Southern African Litigation Centre and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (77150/09) [2012] ZAGPPHC 61; 2012 (10) BCLR 1089 (GNP); [2012] 3 All SA 198 (GNP) (8 May 2012)

Southern African Litigation Centre and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (77150/09) [2012] ZAGPPHC 61; 2012 (10) BCLR 1089 (GNP); [2012] 3 All SA 198 (GNP) (8 May 2012)

The court held that the respondents were legally obliged to properly consider and, where a reasonable basis existed, initiate an investigation into the alleged crimes against humanity detailed in the torture docket. The refusal to investigate was materially influenced by errors of law, including a failure to appreciate South Africa's international and domestic obligations under the ICC Act and the Constitution. The respondents took into account irrelevant political and diplomatic considerations and failed to act independently and rationally as required by law. The applicants had locus standi both in their own interest and in the public interest, given the nature of the rights involved and...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 61
Parties
Applicant: Southern African Litigation Centre; Applicant: Zimbabwe Exiles Forum; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Head of the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit; Respondent: Director-General of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: National Commissioner of the South African Police Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2012
Case Number
77150/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application granted. The respondents' refusal to initiate an investigation is reviewed and set aside.
Judges
H J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Implementation of Rome Statute Act, International Crimes Jurisdiction, Principle of Legality, Locus Standi, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public International Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Implementation of Rome Statute Act International Crimes Jurisdiction Principle of Legality Locus Standi +1 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Southern African Litigation Centre

Applicant

Zimbabwe Exiles Forum

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Head of the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit

Respondent

Director-General of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

National Commissioner of the South African Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were legally obliged to initiate an investigation into alleged crimes against humanity committed in Zimbabwe.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' refusal to investigate was unlawful, irrational, or influenced by irrelevant considerations.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the application in their own interest, on behalf of victims, and in the public interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents were legally obliged to properly consider and, where a reasonable basis existed, initiate an investigation into the alleged crimes against humanity detailed in the torture docket. The refusal to investigate was materially influenced by errors of law, including a failure to appreciate South Africa's international and domestic obligations under the ICC Act and the Constitution. The respondents took into account irrelevant political and diplomatic considerations and failed to act independently and rationally as required by law. The applicants had locus standi both in their own interest and in the public interest, given the nature of the rights involved and...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondents' refusal to initiate an investigation is reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • The decision of the First, Second and Fourth Respondents refusing or failing to accede to the First Applicant's request for an investigation under the ICC Act is reviewed and set aside.
  • The refusal decisions are declared unlawful, inconsistent with the Constitution, and invalid.