SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.24When do you call time on a compromise? South Africa's discourse on transformation and the future of transformative constitutionalism author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Law, Democracy and Development

On-line version ISSN 2077-4907
Print version ISSN 1028-1053

Abstract

SLADE, Bradley V.. The implications of the Public Protector's remedial action directing the exercise of discretionary constitutional powers: separation of powers implications. Law democr. Dev. [online]. 2020, vol.24, pp.364-388. ISSN 2077-4907.  http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2077-4907/2020/ldd.v24.15.

This article considers the judgments of the North Gauteng High Court in which the remedial action of the Public Protector was reviewed. In President of the RSA v Public Protector, delivered in 2018, the Court upheld the remedial action directing the President to appoint a commission of inquiry without having regard to the separation of powers doctrine. The decision stands in contrast to an earlier decision (SARB v Public Protector) and a later decision (RSA v Public Protector) where the Court set aside the remedial action of the Public Protector that also purported to direct the exercise of discretionary constitutional powers. In these cases, the remedial action was set aside after proper regard was had to the separation of powers doctrine. This article therefore considers these diverging approaches where the court reviews the remedial action of the Public Protector directing the exercise of discretionary constitutional powers. It considers the effects of not consistently having regard to the separation of powers doctrine in reviewing the remedial action of the Public Protector. It is argued that the inconsistent invocation of this doctrine leads to legal uncertainty specifically in relation to the exercise of the President's discretionary constitutional power as head of state to appoint a commission of inquiry. Furthermore, the article considers the effect the failure to review the Public Protector's remedial action consistently from a separation of powers perspective may have on the Public Protector's ability to adequately fulfil the mandate of strengthening constitutional democracy.

Keywords : Public Protector; remedial action; separation of powers; commissions of inquiry.

        · text in English     · English ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License