Botha v Commission For Gender Equality and Others (58057/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 149; [2023] 6 BLLR 598 (GJ); (2023) 44 ILJ 1796 (GJ) (15 February 2023)

Botha v Commission For Gender Equality and Others (58057/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 149; [2023] 6 BLLR 598 (GJ); (2023) 44 ILJ 1796 (GJ) (15 February 2023)

Section 194(3)(a) of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous: only the President may suspend a Commissioner of a Chapter 9 institution, and only after the commencement of removal proceedings by a committee of the National Assembly. The Commission for Gender Equality's Code of Conduct cannot confer upon itself a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 149
Parties
Applicant: Mbuyiselo Botha; Respondent: Commission for Gender Equality; Respondent: Tamara Mathebula N.O.; Respondent: Nthabiseng Moleko N.O.; Respondent: Nthabiseng Sepanya-Mogale N.O.; Respondent: Sediko Rakolote N.O.; Respondent: Nomasonto Mazibuko N.O.; Respondent: Dibeela Mothupi N.O.; Respondent: Lindiwe Ntuli-Tloubatla N.O.; Respondent: Ohara Ngoma-Diseko N.O.; Respondent: Busisiwe Deyi N.O.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Case Number
58057/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application granted; suspension declared unlawful and set aside.
Judges
Dlamini
Legal Topics
Chapter 9 Institutions, Suspension of Commissioner, Ultra Vires, Constitutional Validity, Code of Conduct
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Chapter 9 Institutions Suspension of Commissioner Ultra Vires Constitutional Validity Code of Conduct

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbuyiselo Botha

Applicant

Commission for Gender Equality

Respondent

Tamara Mathebula N.O.

Respondent

Nthabiseng Moleko N.O.

Respondent

Nthabiseng Sepanya-Mogale N.O.

Respondent

Sediko Rakolote N.O.

Respondent

Nomasonto Mazibuko N.O.

Respondent

Dibeela Mothupi N.O.

Respondent

Lindiwe Ntuli-Tloubatla N.O.

Respondent

Ohara Ngoma-Diseko N.O.

Respondent

Busisiwe Deyi N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission for Gender Equality had the legal authority to suspend a Commissioner under its Code of Conduct.
  2. 2 Whether the suspension of the applicant was unlawful, unconstitutional, and ultra vires.
  3. 3 Whether section 194(3)(a) of the Constitution vests the power to suspend a Commissioner solely in the President.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 194(3)(a) of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous: only the President may suspend a Commissioner of a Chapter 9 institution, and only after the commencement of removal proceedings by a committee of the National Assembly. The Commission for Gender Equality's Code of Conduct cannot confer upon itself a power that the Constitution reserves for the President. The Commission's suspension of the applicant was ultra vires, unlawful, and invalid. The alleged lacuna between misconduct and the commencement of parliamentary proceedings does not justify the usurpation of presidential powers; the Commission can request the Speaker to initiate removal proceedings and then request the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; suspension declared unlawful and set aside.

Orders

  • The suspension letter issued by the Second Respondent to the Applicant dated 6 August 2021, and the suspension of the Applicant pursuant thereto, is declared unlawful, unconstitutional, invalid, and null and void.
  • The provisions of Section 16.1(c)(iii) of the Code of Conduct in the Commissioner's Handbook of the first respondent are declared unlawful, unconstitutional, invalid, and null and void.