Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share ConCourt rules SAHRC can’t issue legally binding directives
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
ConCourt rules SAHRC can’t issue legally binding directives
ConCourt rules SAHRC can't issue legally binding directives
A Constitutional Court ruling has affirmed that the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) does not have the authority to issue legally binding directives.
The judgment in the matter of SAHRC v Agro Data CC and FC, brought to an end a long-standing battle regarding the scope of powers held by Chapter 9 institutions.
The dispute originated from a 2018 complaint by Tubatsi Mosotho and other occupiers of De Doorn Hock Farm in Mpumalanga. They alleged that the farm owner, Francois Gerhardus Boshoff, and Agro Data CC had unilaterally restricted their access to borehole water.
Following an investigation, the SAHRC concluded that the respondents violated the occupiers' constitutional rights to water and dignity and issued directives requiring Agro Data to restore the water supply within seven days and to engage in good faith discussions regarding water management.
When the respondents failed to comply, the SAHRC approached the High Court to have its directives declared binding and enforceable.
The Constitutional Court, upholding previous rulings from the Mpumalanga High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, found that while the SAHRC is mandated to protect human rights, it lacks the statutory authority to issue directives that are binding in nature, similar to those of a court order.
The civil rights organisation AfriForum on Wednesday welcomed the ruling with Campaign Officer Louis Boshoff hailing the decision as a "victory for a well-balanced distribution of power within a constitutional framework".
Boshoff said the ruling sets a vital precedent for how the Commission must operate moving forward.
"No politically or ideologically driven finding of the Human Rights Commission can henceforth be imposed on citizens. The SAHRC was reminded of this today," he said.
AfriForum, which was a friend of the court in this case, has frequently criticised the SAHRC over the last two decades, alleging that many of its findings have been influenced by political or racial bias.
The organisation maintained that the court ruling serves as a "necessary check" to ensure the commission does not overstep its constitutionally mandated role.
Boshoff pointed out that AgroData did not oppose the SAHRC's appeal and as such did not present arguments in court.
"The fact that the appeal was heard unopposed drew extraordinary attention to AfriForum's role as friend of the court. Ultimately, there is agreement between AfriForum's argument and the ruling delivered today," he said.
View all episodes
By PolityConCourt rules SAHRC can't issue legally binding directives
A Constitutional Court ruling has affirmed that the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) does not have the authority to issue legally binding directives.
The judgment in the matter of SAHRC v Agro Data CC and FC, brought to an end a long-standing battle regarding the scope of powers held by Chapter 9 institutions.
The dispute originated from a 2018 complaint by Tubatsi Mosotho and other occupiers of De Doorn Hock Farm in Mpumalanga. They alleged that the farm owner, Francois Gerhardus Boshoff, and Agro Data CC had unilaterally restricted their access to borehole water.
Following an investigation, the SAHRC concluded that the respondents violated the occupiers' constitutional rights to water and dignity and issued directives requiring Agro Data to restore the water supply within seven days and to engage in good faith discussions regarding water management.
When the respondents failed to comply, the SAHRC approached the High Court to have its directives declared binding and enforceable.
The Constitutional Court, upholding previous rulings from the Mpumalanga High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, found that while the SAHRC is mandated to protect human rights, it lacks the statutory authority to issue directives that are binding in nature, similar to those of a court order.
The civil rights organisation AfriForum on Wednesday welcomed the ruling with Campaign Officer Louis Boshoff hailing the decision as a "victory for a well-balanced distribution of power within a constitutional framework".
Boshoff said the ruling sets a vital precedent for how the Commission must operate moving forward.
"No politically or ideologically driven finding of the Human Rights Commission can henceforth be imposed on citizens. The SAHRC was reminded of this today," he said.
AfriForum, which was a friend of the court in this case, has frequently criticised the SAHRC over the last two decades, alleging that many of its findings have been influenced by political or racial bias.
The organisation maintained that the court ruling serves as a "necessary check" to ensure the commission does not overstep its constitutionally mandated role.
Boshoff pointed out that AgroData did not oppose the SAHRC's appeal and as such did not present arguments in court.
"The fact that the appeal was heard unopposed drew extraordinary attention to AfriForum's role as friend of the court. Ultimately, there is agreement between AfriForum's argument and the ruling delivered today," he said.