In the 30 years since the dawn of democracy in SA, people have been able to access civil remedies if they suffered harm as a result of wrongful actions by others.

The law of delict is a piece of legislation that provides victims with recourse or civil remedy by claiming compensation.During apartheid, marginalised people, especially black people, could not access civil remedies.

However, post-1994, there has been significant improvement. Most of the forms of inequality which prevented aggrieved individuals from holding the government accountable for any civil wrongs, began to disappear.

And so did the laws designed to give the state immunity from failure to administer justice. Just as the fundamental rights such as dignity and equality could no longer be disregarded, so were the rights and values in the law of delict.

Another sad characteristic of the apartheid era was the absence of judicial independence. Courts were biased in their decision-making. This was mainly because of the political intrusion by the governing party at the time. It took the democratic government to put a stop to such a political overreach and ensure a just application of the law of delict in respect of civil liability.

This was demonstrated in cases that involved human rights violations. “New ” delicts have emerged and there is now an acknowledgment by the government that it has a responsibility to protect human rights.

It did not take too long before the courts adapted to our newly found democracy, which then filtered into the application of the principles in the law of delict. At present, there are countless cases of individuals holding the government accountable for the harm they sustained.

One such case is that of Mdunyiswa Mtolo in 2021, who spent 32 months in prison after being “maliciously arrested” by police. After he laid a civil case, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court awarded him almost R3.4m in damages.

Another case is that of Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security in 2001, which involved a rape victim who accused a man on parole, with a history of violence against women, of raping her.

She claimed the SA Police Service had been negligent in monitoring the man while on parole, leading to the rape. She sued the minister, alleging a violation of her constitutional right to security of person.

The Constitutional Court ruled in her favour, finding that the police had been negligent in safeguarding her. This landmark decision set a precedent for holding government agencies accountable for failing to prevent harm. Though the changes over the past 30 years are commendable, challenges remain with our legal system.

One of the major challenges is that low-income South Africans still struggle to access courts and fair treatment. Making matters worse is a backlog of cases, which leads to individuals who have suffered a wrong having to wait far too long before their cases can be heard. To keep the law fair and up to date, the courts need to adapt to and embrace an ever-changing world of technology. Only then can we ensure that justice is served.

■ Dr Khan is senior lecturer, department of private law at the University of Johannesburg