At the end of April 2025, the Constitutional Court set aside a policy directive by the prisons authorities that prohibited the use of personal computers in cells for the purposes of further education in circumstances where the use is reasonably required for such further education. In order to avail themselves of the benefits of this case, prisoners will need to show that the use of a laptop in their cell is reasonably required for the purposes of further education. The specific decision is not of general importance but some useful things were said about the application of the Constitution to laws and rules.

The court held that incarceration does not take away nor limit fundamental rights like education (including further education), dignity and access to reading material. Reading material includes computers and material in an electronic format which are now essential for many studies. The right to further education in section 29 of the Constitution must be generously interpreted to encompass all forms of education not only basic education. This plainly includes tertiary education.

The court applied section 36(1) of the Constitution. If any law or policy limits fundamental rights, that limitation can only be justified if it is a “law of general application”. The policy of the prison authorities was found to be a species of delegated legislation imposing a duty of compliance on all concerned and was therefore a law of general application. A blanket prohibition on the use of computers was not justified. The government authority concerned bore a negative duty not to impair the prisoners’ rights to further education. The duty of the State is to remove barriers to education and actively allow access to the necessary resources to realise the right to education.

Many people object to rights being given to prisoners. The courts have, over many decades, acknowledged that prisoners retain the constitutional rights of an ordinary citizen except those rights that are necessary consequences of imprisonment (such as freedom of movement, choice regarding the place of imprisonment, and submission to the discipline of prison life, rules and regulations that do not take away fundamental rights unrelated to freedom of movement).

[Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Ntuli [2025] ZACC 7]