must flow from law. No official is above the Constitution.

📋 The Facts

• President promulgated regulations under the Medicines Act
• Did not follow proper consultation procedures
• Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association challenged the regulations
• Argued President exceeded his powers

📖 The Ratio

The principle of legality requires that all exercise of public power must be authorized by law and must be rational. This principle flows from the rule of law. Executive action not authorized by law or that is irrational is unconstitutional and invalid.

💡 Exam Application

Step 1: "Under Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, all public power must be authorized by law (legality principle)."

Step 2: Was the action authorized by statute? If no → invalid.

Step 3: Was the action rational? If no → invalid.

🔗 Related

• Fedsure v Greater Johannesburg (1998) — Legality and rule of law
• Albutt v Centre for Study of Violence (2010) — Rationality review
• Section 1(c) of the Constitution — Rule of law as founding value

Tags: #constitutionallaw #legality #administrativelaw #ruleoflaw