The ruling followed an application by advocate Roshnee Mansingh for an order declaring that the president has no powers in terms of section 849(2)(k) of the constitution to confer the status of senior counsel, known as silk, on advocates.

Mansingh has practised as an advocate at the Johannesburg bar for 13 years but has failed on several occasions to be appointed a senior counsel.

She is a practising barrister and a member of the bar of England and Wales.

She was of the opinion that the president's powers to confer honours do not include the power to confer the status of senior counsel on advocates, and that there is no basis in law that would so empower him.

Mansingh said that the conferring of the status of senior counsel on an advocate by the president could not be regarded as an honour.

Judge Legodi Phatudi said that, in his view, the word "honour" can be defined as having respect for a person who did something good beyond human expectations.

"In this context, honour has an element of 'admiration'. On the other hand, a person may feel honoured to be unexpectedly chosen to be in a team of someone respectable, or to be granted a particular honourable and respectable status.

"The respect the chosen may have for such a respectable person may mean that one would not like to compete with such a person and would always wish to be on that person's side. In this context 'fear' is an element."

Mansingh said the presidency's website states that honours that may be conferred by the president as national orders are, among others, the Order of Luthuli, which recognises meaningful contributions and distinguished service to the country.

She said the presidency's website does not include the conferring of senior counsel status, which indicates that the status is not an honour.

The judge said the framers of the constitution could not have been comfortable that the powers of the president to confer honours include the power to confer senior counsel status.

Phatudi said "advocates who qualify" to be accorded the status of senior counsel apply to be so honoured.

"On perusal of the Presidency website, it is clear that the Presidency sought to move away from the past and the president's advisory council on national orders was given a task and responsibility to review the system of national orders and awards.

"I am of the view that the non-inclusion of conferment of [the status of] senior counsel on the Presidency website is not such 'honour' as envisaged in terms of section 84(20)(k), is correct and the submission is not misplaced.

"I am reluctant to accept that the framers of our . . . constitution were comfortable that the president is empowered to confer the status of senior counsel on practising advocates."

Phatudi asked if the services and contributions made by practising advocates were exceptional or beyond the call of duty that warrant an award of the status of senior counsel.

The judge concluded by saying: "It is indeed correct that granting this relief sought will imply that all awards of s enior c ounsel status made since the advent of the interim c onstitution on 27 April 1994 are invalid.

"The applicant states that it does not follow that such awards should be set aside," the judge said.

Phatudi said that he was not required to consider this aspect as Mansingh did not seek such relief and he would leave it in the hands of the legal profession or another forum.