S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso

The cases concerned two accused, Bhulwana and Gwadiso, each convicted of dealing in dagga under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992. Bhulwana was found in possession of 850g of dagga, and Gwadiso in possession of 444.7g. Their convictions for dealing depended entirely on section 21(1)(a)(i) of the Act, which presumed that possession of more than 115g of dagga meant dealing, unless the accused proved the contrary. On automatic review, the Cape Provincial Division held that without reliance on this statutory presumption, the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for dealing. The High Court referred the constitutionality of the presumption to the Constitutional Court.

Section 21(1)(a)(i) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 was declared unconstitutional and invalid. The presumption ceased to have effect, and the convictions of Bhulwana and Gwadiso, which depended on the presumption, could not stand.

This was a foundational Constitutional Court decision on the presumption of innocence and reverse onus provisions in South African criminal law. It affirmed that statutory presumptions leading to conviction despite reasonable doubt are unconstitutional unless strictly justified. The case strengthened fair trial rights and set an important precedent for the constitutional scrutiny of evidentiary presumptions and burden-shifting provisions in legislation.