The Public Protector has urged the public to engage with its reports lawfully and respectfully, while reiterating that its work remains independent, impartial and unaffected by the Constitutional Court judgment on Parliament’s impeachment procedures.
Image: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers
The Public Protector has warned that insulting the Public Protector or Deputy Public Protector constitutes a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to R40 000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months.
This follows public reaction to the Constitutional Court judgment in the EFF matter, delivered on 8 May 2026.
The office of the Public Protector South Africa said it had “noted with concern, the public comments deriving from the Constitutional Court judgment,” but stressed that the ruling has no impact on its own investigation into allegations relating to President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Phala Phala matter.
It said its Report No. 12 of 2023/2024, which deals with alleged violations of the Executive Ethics Code and claims of improper conduct by members of the South African Police Service, remains unaffected.
The institution clarified that the Constitutional Court case dealt only with Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment process.
This included the constitutionality of National Assembly Rule 129I and Parliament’s decision in December 2022 not to refer an independent panel report to an impeachment committee.
It stressed that it was not a participant in the parliamentary process and was not a party to the Constitutional Court proceedings.
The Public Protector said the judgment “does not assess or overturn the Public Protector’s report” and makes no findings on its investigation, conclusions or remedial action.
According to the office, the legal processes stemming from the Constitutional Court judgment and its own report are separate and should not be conflated.
While the Public Protector’s report is currently subject to a judicial review application pending before the North Gauteng High Court, the Constitutional Court order deals only with Parliament’s handling of the Section 89 panel report.
“These are separate legal processes, operating in different areas, and they do not conflict with one another,” the office said.
The Public Protector also warned that insulting the institution or its Deputy Public Protector is a criminal offence under section 9(a) of the Public Protector Act.
“Any person convicted of this offence may be liable, in terms of section 11 of the Act, to a fine not exceeding R40 000-00 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.”
The institution also cautioned that while the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, that right is not unlimited.
“The right to freedom of expression, guaranteed under section 16 of the Constitution is not unlimited. It is subject to lawful limitations and does not extend to conduct that constitutes a statutory criminal offence,” it said.
It urged members of the public to engage with its reports in a lawful and respectful manner, saying such engagement forms part of democratic accountability.
''Members of the public are encouraged to engage with the findings, conclusions and remedial action contained in PPSA reports. It is precisely for this reason that the reports are published and made freely available.''
The Public Protector said it remains committed to its constitutional mandate of investigating improper conduct in state affairs, reporting on it, and taking remedial action “independently, impartially, and without fear, favour, or prejudice.”
IOL Politics