|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Tawanda Kaseke
On 29 May 2026 Corruption Watch sent an urgent letter to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, in connection with applications for a vacancy at the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). We highlighted serious concerns about the process calling for public comment on an unreasonably long list of candidates. We asked for clarity, more time, and more transparency. We cited a unanimous Constitutional Court judgment, in a case we won despite the opposition of the National Assembly, that explicitly condemns exactly what the committee appears to be doing now.
Despite a follow-up query, we have received no response. And the clock is ticking.
The committee published a list of 95 candidates on 25 May 2026. The public has until 8 June 2026, a mere 14 calendar days, to review multiple CVs, conduct research, and make substantive submissions. That is the opposite of meaningful public participation.
In Corruption Watch v Speaker of the National Assembly (2025), the Constitutional Court was clear: “The right of members of the public to participate meaningfully in democratic governance is a hallmark of our constitutional democracy. Public involvement in the legislative and other processes of all three spheres of government is not merely a fashionable accessory; it is a thread woven into the fabric of our democracy.”
The court declared emphatically that Parliament had failed in its constitutional duty when it ran a rushed, opaque process for appointing members of the Commission for Gender Equality, and that the truncated time-frames and restricted information that characterised the appointments became “a further impediment to effective and meaningful public involvement”.
Yet here we are, barely a year later, watching the exact same pattern unfold for the SAHRC – the very institution tasked with defending human rights, including the right to just administrative action and participatory democracy.
Problematic process
The problems are not limited to time.
The committee also did not say whether there will be another chance for public comment later in the process. It would be helpful to know if this is the only opportunity to speak up, or if the public will be invited to comment again after any further selection steps.
Furthermore, the notice refers to “a vacancy” (singular) yet the list contains nearly 100 candidates. Has the committee failed to disclose additional vacancies? Is this a shortlist or a longlist? Without this basic information, the public cannot assess whether the number of candidates is proportionate or whether the process is transparent.
In the CGE judgment the Constitutional Court also rejected the misuse of the Protection of Personal Information Act as an excuse to withhold candidate information. It held that the constitutional duty to facilitate public involvement plainly entitles a portfolio committee to publish personal information of candidates, provided sensitive information is redacted. Privacy rights do not trump the public’s right to know who may be appointed to a Chapter 9 institution – but we still see opacity dressed up as legal compliance.
We believe Parliament wants to do the right thing, but when processes feel rushed or unclear, it becomes harder for civil society and ordinary citizens to trust the outcome. The SAHRC is too important for that. It protects human rights, investigates abuses, and holds the government accountable. The way its members are chosen should be open, reasonable, and fair.
In our letter, we asked the committee to consider three simple requests. First, we asked for a reasonable extension of the public comment period. Second, we asked for clarity on whether the public will get another chance to comment after further steps in the process. Third, we asked for confirmation of exactly how many vacancies need to be filled.
We also asked for an acknowledgement of receipt and a response, given the urgency of the timeline. So far, we have received neither.
Serial transgressors
This is not the first time this has happened in Parliament. However, it does not have to continue because the Constitutional Court has given clear guidance and Parliament knows what meaningful public participation looks like.
So here is our respectful suggestion to the portfolio committee: extend the deadline. Tell us if there will be more opportunities for comment. Confirm the number of vacancies. And please respond to civil society when we reach out. A little communication goes a long way.
To the public, we say this: keep paying attention. Even when Parliament is quiet, your voice matters as much as your diligence. Democracy works best when people stay involved, ask questions, and demand better of their government.
Corruption Watch will keep watching this process, and we hope for a positive response – because democracy is worth the effort.
Tawanda Kaseke is Corruption Watch’s project coordinator in the Stakeholder Relations and Campaigns unit.
