Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1] The legal integrity of the process for the removal of office bearers of Chapter 9 Institutions[1] in terms of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 is central to the determination of this application. In these proceedings, characterised as Part A, the Public Protector as the applicant seeks an interim interdict against the respondents (other than those who are also Chapter 9 institutions and cited only as interested parties) and in particular, the Speaker in the National Assembly (NA) the first respondent, from taking any further steps in a process in the NA that could result in her impeachment in terms of the provisions of Section 194 of the Constitution[2] and conducted in terms of newly adopted Rules(the new Rules) that the applicant seeks to have set aside[3]. The applicant also seeks various forms of alternative relief. The relief sought by the applicant in Part A is supported by the sixteenth respondent, the African Transformation Movement (ATM) while the first respondent and the tenth respondent the Democratic Alliance (the DA) oppose the relief. The President of the Republic, the second respondent abides the decision of this court and filed an explanatory affidavit.

[2] In Part B that is to follow, the applicant seeks, amongst other relief, a declaratory order in respect of the legality and constitutionality of the new Rules which governs the removal process in the National Assembly for office bearers of Chapter 9 Institutions in terms of Section 194 of the Constitution. She also seeks a declaratory order that the new Rules do not operate with retrospective effect in respect of conduct prior to 6 December 2019, the date on which the new Rules were adopted in the National Assembly. She further seeks to review and set aside the adoption of the new Rules by the National Assembly and a decision of the first respondent in approving a motion for the removal of the applicant brought by the chief whip of the tenth respondent in Parliament.