IT WAS in that township of sad memories that the real stuff happened. In that township of permanent scars. Of blood and anger. The battleground of freedom and oppression.

One where the human spirit, yearning for freedom, eventually triumphed over the inhumane system designed to permanently condemn Africans to being sub-human beings.

This is where the future of South Africa as a civilised society was sealed. It is where the ideals of the liberation struggle were, in a way, cast in stone.

It was in Sharpeville. This is where on December 10 1996, former president Nelson Mandela signed the South African Constitution into the supreme law of the land.

At that moment all the rights South Africans had yearned for since settler colonialism took effect were enshrined following lengthy negotiations between various political parties.

The rights and freedoms enshrined therein - freedom of thought, of expression, association, religion and artistic creativity and other socioeconomic rights - were not only meant for the previously oppressed. They were all-embracing.

These rights would also benefit the perpetrators of apartheid and transform the position of disenfranchised Africans, giving them full citizenship. The Constitution was, in effect, the culmination of the Freedom Charter.

Mandela had decided to sign the Constitution in Sharpeville as a symbolic gesture to close the chapter of apartheid brutality.

For it is in Sharpeville that 69 people were murdered in cold blood by the apartheid regime for demanding their inherent rights to be free human beings. Many others were maimed, while yet others were imprisoned.

This weekend marks the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. I know that there is an anniversary that is being marketed by many as more important than any other.

Not even a word about the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. I wonder whether this communicates any message about the country's priorities.

The ANC's centenary celebrations next year are obviously very important in our political calendar.

It is understandable that the so-called VIPs will be descending on Mangaung in Bloemfontein to celebrate the day on which the enlightened - and not poor, by the way! - African aristocrats formed the African Native Congress.

Yes, many could make the valid argument that without the struggle waged by the ANC, we would not have had the Constitution.

This, notwithstanding the fact that had it been the ANC comrades alone who drafted the Constitution, the document would have been different in many respects.

The ANC centenary celebrations have been billed as a national celebration. But, in the Constitution we have the outcome of the struggle. In the Constitution we have a success indicator of the struggle that was launched almost a 100 years ago.

It is therefore disturbing that we seem hellbent on celebrating the origins of the struggle rather than its outcome.

The two should not be mutually exclusive. If the ANC is to spend millions of rand celebrating its birthday, one would suggest an equal amount be spent to celebrate 15 years of the Constitution. Isn't this our supreme law?

But maybe a Constitution does not need pomp and ceremony, and the inherent desire to be flamboyant - all of which will certainly be the defining features of Mangaung. Maybe the Constitution could be celebrated differently at no cost to the taxpayer.

It could be celebrated not by diverting funds from corporate social investment accounts of many companies, funds that would otherwise go towards alleviating poverty.

A celebration of the Constitution would not require the expensive tight security measures that are being put in place in Mangaung. It would not require any government officials to use taxpayers' money to drive or fly to Mangaung.

The Constitution could be celebrated anywhere, at any time. In fact, it would not necessarily require to be celebrated in a particular day. The Constitution is something we should live. It is a bible that is usable across all religions.

How then to celebrate it? Simple. We need to live by the rule of law which is what the Constitution is all about.

This is the rule by which former top cop Jackie Selebi's position in society would not matter when it comes to matters of law.

When in the slightest provocation citizens threaten to take government or whoever to the ConCourt, it is the celebration of the Constitution.

It means there is, in the minds of the citizens, an ingrained belief through reference to the Constitution, the court would be in a position to arbitrate societal disputes.

When the Supreme Court of Appeal issues a lengthy judgment, or a lecture in constitutional law directed at President Jacob Zuma, as an esteemed colleague described the Menzi Simelane ruling, we should celebrate this.

We should understand it as the consequence of a living Constitution.

For as long as the Constitution remains a living document that we are so happy to refer to at any given point, even when we are in trouble, to invoke our rights, then our political civilisation will remain intact.

This does not detract from the fact that there continues to be the noisy elements who, through their rhetoric and conduct, are giving messages that the Constitution is a big error.

Some of the noisy elements know so little about the Constitution you begin to wonder whether they were enjoying their tea at the Constitutional Assembly or whether they were engaged in intellectual debates about South Africa's future.

Fifteen years of an enduring human rights-based supreme law!

It's a feat. The political chaos around us notwithstanding, we must beat ourselves on the chest.