President of the Republic of South Africa v Quagliani; President of the Republic of South Africa v Van Rooyen and Brown; Goodwin v Director-General, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others

Three related applications concerned the validity and domestic enforceability of the Extradition Agreement between South Africa and the United States. Mr Quagliani, and Mr Van Rooyen and Ms Brown, were arrested in South Africa for purposes of extradition to the United States under the Agreement. They challenged the Agreement in the Pretoria High Court, which held that although it was valid internationally, it was not enforceable domestically because it had not been enacted into South African law under section 231(4) of the Constitution. In a separate matter, Mr Goodwin, a South African citizen sought by South Africa for large-scale fraud, was provisionally arrested in the United States. He challenged the validity and enforceability of the same Agreement in the Pretoria High Court, but his application was dismissed, with the court holding that the Agreement was enforceable. Conflicting High Court judgments led to appeals to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal against the Goodwin decision succeeded, and the appeal against the Quagliani decision failed. The Court confirmed that the Extradition Agreement is valid internationally but not in force in South African domestic law due to lack of legislative enactment.

The case clarifies the constitutional process for treaty-making in South Africa, distinguishing between international validity and domestic enforceability of treaties. It confirms the collective role of the national executive in negotiating and signing treaties, and underscores that extradition treaties require enactment into legislation unless they are self-executing. The judgment has wide implications for South Africa’s extradition regime and treaty practice.