Economic Freedom Fighters v

Speaker of the National Assembly

and Others; Democratic Alliance v
Speaker of the National Assembly
and Others 2016 (5) BCLR 618 (CC)
Facts
• EFF filed a court application against the speaker of the National
Assembly to compel then President Zuma to comply with Public
Protector Report (dubbed Nkandla report).
• In the interim, Parliament (ANC-led fraction) constitutes an investigative
committee parallel to the Public Protector that exonerates the President
from wrongdoing.
• Also, in the interim, SCA (in a separate matter) finds that Public Protector
recommendations are legally binding. SCA judgement reverses the high
court judgement that found that Public Protector reports are merely
advisory.
•
Issues
• Did the President act in breach of his constitutional obligations in
terms of sections 96(1), (2)(b) and (c) of the Constitution.

• Furthermore, The President’s constitutional responsibilities and duties

were in question, as outlined by S83, S167 and S181
Judgement
• Concourt confirms SCA ruling that Public Protector reports are
binding.
• National Assembly’s exoneration of the Presidents’ conduct was
unlawful and unconstitutional.
• President's failure to comply with the remedial action taken against
him by the Public Protector was inconsistent with his obligations to
uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the
Republic. In particular, the failure by the President was inconsistent
with section 83(b) read together with sections 181(3) and 182(1)(c) of
the Constitution.
Rationale
• Purposive interpretation of the South African Constitution. Without
any real powers to make binding recommendations, the office of the
Public Protector would be ineffective.
• Public Protector reports/recommendations must be implemented
unless a court of law sets them aside.