Directives that emerge from SA Human Rights Commission investigations are not legally binding, the Constitutional Court has ruled.
Luba Lesolle/Gallo Images
Directives that emerge from SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) investigations are not legally binding, the Constitutional Court has ruled.
“After the SAHRC concludes investigations into complaints, it may issue recommendations for redress. Should respondents decline, the SAHRC would be required to litigate the matter on the underlying facts,” Justice Steven Majiedt said when he read the unanimous judgment.
The SAHRC challenged a case arising from a 2018 dispute in which farm owner Gerhardus Boschoff restricted access to borehole water for the Mosotho family in Mpumalanga.
After an investigation, the SAHRC issued formal directives ordering the restoration of water and meaningful engagement. However, Boshoff did not comply.
The SAHRC sought a High Court order declaring their directives legally binding, but the application was dismissed.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that the SAHRC has the power to “take steps to secure appropriate redress” but lacks the authority to issue binding remedial orders like those of the Public Protector.
The court ruled that the SAHRC must instead approach a competent court to enforce its findings, as part of its constitutional mandate.
From there, the matter went to the Constitutional Court.
More to follow.
Discover the Truth
Step into a world where the truth shines bright, and every headline is worth your time. With News24, you’re not just reading the news; you are part of a community that values knowledge and insight. Immerse yourself in compelling stories, sharp analyses, and content that keeps you ahead of the curve.
