Cornelius Johannes Alexander Lourens v The Speaker of the National Assembly of Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and Others

The appellant, Mr C J A Lourens, an Afrikaans-speaking attorney practicing in Brits, North West Province, challenged the practice of Parliament and the Minister of Arts and Culture regarding the language used for legislation. Bills were invariably introduced in Parliament in English, published in English, and the official text sent to the President for signature was also in English only. Mr Lourens contended that this practice, along with Parliament's rules allowing this, constituted unfair discrimination against all non-English speaking people in South Africa. He argued that all Acts of Parliament should be translated into all 11 official languages recognized in section 6 of the Constitution. He brought proceedings in the Equality Court claiming various orders declaring that the failure to publish all national legislation in all official languages amounts to unfair language discrimination in terms of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (the Equality Act). The Equality Court (Griesel J) dismissed the application but granted leave to appeal on the basis that the issues raised were important constitutional questions of national importance. Evidence showed that Parliament had been in breach of its own Joint Rules which required Bills to be translated into at least one other official language, and that many Acts since 1996 had been published in English only. The Speaker acknowledged that English is the only language all members of Parliament understand, and that Parliament should do more to advance the use of other official languages but was constrained by resources and time limits. Expert evidence indicated there were insufficient trained translators to perform the translation work required if all legislation had to be translated into all 11 official languages.

• Whether the Rules and practice of Parliament in publishing legislation primarily in English constitute unfair discrimination in terms of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000
• Whether Parliament and/or the Minister of Arts and Culture have a constitutional obligation to translate and publish all national legislation in all 11 official languages recognized in section 6 of the Constitution
• The proper interpretation of section 6 of the Constitution, particularly section 6(3) which allows national government to use any official languages but requires use of at least two official languages
• Whether conduct that is constitutionally compliant can amount to unfair discrimination
• The meaning of 'parity of esteem' and 'equitable treatment' in section 6(4) of the Constitution
• Whether Parliament has a duty to oversee the Executive's translation of statutes into official languages
• Whether the relief sought was res judicata based on a previous court decision

The appeal was dismissed. No costs order was made against the appellant.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 6(3) of the Constitution expressly allows national and provincial government to use any official languages for purposes of government, subject to using at least two official languages - therefore not all official languages must be employed in government processes. (2) Conduct that is constitutionally compliant cannot amount to unfair discrimination under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. (3) 'Equitable treatment' and 'parity of esteem' under section 6(4) of the Constitution do not mean 'equal treatment' and do not require that all government acts, including legislation, be conducted or published in all 11 official languages. (4) Parliament's duty in the legislative process ends when a Bill is sent to the President for assent; it is not Parliament's duty to publish or translate legislation. (5) Courts have no power to compel parties to perform obligations which they do not have - Parliament and government cannot be ordered to translate all statutes into all official languages as they have no such constitutional or statutory duty. (6) Where the Constitution itself requires government acts to be conducted in only a minimum number of official languages (two), the failure to use all official languages cannot constitute unfair discrimination.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) Parliament should remedy its failure to comply with its own Joint Rules relating to language and should give effect to section 4 of the Use of Official Languages Act 12 of 2012. (2) Translation of all statutes into all official languages 'would, of course, be what Parliament and government should aspire to do', suggesting this as a policy goal even though not legally required. (3) The court noted that the phrase 'parity of esteem' in section 6(4) of the Constitution 'probably has little legal significance' (citing Currie), as parity is only possible where there is a legal prescription that official languages are treated equally, which does not exist. (4) The court observed that equity may require that historically diminished indigenous languages receive particular attention and support from the state, potentially meaning that English and Afrikaans (historically undiminished languages) may be treated with relative inattention. (5) The court noted practical difficulties in implementing a requirement to translate all legislation into all official languages, including the insufficient number of trained translators produced by universities and the even greater burden this would place on provincial legislatures and municipalities, though stated these practical difficulties need not be addressed since there is no legal requirement. (6) The importance of the right to use the official language of one's choice was emphasized by reference to the principle that any member of the National Assembly may introduce a Bill, as affirmed in Oriani-Ambrosini v Sisulu.

This judgment is significant in South African constitutional law as it definitively interprets section 6 of the Constitution regarding language rights and official languages. It establishes that while the Constitution recognizes 11 official languages, it does not require all government business, including legislation, to be conducted or published in all 11 languages. The case clarifies that 'equitable treatment' and 'parity of esteem' in section 6(4) do not mean 'equal treatment' and do not mandate translation of all legislation into all official languages. The judgment balances the constitutional commitment to multilingualism with practical realities of governance, including resource constraints and the lack of sufficient trained translators. It demonstrates that constitutional compliance precludes a finding of unfair discrimination under equality legislation. The case also clarifies the division of responsibilities between Parliament (legislative process) and the Executive (publication and translation of laws). While acknowledging that Parliament should do more to advance the use of official languages and had breached its own rules, the court recognized practical limitations. The judgment implicitly accepts that English has become the dominant language of government and legislation in post-apartheid South Africa, while maintaining that this does not constitute unfair discrimination where it complies with constitutional minimum requirements. This decision has important implications for language policy across all levels of government in South Africa.