Abstract

The Constitutional Court’s decision in AB v Pridwin Preparatory School is a welcome recognition of the obligations which independent schools owe to their learners under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. However, the decision creates (or at least fails to resolve) a number of uncertainties in the application of s 8(2) of the Constitution. In particular, it leaves vague what the test for duty-bearing under that provision is; it recentres but (further) obscures the distinction between positive and negative obligations; it raises questions about the role of s 8(3) and how private interferences with constitutional rights are to be justified; and it leaves the practical status of the decision in Barkhuizen v Napier unclear.

抽象的

宪法法院在AB v Pridwin Preparatory School案中的裁决令人欣慰，承认独立学校根据1996年南非共和国宪法对学生承担的义务。但是，该裁决创造了（或至少未能解决）a适用《宪法》第8（2）条的不确定性的数量。尤其是，这条规定对承担义务的考验是什么，它含糊其词；它是最新的，但（进一步）模糊了积极义务和消极义务之间的区别；它提出了关于第8（3）条的作用以及如何证明私人干预宪法权利的合理性的问题；尚不清楚Barkhuizen诉Napier案的判决的实际情况。