SAHRC Ruling Referral: Maladministration by Concourt Registrar in Kill Boere Review Application to Concourt

SAHRC Ruling Referral: Maladministration by Concourt Registrar in Kill Boere Review Application to Concourt

SAHRC refers Concourt Registrar's maladministration refusal to process the Radical Honesty culture's review of Equality Court case between Afri-Forum, TAU-SA, Malema and the ANC, to the Office of the Public Protector.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | 10 July 2013 | SQSwans

Response from SAHRC to complaints filed on 28 February 2013 with the Commission for Gender Equality, SA Human Rights Commission and Public Protector in Kill the Boer Concourt matter of Alien on Pale Blue v. Afriforum et al.

Complaint: AnthroCorpocentric Patriarchal Dominant culture/s Cultural and Gender discrimination, by: (1) SA Concourt Registrar & Director; (2) SAPA & SA Media Editors; (3) CRL Rights Commission: Chair, against Ecocentric Gender Balanced Radical Honoursty culture member.

SAHRC Referral Ruling: After careful assessment, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC or the Commission) has found that your complaint should be dealt with by other institutions namely the Press Ombudsman and the Office of the Public Protector.

In regard to your complaint against the refusal by the Registrar of the Constitutional Court to issue your review application and your appeal against the refusal to issue the review application the SAHRC has determined that your complaint relates to alleged maladministration by a government official and that accordingly that the Office of the Public Protector is the more appropriate body to deal with such a complaint.

In regards to the aforementioned allegations relating to the press the Commission has determined that the Press Ombudsman is the most appropriate organisation that should deal with your matter.

SAHRC Ruling Referral: Maladministration by Concourt Registrar in Kill Boere Review Application to Concourt

SAHRC refers Concourt Registrar's maladministration refusal to process the Radical Honesty culture's review of Equality Court case between Afri-Forum, TAU-SA, Malema and the ANC, to the Office of the Public Protector.

After careful assessment, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC or the Commission) has found that your complaint should be dealt with by other institutions namely the Press Ombudsman and the Office of the Public Protector.

Your complaint is based on the following allegations:

1. That on 27 November 2012, you submitted an application to the Constitutional Court for a Radical Honesty Culture review of the outcome of the Equality Court case Afri-Forum and Another v. Malema and Others on the basis that same is culturally vague and therefore unconstitutional, and that the Constitutional Court Registrar refused to process your review application;

2. That on 6 December 2012, you submitted a press release to the South African Press Association (SAPA) regarding your inability to access legal services as a member of the Radical Honesty Culture for the last ten years;

3. That SAPA published your story to the wire but did not write a story about the press release;

4. That upon enquiry to SAPA you were informed that the reason they did not write a story about your difficulty in accessing legal services and representation is taht it is not news.

5. That on 10 December 2012, you sent unanswered letters of inquiry to SAPA and South African media editors in attempts to have an article published about your lack of legal representation for over 10 years;

6. That on 10 December 2012, the Constitutional Court Registrar refused to process your appeal against her refusal to issue your review application and advised that you need to comply with the Rules of that Court and advised that you should obtain legal representation.

7. That on 7 February 2013, you filed an appeal to the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Commission) regarding SAPA and SA Media;

8. That on 19 February 2013, you filed an appeal to CRL Rights Commission regarding the Constitutional Court Registrar;

9. That to date you have not received a response from CRL Rights Commission.

In regard to your complaint against the refusal by the Registrar of the Constitutional Court to issue your review application and your appeal against the refusal to issue the review application the SAHRC has determined that your complaint relates to alleged maladministration by a government official and that accordingly that the Office of the Public Protector is the more appropriate body to deal with such a complaint.

The SAHRC's basis for this is the Complaints Handling Procedures issued in terms of Section 9(6) of the Human Rights commission Act 54 of 1994 (Gazette, 27 January 2012, No 34963):

Chapter 4, Article 12 (7) provides that "If the Provincial Manager makes a finding that the complaint should be rejected or referred as contemplated in subarticles (8) and (9), the complainant must, within seven days of the finding, be notified thereof, in writing: Provided that he or she must be provided with full reasons for the rejection or referral and be advised of his or her right of judicial review and appeal in terms of Chapter 9 of these Procedures."

Further Chapter 4. Article 12 (8) (a) of the SAHRC's Complaints Handling Procedures provides as follows:

"If the Provincial Manager makes a finding that the complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission, or could be dealt with more effectively or expeditiously by another organisation, institution, or statutory body or institution created by the Constitution or any applicable legislation, the complaint must within seven days of the finding, be referred to such appropriate organisation, institution or body ...."

Section 6(a) of the Public Protector Act, 1994 (Act No 23 of 1994) provides that the Public Protector is responsible for investigating (i) maladministration in connection with the affairs of government at any level," as well as "ii) abuse or unjustifiable exercise of power or unfair, capricious, discourteous or other improper conduct or undey delay by a person performing a public function." In light of this mandate and the aforementioned allegations relating to alleged maladministration on the part of the Registrar of the Constitutional Court, it appears that the Office of the Public Protector is the appropriate body or institution to deal with your matter. You can contact the Office of the Public Protector at PO Box 712, Capetown, 8000 or by telephone at (021) 423 8644.

In regards to the aforementioned allegations relating to the press the Commission has determined that the Press Ombudsman is the most appropriate organisation that should deal with your matter.

"The Council, the Ombudsman and the Appeals Panel are an independent co-regulatory mechanism set up by the print media to provide impartial, expeditious and cost-effective adjudication to settle disputes between newspapers and magazines, on the one hand, and members of the public, on the other, over the editorial content of publications."

» » » » [SQSwans]