SA Constitutional Court Issues Verdict on the President and the Parliament

SOUTH AFRICA - In Brief 31 Mar 2016 by Iraj Abedian

---

Arguably, today's SA Constitutional Court's (ConCourt) verdict is its most significant judgement in the country's young and evolving constitutional democracy. The verdict deals with an important clarification about the binding, or otherwise, of the country's Public Protector Office findings- one of the key pillars of the country's constitutional framework for keeping the government accountable for the use of public funds. The case is even more important, and politically sensational, as it pertains to the President's use of public funds for the upgrade of his traditional homestead- the Nkandla Case running into 100s of millions of rand of fiscal resources. The Public Protector had issued a report back in 2013 to ask the Parliament to ask the President to pay back some of the public money used for the private benefit of President and his family. It was left to the Parliament to determine the quantum of President's liability. Instead of abiding by the Public Protector's recommendations, the President and the Parliament used their political dominance in the Parliament to ignore the Public Protector's report, and further mock her, intimidate her, and deny her the necessary funding for her further investigations. This eventually led to the case being taken to the ConCourt by two of the country's opposition parties- the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Economic Freedom Fighters(EEF). The full bench of the ConCourt reached unanimous verdict that the President has failed to uphold his oath to protect the Constitution and the Office of Public Protector. It also reached the conclusion that the Parliament failed to discharge its constitutional responsibility of holding into accoun...