Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii 

[1]       These are two applications brought in terms of section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution for orders declaring that the National Assembly (NA), the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) (collectively referred to as Parliament) and the nine Provincial Legislatures failed to fulfil their constitutional obligations to reasonably facilitate public involvement in the passing of the Public Procurement Act[1] (Act).

[2]       These applications, heard together, address the nature and scope of Parliament’s constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in its law making process.  In CCT 103/25, the Premier of the Western Cape Government (Premier) is the first applicant, and in CCT 144/25, the City of Cape Town (City) is the first applicant.  AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC (amaBhungane) is the second applicant in both cases, and Solidarity is the third applicant in CCT 144/25.

[3]       In both cases, the first, second and third respondents are the Speaker of the NA (Speaker), the Chairperson of the NCOP (Chairperson) and the Minister of Finance (Minister), respectively.  In CCT 144/25, the fourth respondent is the President of the Republic of South Africa (President), and the fifth to thirteenth respondents are the Speakers of the Provincial Legislatures.  In CCT 103/25, Parliament opposes the relief sought and has filed a joint answering affidavit.  In CCT 144/25, Parliament and the Speakers of the Eastern Cape, Free State, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape and North West Legislatures oppose the application and have also filed a joint answering affidavit.  I refer to all opposing respondents collectively as “respondents”.

[4]       There is significant overlap between the two cases: both involve the same legislative process, the relief sought is largely identical and the arguments presented by the applicants and respondents in both cases substantially overlap.  It is, therefore, convenient to address both cases simultaneously and to distinguish between applicants and respondents only when any individual party raises a distinct argument or submission.