On 1 August 2025, the Constitutional Court of South Africa handed down a unanimous judgment in respect of an application brought directly to the Court by Corruption Watch (RF) NPC (Corruption Watch).
Bowmans acted for Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), who were admitted by the Court to act as amicus curiae in the matter.
The facts
Corruption Watch’s case centred on the failure of the National Assembly to facilitate reasonable public involvement in the appointment of commissioners to the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) as required by section 59(1)(a) of the Constitution.
In June 2022, the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee began the appointment process for commissioners to the CGE. After shortlisting candidates, it called for public comment via an online form, limiting submissions to 2 000 characters, and allowing only 14 days for input.
Corruption Watch objected to the limited timeframe, the lack of access to candidates’ CVs, and the restrictive format – arguing that these were impediments to meaningful public participation. Despite the objections, the Portfolio Committee proceeded without addressing the above-mentioned concerns; the National Assembly adopted the report, and the President appointed five new commissioners.
The ensuing legal challenge was based on three interrelated grounds, each addressing a distinct but connected failure in the public participation process during the appointment process.
The public’s right to know
First, Corruption Watch argued that the National Assembly failed to provide the public with adequate information about the shortlisted candidates. Specifically, the candidates’ CVs were not published, which deprived the public of the necessary details to assess their qualifications, experience and commitment to gender equality.
Second, the time allowed for public comment was unreasonably short. The Portfolio Committee provided only 14 days for submissions, which Corruption Watch contended was insufficient for meaningful engagement, especially considering the importance of the appointments and the need for consultation and deliberation.
Third, the format for public submissions was unduly restrictive. The online form limited comments to
2 000 characters, which constrained the depth and quality of public input. Although the Portfolio Committee later resolved to accept longer submissions via email, it failed to communicate this to the public or to extend the submission period.
2 000 characters, which constrained the depth and quality of public input. Although the Portfolio Committee later resolved to accept longer submissions via email, it failed to communicate this to the public or to extend the submission period.
Taken together, these procedural shortcomings rendered the public participation process ineffective and unreasonable, violating the constitutional obligation to facilitate meaningful public involvement in the appointment process.
MMA made substantial submissions in support of Corruption Watch’s case – submissions that were referred to repeatedly by Corruption Watch’s counsel at the hearing. The submissions, in short, addressed the nature of information required for the media to foster meaningful public involvement in National Assembly processes.
Limited information
The Speaker of the National Assembly attempted to justify the limited information provided by way of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), claiming that publishing CVs would violate candidates’ privacy rights.
MMA countered this by asserting that POPIA should be interpreted in a constitutionally compliant manner, balancing the right to privacy with the rights to freedom of expression and access to information.
It argued that the National Assembly was either obliged to publish the CVs under section 11(1)(e) of POPIA, which permits processing of personal information for public law duties, or that the National Assembly could and should have obtained consent from the candidates under section 11(1)(a).
MMA emphasised that candidates for public office have a diminished expectation of privacy regarding professional information and that transparency is essential for democratic accountability. It concluded that the National Assembly’s failure to publish the CVs hindered both public and media scrutiny, thereby violating constitutional principles of openness, accountability, and participatory democracy.
The judgment
The Court found that the exclusion of the candidates’ CVs was unconstitutional. It held that access to sufficient information is a prerequisite for meaningful public involvement, and that the limited information was inadequate for the public to assess whether candidates met the constitutional and statutory criteria for appointment to the CGE.
The Court rejected the National Assembly’s justification that POPIA prohibited the publication of CVs. It clarified that section 11(1)(e) of POPIA permits the processing of personal information when necessary for the performance of a public duty.
It held that Parliament failed to comply with its constitutional obligation to facilitate reasonable public involvement in recommending persons to be appointed as members of the CGE, and that the appointment of the commissioners was accordingly invalid.
Key takeaways
-
Constitutional obligations around public participation must be reasonable and substantive, not symbolic.
-
Procedural integrity is essential and flawed processes, such as inadequate timeframes, limited access to information and restrictive formats for public input, can render decisions legally invalid.
Vanessa Jacklin-Levin is partner; Simon Ruff is senior associate, and Tameez Jhetam, candidate legal practitioner at Bowmans.
