Amending rules and regulations without breaking them.

← All insights

Most regulatory reform does not fail in court. It fails quietly, in the drafting — in an amendment that overreaches its empowering provision, a definition that now contradicts the instrument it lives in, or a repeal that takes down more than it meant to. The law of subordinate legislation is demanding; the craft of amending it is more demanding still.

South African regulation mostly lives below the level of Acts of Parliament: in regulations, rules, codes and notices made under an enabling Act. That is where scopes of practice are defined, conduct is policed and industries actually feel the law. When a regulator modernises that framework, the substance of the policy usually gets the attention. The drafting discipline — which decides whether the policy survives contact with reality — often does not. What follows are five disciplines that separate durable amendments from fragile ones.

1. Every amendment begins upstream.

Subordinate legislation has no life of its own. Every regulation and every rule exists only because a section of the enabling Act says it may — and only to the extent that section allows. So the first question in any amendment project is never “what do we want the rule to say?” It is: “does the empowering provision authorise a rule that says this?”

This matters most when content migrates between instruments — when material moves from regulations into rules, or from a code into regulations. The two instruments are usually made by different functionaries, under different sections, through different procedures. Content that was perfectly lawful in one home can be ultra vires in another. Helpfully, the Interpretation Act confirms that a power to make regulations or rules generally includes the power to amend, vary or withdraw them — but it does not stretch the underlying power by a millimetre. The boundary of the empowering provision is the boundary of the amendment.

2. Write in the instrument’s own voice.

Every mature legislative instrument has a voice: its defined terms, its use of “must” and “may”, its numbering conventions, its tense and register. An amendment written in a different voice does not merely look untidy — it creates interpretive doubt, because courts and practitioners assume that a change in language signals a change in meaning.

The reader of an amended instrument should not be able to see the seams.

In practice this means auditing the instrument’s existing style before drafting a word: where definitions live and how they are introduced; whether obligations are cast in the imperative or the indicative; how cross-references are formatted; how sub-regulations, paragraphs and subparagraphs are lettered and numbered. The new text must read as though the original drafter wrote it. Surgical drafting is as much mimicry as it is law.

3. Cut with a scalpel, not a chainsaw.

The safest amendments are textual: they substitute, insert or delete identified words, paragraphs or provisions, by precise reference — and they do nothing else. Wholesale re-enactment of an instrument has its place in a deliberate consolidation, but as a routine amendment technique it is dangerous: it silently restarts interpretive history, disturbs settled cross-references, and invites accidental substantive change.

A disciplined amendment schedule also hunts down the consequential amendments: every cross-reference to the amended provision, every defined term that leaned on the deleted text, every form or annexure that quoted it. An amendment that repeals a provision but leaves five references to it standing has not simplified the framework — it has booby-trapped it.

4. Harmonise in both directions.

An amended instrument must sit consistently within a hierarchy: upward, with its enabling Act, the Constitution and cross-cutting national legislation — administrative-justice, information-protection and sector statutes among them; and sideways, with the sibling instruments made under the same Act, where rules, regulations and codes commonly co-exist.

The sideways check is the one most often skipped, and the one practitioners feel most. Where two instruments under the same Act speak to the same subject in slightly different language, the people regulated by them inherit a dual-compliance problem no one intended. The working tool here is unglamorous but decisive: a provision-by-provision concordance recording where each existing provision now lives — preserved, amended, relocated or deliberately repealed — so that continuity is a matter of record rather than recollection.

5. Process is part of the product.

Subordinate legislation can be set aside not only for what it says but for how it was made. Enabling Acts routinely prescribe consultation with affected boards, professions or the public before rules are made or amended; administrative-justice principles add their own expectations of fair, participatory process where the public is materially affected; and the instrument only speaks once it is properly published, with clear commencement and transitional provisions. A technically perfect amendment adopted through a defective process is not a perfect amendment — it is a pending review application.

Transitional provisions deserve particular respect. People hold registrations, run practices and perform contracts under the old text. The amendment must say, expressly, what happens to them — because silence on transition is not neutrality, it is litigation.

The test of good amendment work

When it is done well, amended subordinate legislation is boring in the best sense: the empowering chain is intact, the voice is uniform, the cuts are clean, the hierarchy is harmonised and the process is documented. The reader sees a coherent instrument, not a patchwork. That is what legal certainty looks like at the level where regulation actually operates — and it is the standard against which any reform, however well-intentioned, will eventually be measured.

This piece is general commentary on drafting practice. It is not legal advice on any specific matter, and no professional relationship arises from reading it.