CCT07/14

CCT09/14

[2014] ZACC 32

2015 (1) BCLR 1 (CC)

2015 (2) SA 1 (CC)

Mogoeng CJ Majority judgment

Cameron J separate judgment

Nkabinde J separate judgment

Van der Westhuizen J separate judgment

Madlanga J separate judgment

Froneman J separate judgment

19 August 2014

27 November 2014

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3753

Application for a confirmation of the Western Cape High Court’s order of constitutional invalidity: Helen Suzman Foundation v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; In Re: Glenister v President of South Africa and Others (23874/2012, 23933/2012) [2013] ZAWCHC 189; [2014] 1 All SA 671 (WCC); 2014 (4) BCLR 481 (WCC) (13 December 2013). See also earlier CC judgment Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 48/10) [2011] ZACC 6; 2011 (3) SA 347 (CC) ; 2011 (7) BCLR 651 (CC) (17 March 2011).

South African Police Service Amendment Act 10 of 2012 — confirmation of an order of constitutional invalidity South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995 — Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation — adequacy of the structural and operational independence of a constitutionally mandated anti-corruption entity. Two applications for leave to appeal against decisions of the High Court concerning the constitutionality of certain provisions of the South African Police Service (SAPS) Amendment Act 10 of 2012. Also an application for confirmation of the High Court’s order that certain impugned provisions of the SAPS Amendment Act were inconsistent with South Africa’s constitutional obligation to create a structurally and operationally independent anti-corruption unit. The majority confirmed a substantial part of the High Court’s order, particularly insofar as the Act improperly allowed undue political interference with, and oversight of, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI), South Africa’s anti-corruption unit. The court severed specific sections of the legislation so that the remaining provisions allowed the DPCI adequate structural and operational independence. Five separate concurrences were written, embodying partial dissents. These primarily found that the provisions relating to appointment of the National Head of the DPCI were not constitutionally compliant. Nkabinde J also would have found that it was unconstitutional to empower the Minister of Police to prescribe integrity testing measures for DPCI members. Leave to appeal was granted to the Helen Suzman Foundation but the appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal was not granted to Mr Glenister. The High Court’s order of invalidity was largely confirmed. Majority: Mogoeng CJ (Moseneke DCJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Leeuw J and Zondo J concurring) Separate concurrence and partial dissent: Froneman J (Cameron J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring) Separate concurrence and partial dissent: Cameron J (Froneman J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring) Separate concurrence and partial dissent: Nkabinde J Separate concurrence: Van der Westhuizen J Separate concurrence and partial dissent: Madlanga J