THE Constitutional Court's ruling that the Communal Land Rights Act of 2004 is uncon­stitutional has been widely wel­comed. Given that this newspaper has argued repeatedly that the law was embarrassingly regres­sive - to the point of being on a par with some of the statutory shockers served up by the apartheid regime - it will be no surprise that we concur.

Indeed, even Land Affairs Minister Gugile Nkwinti was apparently shamefaced enough about the ticking parcel he inherited on taking office that he wasted little time in withdrawing the government's opposition to the Legal Resources Centre's application for the law to be scrapped. In fact, Nkwinti pre­empted the court's decision by promising to scrap or rework it whatever the outcome.

The basis of most opposition to the law was that far from helping poor people in rural areas unlock wealth by allowing them to use communal land as collateral for loans, it entrenched the power of so-called traditional leaders, many of whom were themselves a creation of the apartheid system. This was apparently the outcome of intense lobbying of the African National Congress (ANC), which is inclined to give traditional leaders more respect than is their due in a democracy because of their influence over the rural masses come election time.

Be that as it may, the Constitutional Court has done the right thing. Unfortunately, it struck down the law for proce­dural reasons rather than those outlined above, thus limiting the embarrassment the ANC, ought to be feeling for actively supporting an attempt to sell one of its biggest constituencies down the river.

Nevertheless, procedural issues are also important, and in this case the ruling reinforces the authority of the National Council of Provinces when it comes to the adoption of legislation concerning matters that are not an exclusive national competence.