Executive Members' Ethics Act, 1998

Act 82 of 1998

Executive Members' Ethics Act, 1998

Loading PDF...

This document is 1.4 MB. Do you want to load it?

Error loading PDF
Try reloading the page or downloading the PDF.
Error:

History of this document

28 October 1998 this version
20 October 1998
Assented to

Cited documents 0

Documents citing this one 14

Judgment
7
Reported
Leave to appeal costs order dismissed; high court properly exercised discretion in awarding punitive personal costs against applicant.
Costs — personal and punitive costs against public officials — appellate restraint in reviewing discretionary costs orders — interference only for material misdirection — conduct amounting to recklessness, vexatious litigation or abuse of process may justify punitive costs; Biowatch principles not engaged where law is not challenged.
Reported
Whether the Public Protector lawfully found the President breached the Executive Ethics Code over CR17 campaign donations.
Executive Members’ Ethics Act and Executive Ethics Code – interpretation of ‘wilfully mislead’ – Public Protector’s investigative powers under section 182 and Members Act – distinction between state affairs and internal party campaigns – duty to disclose campaign donations as personal benefit – audi alteram principle and disclosure of adverse evidence – limits on Public Protector’s remedial and supervisory orders; remit of constitutional challenge to Code.
Reported
Director‑General’s closure of a refugee reception office was unlawful, irrational and required restoration plus supervisory reporting.
Administrative law – Refugees Act – closure of Refugee Reception Office – duty to consult interested parties before deciding to close – requirement of rationality and decision‑making free of material mistake of fact; contempt/non‑compliance with court orders – appropriateness of supervisory/structural relief and reporting obligations; access to asylum procedures and protection of vulnerable asylum seekers.
Public Protector’s reports set aside for jurisdictional overreach, procedural unfairness, reliance on undisclosed intelligence, and inadmissible hearsay.
Public Protector — scope of powers under s 6(4) Public Protector Act — referral to investigative authorities permissible under s 6(4)(c)(ii); jurisdictional limits — may not investigate POCA/PCCA offences beyond incidental referral; natural justice — audi alteram partem requires notice and meaningful opportunity to respond, particularly where FIC material is relied upon; administrative fairness — published report is final; evidence — averments as to decision‑maker's mind tendered by deputies may be inadmissible hearsay and struck out.
Reported
The applicant’s colonialism tweets were constitutionally protected; the Public Protector’s contrary findings were materially flawed and set aside.
Administrative law – Review of Public Protector’s report – Freedom of expression – s 16(1) and s 16(2)(b) – Correct interpretive approach (objective meaning, intent and imminence) – Rationality and material error of law – Executive Members’ Ethics Code and s 136 – Remedial action reviewable and set aside.
Public Protector’s finding irrational where investigation ignored the question’s timeframe and relied on irrelevant evidence.
Administrative law – review of Public Protector’s report – interpretation of parliamentary question – relevance of "since taking office" – irrationality where investigation targets period outside question and relies on irrelevant evidence – proper test for wilfully misleading legislature.
To the top