![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg/640px-Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg&w=640&q=50)
Corruption Watch v President
South African legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Corruption Watch v President | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
Full case name | Corruption Watch NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Nxasana v Corruption Watch NPC and Others |
Decided | 13 August 2018 (2018-08-13) |
Docket nos. | CCT 333/17; CCT 13/18 |
Citations | [2018] ZACC 23; 2018 (10) BCLR 1179 (CC); 2018 (2) SACR 442 (CC) |
Case history | |
Prior actions | Corruption Watch NPC and Another v President and Others; Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution v President and Others [2017] ZAGPPHC 743 in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Theron J, Cachalia AJ, Dlodlo AJ, Goliath AJ and Petse AJ |
Case opinions | |
Section 179(4) of the Constitution provides for the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority. Sections 12(4) and 12(6) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998 are therefore unconstitutional insofar as they compromise the independence of the National Directors of Public Prosecution. In addition, Mxolisi Nxasana's departure from the office of National Director in exchange for a golden handshake was unconstitutional. | |
Decision by | Madlanga J (Cachalia, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe and Theron concurring) |
Concur/dissent | Jafta J (Petse concurring) |
Keywords | |
|
The matter arose from a public scandal surrounding the 2015 departure of Mxolisi Nxasana from the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions in exchange for a substantial golden handshake. The court was also called to adjudicate the constitutionality of the underlying settlement agreement, which it invalidated on the grounds that such arrangements could compromise prosecutorial independence. However, while invalidating Nxasana's termination and the appointment of his successor, Shaun Abrahams, the court ordered that a new National Director should be appointed, instead of endorsing Nxasana's return to the office. While the court was unanimous on the other legal issues, it was split seven to two on this remedy; Justice Chris Jafta wrote a partly dissenting judgment which argued that, in ordering the appointment of a new National Director, the court risked trenching on the separation of powers.