Corruption Watch (RF) NPC v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2025] ZACC 15
Date: 1 August 2025
This case is reportable due to its significant implications for public participation in the appointment processes of Chapter 9 institutions in South Africa. The Constitutional Court's ruling emphasizes the necessity for the National Assembly to facilitate reasonable public involvement, thereby reinforcing democratic principles and accountability in governance.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the National Assembly failed to comply with its constitutional obligation to facilitate reasonable public involvement in the appointment of Commissioners to the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE). The court declared the appointments invalid and suspended the declaration of invalidity for 12 months to allow for a compliant appointment process.
The key legal issues addressed include: - The obligation of the National Assembly to facilitate public participation in the appointment process. - The sufficiency of information provided to the public regarding candidates. - The reasonableness of the time allowed for public comments and the mode of submission.
The court held that the National Assembly's failure to ensure adequate public participation rendered the appointment process unconstitutional. The appointments of the fifth to ninth respondents as Commissioners were declared invalid, with a 12-month suspension of this declaration to allow for a new appointment process.
Corruption Watch, a non-profit organization, challenged the appointment process of Commissioners to the CGE, alleging that the National Assembly did not facilitate adequate public involvement. The Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities invited public nominations but limited the information available about candidates and restricted the time for public comments to 14 days. Corruption Watch argued that this process was flawed and did not allow for meaningful public participation.
The court had to decide whether the National Assembly fulfilled its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in the appointment process, whether the information provided was sufficient for meaningful participation, and whether the time and mode of submission for public comments were reasonable.
The court analyzed the obligations imposed by the Constitution regarding public participation, emphasizing that public involvement is a cornerstone of democracy. It found that the National Assembly's actions were unreasonable, as they did not provide sufficient information about candidates, limited the time for public comments, and relied solely on an online submission form that excluded many potential participants. The court underscored that public participation must be meaningful and capable of influencing the decision-making process.
The court declared the appointments of the fifth to ninth respondents invalid but suspended this declaration for 12 months to allow the National Assembly to conduct a new appointment process that complies with constitutional requirements. The first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs, including the costs of two counsel.
The case established several key legal principles: - The National Assembly has a constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in its processes. - Public participation must be meaningful, with adequate information provided to the public. - The reasonableness of the time allowed for public comments and the mode of submission must be assessed objectively. - A failure to comply with these obligations can render the conduct invalid and unconstitutional.