The EFF seeks relief that is premised upon the presumption that the respondents were required to comply with the remedial action that I prescribed in my Report. It follows that this Court will inevitably be required to consider the legal status and effect of the Report and remedial action taken therin, regardless of whether the application EFF’s succeeds or fails. A decision from this Court on the issue will also have a profound effect on the manner in which I exercise my powers in all future matters. I respectfully submit that the Public direct and substantial interest in the Protector’s nature and ambit of the powers arises plainly from these facts and from the institution’s relief sought by the EFF. I submit moreover that granting me leave to intervene as a respondent in the application would be in the interests of justice. I would add that the binding nature of the Public reports and remedial action Protector’s in terms of section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution forms the subject of other litigation, including an appeal which has recently served before the Supreme Court of Appeal In all such other matters, the Public Protector has been cited as a respondent (“SCA”). and has participated by making submissions on the nature of her powers, without becoming embroiled in the broader merits of the matters in question. It is important that I draw specific attention to the appeal matter referred to above and particularly the ongoing effect of the order which was the subject of the High Court’s appeal. The High Court judgment is reported as Democratic Alliance v South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited and Others 2015 (1) SA 551 (WCC) SABC (“the matter”). The appeal to the SCA was heard on 18 September 2015 under Appeal Case No 393/2015. I was present at the appeal. I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of the appeal save to draw attention to the possibility that it may not result in a determination of the ambit and effect of the Public powers. This is because Protector’s the three appellants all agreed to accept paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Order, namely:
The EFF seeks relief that is premised upon the presumption that the respondents were required to comply with the remedial action that I prescribed in my Report. It follows that this Court will inevitably be required to consider the legal status and effect of the Report and remedial action taken therin, regardless of whether the EFF’s application succeeds or fails. A decision from this Court on the issue will also have a profound effect on the manner in which I exercise my powers in all future matters. I respectfully submit that the Public Protector’s direct and substantial interest in the nature and ambit of the institution’s powers arises plainly from these facts and from the relief sought by the EFF. I submit moreover that granting me leave to intervene as a respondent in the application would be in the interests of justice. I would add that the binding nature of the Public Protector’s reports and remedial action in terms of section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution forms the subject of other litigation, including an appeal which has recently served before the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”). In all such other matters, the Public Protector has been cited as a respondent and has participated by making submissions on the nature of her powers, without becoming embroiled in the broader merits of the matters in question. It is important that I draw specific attention to the appeal matter referred to above and particularly the ongoing effect of the High Court’s order which was the subject of the appeal. The High Court judgment is reported as Democratic Alliance v South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited and Others 2015 (1) SA 551 (WCC) (“the SABC matter”). The appeal to the SCA was heard on 18 September 2015 under Appeal Case No 393/2015. I was present at the appeal. I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of the appeal save to draw attention to the possibility that it may not result in a determination of the ambit and effect of the Public Protector’s powers. This is because the three appellants all agreed to accept paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Order, namely:
Public-Protector-Founding-Affidavit-intervention-application-final-GM-settled-26.09.2015.docx