Corruption Watch welcomes ConCourt ruling on setting aside Gender Commission appointments
The apex court has declared as invalid the appointment of five commissioners of the Commission of Gender Equality, including the chairperson, for more than two years since they were appointed.
The Constitutional Court. Picture: Ashraf Hendricks/GroundUp
CAPE TOWN - Corruption Watch has hailed yesterday's (Friday) victory against Parliament in the Constitutional Court as a turning point in enforcing meaningful public participation - particularly in the appointment of leaders to key institutions.
The apex court has declared as invalid the appointment of five commissioners of the Commission of Gender Equality, including the chairperson, for more than two years since they were appointed.
This invalidity has, however, been suspended for 12 months to allow parliament to restart the recruitment process.
Corruption Watch said the Constitutional Court judgment is a critical milestone for its 10-year campaign on leadership appointments, and for legitimate public participation and transparency in choosing candidates to lead the country’s public institutions.
The Commission for Gender Equality is a Chapter 9 institution, and commissioners are appointed by the president for a five-year renewable term based on the recommendation of Parliament.
On Friday, the apex court found that Parliament had incorrectly interpreted the Protection of Personal Information Act by refusing to disclose work experience information from candidates’ CVs and also criticised the 14-day deadline for curtailed, online only submissions from the public.
Corruption Watch lawyer Nkululeko Conco said the court’s unanimous judgment should strengthen Parliament’s future public participation processes.
“This victory sends a clear message. Genuine public participation is not optional. It’s a constitutional requirement. Citizens have the right to meaningful involvement in choosing who leads the institutions that serve them.”
Corruption Watch said the public can’t be sidelined when appointing leaders to institutions meant to strengthen democracy.
The court, however, made no finding on the incumbents’ suitability for the roles – but said the process meant that equally qualified candidates may have been excluded.