Not surprisingly, it was mostly the contentious issues that had emerged during the drafting of the Constitution that were subsequently heard in the court chamber. The majority of the time on the first day was set aside for one of the most contentious issues of all – that of provincial powers. 

One of the Constitutional Principles which had been inserted at the demand of the federalists, stated that provincial powers in the final Constitution should ‘not be substantially less than, or substantially inferior to’ the powers given to the provinces in the interim Constitution. The National Party (NP), Democratic Party (DP) and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) all believed that the final text diminished provincial powers and fell short of their hopes for building a decentralised system of government in the provinces. The NP and DP stood up to argue for political autonomy and greater legislative and executive powers for the provinces. The IFP who just days before, had endured a scathing rejection in the same Court during their attempt to certify their own provincial constitution, nonetheless clung to their moment to finally have their views heard in public.

Bizos intervened to remind the Court that, “The powers of the provinces had been deliberately limited in the draft text to avoid the possibility that one or other province might seek a level of autonomy bordering on independence. … A substantial part of the negotiating parties insisted on a unitary state; it was part of the pact that they entered. This is why, poignant as the call [by the NP’s advocate] is, for the minority to have their rights respected, we must remember after all, the majority also have rights.” Later NP Advocate Heunis was to implore the Justices: “The Constitutional Principles were arduously formed to serve the rainbow nation. May you too, Justices, serve the rainbow nation well.