Masetlha v President

Last updated

Masetlha v President
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameMasetlha v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another
Decided3 October 2007 (2007-10-03)
Docket nos.CCT 01/07
Citation(s) [2007] ZACC 20; 2008 (1) SA 566 (CC); 2008 (1) BCLR 1
Case history
Prior action(s)Masetlha v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another [2006] ZAGPHC 107; (2007) 28 ILJ 1013 (T) in the High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division
Related action(s)Independent Newspapers v Minister for Intelligence Services [2008] ZACC 6; 2008 (5) SA 31 (CC); 2008 (8) BCLR 771 (CC)
Court membership
Judges sitting Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Skweyiya J, Sachs J, Ngcobo J, Madala J, O'Regan J, Nkabinde J, van der Westhuizen J and Navsa AJ
Case opinions
The presidential power to appoint and dismiss the head of the National Intelligence Agency is an executive power. The exercise of such power does not constitute administrative action and is not subject to review on the grounds of procedural fairness.
Decision byMoseneke DCJ (Langa CJ, Nkabinde J, O’ Regan J, Skweyiya J, van der Westhuizen J and Navsa AJ concurring)
Concur/dissentSachs J
DissentNgcobo J (Madala J concurring)
Keywords

Masetlha v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another is an important decision in the Constitutional Court of South Africa which held that procedural fairness was not a ground for the review of executive action. Upholding President Thabo Mbeki's decision to dismiss Billy Masetlha as the head of the National Intelligence Agency, a majority of the court held that, unlike legality and rationality, procedural fairness was not a requirement for the lawful exercise of the President's powers of appointment and dismissal, the exercise of which constituted executive rather than administrative action. The matter was heard on 10 May 2007 and decided on 3 October 2007, with Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke writing for the majority.

Contents

Background and prior action

Billy Masetlha, the director-general of the National Intelligence Agency, was suspended from his office in October 2005 pending the outcome of a disciplinary probe into claims of misconduct. [1] He remained on suspension until March 2006, when President Thabo Mbeki fired him, citing a breakdown of trust in their relationship. [2] His difficulties at the National Intelligence Agency were widely believed to be related to an ongoing factional political battle between Mbeki and his former deputy, Jacob Zuma. [1] [2]

In the interim between his suspension and dismissal, Masetlha approached the High Court of South Africa seeking review of his suspension. He claimed that the suspension had been effected by an unlawful procedure: his suspension letter was signed by Ronnie Kasrils, the Minister of Intelligence, though President Mbeki later set down in a Presidential Minute that he had authorised the suspension. When Masetlha was fired in March, he filed a further application seeking review of his dismissal. He also enjoined Manala Manzini, who was appointed to replace him as director-general, as second respondent.

The two applications were conjoined and heard in the Pretoria High Court in November 2006, but they were dismissed in December 2006, when Judge Ben du Plessis held that his dismissal constituted lawful executive action and that his dismissal, in turn, rendered the suspension dispute moot. [3] In March 2007, Masetlha was granted leave to appeal du Plessis's decision in the Constitutional Court of South Africa. [4]

Majority judgment

In a judgment written by Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke, the majority refused Masetlha's appeal but ordered the President to pay him all remuneration and benefits that would have been due to him had he completed his three-year term in office.

The substantive contribution of the judgment was its discussion of the President's power to appoint and dismiss heads of the National Intelligence Agency. The majority held that although national legislation – in this case the Public Service Act, 1994 and Intelligence Services Act, 2002 – regulates the terms and conditions of employment of presidential appointees, the President's powers of appointment and dismissal arise from the Constitution, in this case section 209(2) thereof. The procedural requirements of national legislation must therefore be read in conjunction with the Constitution and with the overall "constitutional and operative legislative scheme" regulating national security and presidential authority. As Moseneke wrote, "The power and indeed obligation of the President to appoint the head of an intelligence service is not sourced from a private law relationship. It is a public law power. In other words, this dispute between the parties is not merely about a breach or wrongful termination of an employment contract. It is rather about whether public authority has been exercised in a constitutionally valid manner." The majority therefore held that the President had the requisite power and legal authority to terminate Masetlha's employment.

The majority held that the President's "special power" of appointment and dismissal is "reviewable on narrow grounds and constitutes executive action and not administrative action". Importantly, as an executive power, it is not constrained by the requirements of procedural fairness, which apply instead to the review of administrative action. Specifically, it is not subject to the requirements of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 or to the natural justice and common law principle of audi alteram partem . Instead, its exercise is subject to the constraint that it must be exercised lawfully, rationally, and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Insofar as the lawful exercise of the power of appointment leads to the termination of an employment contract, employment law may additionally give rise to further legal consequences – in this case, the court ordered the President to pay out the remainder of the remuneration due to Masetlha in terms of his employment contract.

The majority also agreed with the High Court that the suspension dispute was rendered moot by the finding that the termination was lawful.

Minority judgment

Justice Albie Sachs wrote a separate judgment in which he concurred with the majority's order and agreed that Masetlha's termination was lawful, but argued that Masetlha was entitled to fair labour practice (and financial recompense) as a matter of constitutional obligation.

Justice Sandile Ngcobo dissented from the majority, holding that the rule of law required that the President act fairly and that fairness in turn required the President to consult with Masetlha before deciding to terminate his appointment. In that respect, the President had acted in breach of the Constitution.

Significance

Masetlha is sometimes viewed as unusually permissive in the narrow standards it applies to the review of exercises of public power. [5] Clive Plasket, for example, was highly critical of the majority opinion insofar as it severed a presumed connection between procedural fairness and the rule of law; in Plasket's view, the rule of law entails procedural fairness and, contra Masetlha, executive decision-makers are required to follow fair procedures. [6]

In 2010, the court handed down Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation , in which it held that the legality principle sometimes requires the application of procedural fairness standards to the exercise of public power, in cases where procedural fairness is a requirement for the rational exercise of that power. [7] Plasket regarded Albutt as "an attempt... to undo some of the damage that had been caused by Masetlha (short of overruling it)", [6] while others were concerned that it was "at loggerheads" with the decision in Masetlha. [8] The Constitutional Court later addressed this tension directly in Law Society of South Africa v President, in which Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng wrote for the majority:

The proposition in Masetlha might be seen as being at variance with the principle of procedural irrationality laid down in both Albutt and Simelane . But it is not so. Procedural fairness has to do with affording a party likely to be disadvantaged by the outcome the opportunity to be properly represented and fairly heard before an adverse decision is rendered. Not so with procedural irrationality. The latter is about testing whether, or ensuring that, there is a rational connection between the exercise of power in relation to both process and the decision itself and the purpose sought to be achieved through the exercise of that power. [9]

In other words, according to Law Society, procedural fairness (at issue in Masetlha) must be distinguished from procedural rationality (at issue in Albutt). The latter, but not the former, is entailed by the principle of legality and is a requirement for the lawful exercise of a public power. [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of South Africa</span> Supreme court of South Africa

The Constitutional Court of South Africa is a supreme constitutional court established by the Constitution of South Africa, and is the apex court in the South African judicial system, with general jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

Baaitse Elizabeth "Bess" Nkabinde-Mmono is a South African retired judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa from January 2006 to December 2017. During that time, she was acting Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa from 23 May 2016 to 7 June 2017. She joined the bench in November 1999 as a judge of the Bophuthatswana Provincial Division.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pius Langa</span> South African lawyer and judge (1939–2013)

Pius Nkonzo LangaSCOB was Chief Justice of South Africa from June 2005 to October 2009. Formerly a human rights lawyer, he was appointed as a puisne judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa upon its inception in 1995. He was the Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa from November 2001 until May 2005, when President Thabo Mbeki elevated him to the Chief Justiceship. He was South Africa's first black African Chief Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dikgang Moseneke</span> South African judge

Dikgang Ernest Moseneke OLG is a South African jurist and former Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa.

The Judicial Service Commission is a body specially constituted by the South African Constitution to recommend persons for appointment to the judiciary of South Africa.

South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

South African constitutional law is the area of South African law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa by the country's courts. All laws of South Africa must conform with the Constitution; any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<i>Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council</i> South African legal case

Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 18 and 20 August 1998, with judgment handed down 14 October. The bench was occupied by Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J and Yacoob J. DJB Osborn appeared for the appellants, RM Wise for the first respondent, and CZ Cohen for the second, third, fourth and fifth respondent.

<i>Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa</i> South African legal case

Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court (CC) on 19 February 2008, with judgment handed down on 2 October. The judges were Langa CJ, O'Regan ADCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J, Jafta AJ and Kroon AJ. Counsel for the applicant was Geoff Budlender. There was no appearance for the first respondent, but Wim Trengove SC appeared for the second and for the third respondent. The applicant's attorneys were Kruger & Co.; the State Attorney represented the second respondent, while the third respondent's attorneys were Brugmans Inc.

Sisi Virginia Khampepe is a retired South African judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa between October 2009 and October 2021. Formerly a prominent labour lawyer, she joined the bench in December 2000 as a judge of the Transvaal Provincial Division. She was also a member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

South African administrative law is the branch of public law which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government."

New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Tshabalala-Msimang and Another NNO; Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others v Tshabalala-Msimang and Another NNO 2005 (2) SA 530 (C) is an important case in South African administrative law. However, note that this case went on appeal, first to the Supreme Court of Appeal and thereafter to the Constitutional Court, where the various judgments of Chaskalson, Ngcobo, Sachs, Moseneke and others had far-reaching effects on administrative law in South Africa. This article discusses the first hearing of this matter in the Cape Provincial Division. The final judgment is listed on SAFLII as Minister of Health and Another v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others [2005] ZACC 14.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in South Africa</span>

The South African judiciary has broad powers of judicial review under the Constitution of South Africa. Courts are empowered to pronounce on the legality and constitutionality of exercises of public power, including administrative action, executive action, and the passage of acts of Parliament. Though informed by the common law principles that guided judicial review during the apartheid era, contemporary judicial review is authorised by and grounded in constitutional principles. In the case of administrative action, it is also codified in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA and Another: In re ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others is an important case in South African constitutional law. It deals with relevant issues about the role of the courts in controlling public power, and raises the question of whether or not a court has the power to review and set aside a decision by the President of South Africa to bring an Act of Parliament into force.

<i>R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment</i>

R v SS for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.

Clive Michael Plasket is a South African jurist and retired judge who served in the Supreme Court of Appeal from 2019 to 2022. He was formerly a judge of the Eastern Cape High Court from 2003 to 2019. Before that, he was a practising attorney and a legal academic at Rhodes University, renowned especially as an expert on administrative law.

<i>Democratic Alliance v President</i> South African legal case

Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, often known as Simelane, is a 2012 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which expanded rationality review to include evaluation of the relationship between the procedure by which executive decisions are taken and the purpose for which the relevant executive power is conferred. Applying this augmented standard, the court held that President Jacob Zuma had acted irrationally and unconstitutionally in appointing Menzi Simelane as the National Director of Public Prosecutions, given that he had neglected to consider prima facie evidence of dishonesty by Simelane.

<i>Corruption Watch v President</i> South African legal case

Corruption Watch NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Nxasana v Corruption Watch NPC and Others is a 2018 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on prosecutorial independence. In a judgment written by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, the court affirmed unanimously that section 179(4) of the Constitution provided for the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority. It therefore held that sections of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998 were unconstitutional insofar as they granted the President discretion over certain aspects of senior prosecutors' terms of employment, thereby compromising prosecutorial independence.

<i>Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation</i> South African legal case

Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others is a 2010 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which concerned a special presidential dispensation to pardon the perpetrators of politically motivated crimes committed during the apartheid era. The Constitutional Court held that the President of South Africa had contravened the Constitution in deciding not to consult the victims of those crimes before granting the pardons. The unanimous judgment was written by Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo and delivered on 23 February 2010.

References

  1. 1 2 "Masetlha suspension has led to 'great confusion'". The Mail & Guardian. 30 November 2005. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  2. 1 2 "NIA boss Masetlha fired". News24. 22 March 2006. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  3. ↑ "Former spy boss fails to get job back". The Mail & Guardian. 19 December 2006. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  4. ↑ "Now Masetlha goes to Constitution Hill". The Mail & Guardian. 8 March 2007. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  5. ↑ Krüger, R. (2010). "The South African constitutional Court and the Rule of Law: The Masethla Judgment, A Cause for Concern?". Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad. 13 (3). doi: 10.4314/pelj.v13i3.63678 . ISSN   1727-3781.
  6. 1 2 Plasket, Clive (2020). "Procedural fairness, executive decision-making and the rule of law". South African Law Journal. 137 (4): 698–712.
  7. ↑ Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others (CCT 54/09) [2010] ZACC 4; 2010 (3) SA 293 (CC) ; 2010 (2) SACR 101 (CC) ; 2010 (5) BCLR 391 (CC) (23 February 2010).
  8. ↑ Murcott, Melanie (2012). "Procedural Fairness as a Component of Legality: Is a Reconciliation between Albutt and Masetlha Possible?". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2645322. hdl: 2263/31765 . ISSN   1556-5068.
  9. ↑ Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT67/18) [2018] ZACC 51; 2019 (3) BCLR 329 (CC); 2019 (3) SA 30 (CC) (11 December 2018).
  10. ↑ Freedman, Warren; Mzolo, Nkosinathi (3 August 2021). "The Principle of Legality and the Requirements of Lawfulness and Procedural Rationality: Law Society of South Africa v President of the RSA (2019 (3) SA 30 (CC))". Obiter. 42 (2). doi: 10.17159/obiter.v42i2.11929 . ISSN   2709-555X.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.