THE Constitutional Court has unanimously ruled that the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) lacks the authority to issue binding directives, requiring it to seek court intervention for enforcement.
Image: South African Human Rights Commission
The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) says it will continue to use all available mechanisms, including litigation, to secure redress for victims of human rights violations.
This follows a ruling by the Constitutional Court of South Africa that the commission does not have the power to issue binding findings.
In a statement on Thursday, the commission said it was carefully studying the judgment and its implications for its work.
“The SAHRC notes the judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court concerning the nature and scope of its powers under section 184 of the Constitution.
“The Commission has previously raised concerns that requiring enforcement through courts in all instances of non-compliance may delay the resolution of human rights violations, increase costs for affected persons and communities, and place additional strain on both institutional and judicial resources.
“These practical implications remain important in understanding the full impact of the judgment," the SAHRC said.
The commission emphasised that its findings and recommendations continue to carry significant weight and should be respected, given serious consideration, and implemented unless there are valid reasons not to do so.
“(The SAHRC) remains committed to utilising all available mechanisms, including litigation where necessary, to ensure that effective redress is secured for those whose rights have been violated.”
The judgment stems from a legal challenge that began in the Mbombela High Court in 2022, where the SAHRC sought a blanket order declaring its directives automatically binding.
The case arises from a complaint by the occupiers of the De Doorn Hoek Farm in Mpumalanga, who were deprived of access to water.
The Commission investigated the complaint and issued directives to restore access to water and uphold the dignity of the complainants.
It said the matter before the court raises broader questions about access to justice, particularly for vulnerable communities that rely on the Commission as an accessible forum for the resolution of human rights complaints.
“At the heart of this matter lay three important constitutional questions: when the Commission issues directives after finding that human rights have been violated, can those directives be disregarded by persons against whom they are directed; what recourse does the SAHRC have when directives are ignored; and whether the Commission must approach the courts to give its findings a binding effect for every case?
“The Constitutional Court has clarified that, after concluding an investigation, the SAHRC may issue directives as to appropriate redress. Where a respondent declines to act in accordance with those recommendations, the Commission or the complainant may approach a court to obtain appropriate relief. In this process, the Court recognised that the SAHRC’s investigations and reports will ordinarily provide the evidentiary foundation necessary to advance such cases.
“The Court further confirmed that the Commission’s powers under section 184(2)(b) are primarily investigative and facilitative, requiring it to take steps to secure appropriate redress rather than to provide binding remedies itself.
"Although the Commission does not exercise adjudicative or remedial powers in the same manner as a court, its central constitutional role in supporting constitutional democracy remains firmly affirmed.
“Importantly, the Court emphasised the continuing strength and relevance of the Commission.”
Cape Times