Abstract
In the State of Capture report the public protector instructed the president to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the capture of state institutions by the Gupta family. The president and his family are personally implicated and due to a conflict of interests, the public protector limited both his choice of a commissioner to conduct the inquiry and the power to specify certain terms of reference. In the Economic Freedom Fighters, the Constitutional Court ruled that the public protector's remedial action is legally binding and must be executed by the state organs concerned. President Zuma challenges the remedial action on the basis that it is the sole prerogative of the head of state under section 84(2)(f) of the Constitution to appoint commissions of inquiry and that it is an unfettered discretionary power, which may not be limited. It is not only doubtful whether the responsibility to appoint commissions of inquiry is invariably a discretionary power; it is also doubtful whether the president has an unfettered discretion. In the case of a conflict of interest the president would in any event be barred from taking a decision in terms of the nemo iudex maxim if the decision could be tainted by bias. The difficulty is that section 90 of the Constitution does not regulate the ad hoc exercise of section-84(2) powers by another state organ when the president should recuse himself from taking a decision. The limitations imposed by the public protector in regard to the commission of inquiry appear to be the best solution under the circumstances.
Highlights
President Zuma has challenged the validity of the remedial action that the former Public Protector, Advocate Madonsela, prescribed in her State of Capture report
President Zuma challenges the remedial action on the basis that it is the sole prerogative of the head of state under section 84(2)(f) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 to appoint commissions of inquiry and that it is an unfettered discretionary power, which may not be limited
In terms of the remedial action in the State of Capture report, the president is required to appoint a commission of inquiry into the capture of state institutions by the Gupta family, who used their connections to him to manipulate cabinet and other appointments and to enrich themselves through tainted state procurement
Summary
President Zuma has challenged the validity of the remedial action that the former Public Protector, Advocate Madonsela, prescribed in her State of Capture report. The key issue is how to reconcile the powers of the public protector to take remedial action under section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) with the powers of the respective state organs that should execute the remedial action, in casu, the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the alleged capture of state institutions by the Gupta family.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
