04/06/2026
(scroll down for English)
Grondwet beskerm wel teen vergrype
(Parlementsdebat: 30ste herdenking van die Grondwet)
Dr. Corné Mulder
VF Plus-leier
4 Junie 2026
Suid-Afrika se Grondwet bied wel beskerming teen vergrype. Die feit dat daar soveel pogings is om dit aan te pas om byvoorbeeld onteiening sonder vergoeding moontlik te maak, dien as bewys hiervan.
Die Grondwet is nie in klip gekap nie. Dit is ‘n lewende dokument en indien dit ten volle na letter en gees toegepas word, sal dit almal akkommodeer en beskerm.
Die ANC is te lank toegelaat om dit te plooi soos dit hom gepas het en dit klink soms asof dié party die Grondwet alleen opgestel het. Dit is nie waar nie. Dit was ‘n proses waaraan baie, ook die VF Plus, deelgeneem het.
So kon ek namens die party ‘n aandeel hê in onder meer artikel 185 oor die kommissie vir die bevordering en beskerming van die regte van kultuur-, godsdiens- en taalgemeenskappe.
Dit is belangrik dat ‘n grondwet deur die mense van ‘n land vir dié mense geskep moet word en aanduidend moet wees van dít wat in mense se harte en gedagtes omgaan.
‘n Grondwet kan wel van tyd tot tyd aangepas word indien daar ‘n geldige behoefte en rede is. Dit is nie finaal nie. Tog blyk dit dat sekere partye dit nie net wil verander nie, maar grootliks wil wegdoen daarmee.
‘n Voorbeeld is die EFF wat private eiendomsreg in geheel wil skrap. Dit terwyl dié party se leier eiendom van meer as R35 miljoen besit. Dit maak dit duidelik dat eiendomsreg sekere mense soms pas en ander kere weer nie.
Suid-Afrika se Grondwet is veronderstel om nasiebou en sosiale kohesie onder almal te bevorder. Die vraag is of dit wel daarin geslaag het om ‘n verenigde nasionale identiteit te skep.
Dit is wel so dat sommige mense die indruk kry dat hul behoeftes en aspirasies ongeag ‘n grondwet geminag word.
Ongelyke behandeling oor sekere gebeure in die verlede kan as voorbeeld genoem word. Daar is tans regsaksies aan die gang teen sekere persone oor beweerde vergrype terwyl ander oor die hoof gesien word. Dit dui op bevooroordeling.
Hieroor het die tussentydse Grondwet dit duidelik gemaak dat daar wedersydse begrip moet wees en nie wraak nie, herstel en nie vergelding nie, ubuntu en nie viktimisering nie.
Is dit wat alle mense in die land ervaar? Indien nie, is dit onregverdig. Die Grondwet is geskryf om almal gelyk en regverdig te behandel.
Daar is sekere ruimtes in die Grondwet wat nog nie ten volle benut en uitgebou is nie. Indien dit wel gebeur, sal dit tot ‘n groot mate meewerk om sosiale kohesie te bevorder en daartoe bydra dat alle gemeenskappe, ook minderhede, geakkomodeer voel.
‘n Nuwe regering kan help om hierdie gees van versoening te laat leef.
------------------------------
CONSTITUTION DOES PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST ABUSES
Dr Corné Mulder
VF Plus Leader
4 June 2026
(Parliamentary Debate: 30th Anniversary of the Constitution)
South Africa’s Constitution does indeed provide protection against abuses. The fact that there are so many attempts to amend it – for example, to make expropriation without compensation possible – serves as proof.
The Constitution is not set in stone. It is a living document and if it is fully applied in both letter and spirit, it will accommodate and protect everyone.
For too long, the ANC has been allowed to manipulate the Constitution to suit itself – it sometimes sounds as if this party drafted the Constitution all on its own. That is not true. It was an extensive process in which many parties, including the Freedom Front Plus (VF Plus), participated.
In this way, I had the honour of contributing, on behalf of the party, to, among other things, section 185 on the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities.
It is important for a country’s constitution to be drafted by its people for the people; it should be a reflection of the people’s hearts and minds.
A constitution may indeed be amended from time to time if a valid need and reason exist. It is not final. However, it appears that certain parties do not only wish to amend it, but almost want to do away with it.
An example is the EFF, which wants to scrap private property rights entirely – while the party’s leader owns property worth more than R35 million. Clearly, the notion of property rights suits some people sometimes, but not all the time.
South Africa’s Constitution is supposed to promote nation-building and social cohesion among all people. The question that remains is whether it has succeeded in creating a united national identity.
It is true that some people get the impression that their needs and aspirations are disregarded, in spite of the Constitution.
Unequal treatment regarding certain past events can be cited as an example. There are currently legal actions against certain persons for alleged abuses, while others are overlooked. This demonstrates prejudice.
In this regard, the interim Constitution made it clear that there should be mutual understanding and not revenge, restoration and not retaliation, ubuntu and not victimisation.
Is this what all people in the country experience? If not, it is unfair. The Constitution was drafted with the objective of ensuring equal and fair treatment for all.
There is still some leeway in the Constitution – sections that have not been fully implemented or that have room for improvement. When this is done, it will greatly contribute to promoting social cohesion and ensuring that all communities, including minorities, feel accommodated.
A new administration could help resurrect the spirit of reconciliation.
