Section 39(2) of the Constitution stipulates that, ”When interpreting any legislation and

when developing the common law or customary law, every court, tribunal or forum must
promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights” . Section 39(2) is a peremptory
provision which means that all courts, tribunals or forums must review the aim and
purpose of a legislation in the light of the Bill of Rights, the planning meaning and
unambiguous text are no longer sufficient in the interpretation of a statute. This section
forces the interpreter to promote values and objects of the Bill of Rights even before
legislation is read. The interpretation of statutes starts with the Constitution and not with
the legislative text. The impact of the Constitution on the interpretation of statute is made
explicit by referring to the Bato star case. The facts of the case concerned the allocation
of quotas in the fishing industry and the Bato star fishing company was allocated a quota
for a year but it complained that its quota was small and it approached the court to have
the allocation of quotas set aside. The case was based on how the phrase “have to
regard” must be interpreted and understood? The Supreme Court of Appeal had
interpreted the words incorrectly and the Constitutional Court agreed to the Bato star
argument that the phrase “have regard to “ not only meant that equality should be taken
into account as was concluded by the Supreme Court of Appeal but that equality should
be promoted as the overriding concern. Ngcobo J stated that in Bato Star fishing v
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism that the constitution is ....the starting point
in interpreting any legislation ....first, the interpretation that is placed upon a statue must,
where possible be one that advance at least an identifiable value enshrined in the Bill of
Rights .......This statement explicitly shows that the Constitution has impact on the
interpretation of statutes.

In Halomisa v Argus Newspaper Ltd the court referred to section 35(5) of the interim
Constitution (former s39(2)) that the interpretation clause of the Constitution was held to
be....not merely an interpretative directive but a force that informs all legal institutions and
decisions with the new power of the constitutional value. This shows that the constitutional
values must come first and be forced when interpreting statutes. In Investigating
Directorate :Serious Economics Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Smit
Langa DP explained the constitutional foundations of interpretation methodology as
follows ,’’Section 39(2) of the Constitution” .....Means that all statues must be interpreted
through the prism of the Bill of Rights.