The South Gauteng High Court recently handed down judgment in a matter concerning the dissolution of the Board of the Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB). It is common knowledge that this constitutionally-established body has failed monumentally to meet its mandate and fulfil its objectives. This has been true from its inception. Whilst the decision is notable because it brought a much-needed halt to the hijacking of PanSALB for personal financial gain, an important ruling concerning unscrupulous legal practitioners was made.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that in January 2016, the Minister of Arts and Culture (the Minister) sent a letter to the First Applicant, Madiba – the Chairperson of the Board – informing him of his decision to dissolve said Board. Section 5(5A) of the Pan South African Language Board Act (PanSALB Act) authorises the Minister to dissolve the Board on any reasonable grounds. The applicants (all members of the Board) were appointed in April 2014. Following the receipt of the letter, Madiba, allegedly on behalf of the entire Board, applied to the Court requesting a declaration that the Minister’s decision to dissolve the Board was unlawful and invalid. He also requested the decision to be reviewed and set aside.

On Tuesday, 15 August, a number of African National Congress (ANC) Members of Parliament (MPs) wrote a letter to the party’s Chief Whip, Jackson Mthembu, informing him that they would not be attending any Parliamentary Portfolio Committee meetings chaired by their fellow ANC MP, Makhosi Khoza. They attributed this to her open criticism of President Jacob Zuma and her controversial support for the recently conducted Motion of No Confidence vote. While Mthembu has strongly condemned the conduct of the concerned MPs, the five individuals boycotted the Public Service and Administration Portfolio Committee meeting scheduled to question its corresponding Minister, Faith Muthambi, which is, incidentally, chaired by Khoza.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) welcomes today’s decision handed down by the Johannesburg High Court regarding the powers of the Public Protector. The decision set aside the Public Protector’s recommendation that the Constitution be amended to change the mandate of the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and further dismissed the Public Protector’s recommendation that the Chairperson of Parliament’s Committee on Justice and Correctional Services and the SARB submit an action plan detailing how the remedial action recommendation would be implemented.

The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) appeared before the North Gauteng High Court early this year in Molefe and Others v Minister of Transport and Others, and the Court ruled that administrative action conducted by the State must be accompanied by a rational nexus. By then, the gravity of the trouble brewing at other State-Owned Entities (SOEs) had been highlighted repeatedly in the press. PRASA had previously made news headlines following reports by the Public Protector and the Auditor-General citing irregular expenditure and corruption within the parastatal. Not too long thereafter, PRASA was again making headlines in relation to the purchase of incompatible locomotives and the corrupt manner in which the tender for the trains was awarded. The impunity with which officials at the SOE continued to operate led to a scathing indictment of corruption of SOEs by the South Gauteng High Court in Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Swifambo Rail Agency.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) recently submitted comments to the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform regarding the Draft Property Valuation Act Regulations. The Draft Regulations, as read with the Property Valuation Act, signed into law in 2015, aim to establish a formula to be used by valuers when assessing property.  Officials from the Valuer-General’s office, as created by the Property Valuation Act, will determine, in line with the mentioned methodology, the value of all property identified for land reform purposes.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) calls for the protection of journalists and other personnel in the media, in view of the ever-increasing documented attacks on journalists, including Ferial Haffajee and Peter Bruce. Suna Venter’s death from natural causes, after sustained harassment, kidnapping and assaults is a grim reminder of the increasing vulnerability of practicing journalists in South Africa today.

“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”, wrote Louis Brandeis in 1914 – but that statement holds true for all ages. The Constitution makes accountability, openness and transparency the nation’s default values and the media in large part ensures that these default values remain as such. Freedom of expression too, is guaranteed in the Constitution, and it makes express allowance for freedom of the press and other media.  As such, the unwarranted and unlawful attacks on journalists are a direct assault on the Constitution.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) welcomes the decision handed down yesterday by the Constitutional Court (the Court) in UDM v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, in which the Court made apparent that the Rules of Parliament, in line with the Constitution, allow for a secret ballot in motions of no confidence in the President.

Importantly, the Court made apparent the meaning of South Africa as a constitutional democracy – that “…governance structures [are] created to breathe life into our collective aspirations.” Pertinently the decision underscores that members of the National Assembly, as well as the President, swear an oath of office, which oath is a grave commitment to upholding the Constitution on behalf of the people of South Africa. Public office comes with responsibility – and should not be used for the advancement of personal or sectarian interests. Despite the enormous power which public office wields it is always subject to checks and balances. Accordingly, a motion of no confidence in the President is one such means of holding accountable the head of the nation’s Executive branch of government.