The Constitutional Court has ruled that the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) cannot issue binding directives after investigating alleged rights violations, drawing a constitutional line between the commission’s watchdog mandate and the coercive powers it argued were implied by law.
In a unanimous judgment handed down on Wednesday in South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC and Another, the apex court dismissed the commission’s appeal and held that, where its findings are ignored, it must seek relief through a competent court rather than compel compliance on its own authority.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by occupiers on the Mpumalanga farm De Doorn Hoek in 2018, who alleged that respondents Agro Data CC and Francois Gerhardus Boshoff had restricted their access to borehole water.
ALSO READ: Nkosi denied bail, remanded in custody
After investigating, the commission found that the occupiers’ right of access to water had been violated. It directed that water access be restored, while also requiring the parties to engage in good-faith discussions over the management of the resource.
The Mpumalanga High Court and, later, the Supreme Court of Appeal, both found against the commission’s claim that its directives were binding, prompting it to seek final clarity from the Constitutional Court on the meaning of its power under section 184 of the Constitution to “take steps to secure appropriate redress”.
The Constitutional Court was not persuaded that either section 184(2)(b) of the Constitution or the SAHRC Act could be read to confer binding remedial authority on the commission.
In doing so, it distinguished the SAHRC from the Public Protector, whose remedial action may, in certain circumstances, have binding effect — a comparison on which the commission had relied in pressing its appeal.
ALSO READ: Masemola to appear with ‘Cat’ Matlala as state amends SAPS tender charge sheet
The court made clear, however, that the SAHRC remains an important institution for the investigation of abuses, protection of vulnerable complainants, and the pursuit of redress.
Interpreting the SAHRC’s powers as non-binding does not undermine its constitutional role, the court said. “Rather, it remains an important institution that promotes human rights through investigation, advocacy, and facilitating access to justice.”
