Демократический альянс V президент

Демократический альянс V президент
Суд	Конституционный суд Южной Африки
Полное имя корпуса	Демократический альянс против президента Республики Южная Африка и других
Решенный	5 октября 2012 г. ( 2012-10-05 )
Docket nos.	CCT 122/11
Цитаты	[2012] ZACC 24 ; 2012 (12) BCLR 1297 (CC); 2013 (1) до 248 (CC)
Case history
Prior actions	Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2011] ZASCA 241; 2012 (1) SA 417 (SCA); [2012] 1 All SA 243 (SCA); 2012 (3) BCLR 291 (SCA) in the Supreme Court of Appeal
Appealed from	Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2010] ZAGPPHC 194 in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division
Court membership
Judges sitting	Mogoeng CJ, Yacoob ADCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, van der Westhuizen J, Maya AJ and Zondo AJ
Case opinions
The rationality standard requires that executive decisions must be taken according to a procedure that is rationally related to the purpose for which the executive power was conferred. Because it did not fulfil this standard, the appointment of Menzi Simelane as National Director of Prosecutions was irrational and unconstitutional.
Decision by	Yacoob ADCJ (Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Maya, Nkabinde, Skweyiya and van der Westhuizen concurring)
Concurrence	Zondo AJ
Keywords
Executive power National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998 National Prosecuting Authority principle of legality procedural rationality rationality section 179 of the Constitution

Демократический альянс V Президент Республики Южной Африки и других , часто известных как Симелан , является решением Конституционного суда Южной Африки в 2012 году , который расширил проверку рациональности , включив оценку взаимосвязи между процедурой, с помощью которых исполнительные принимаются решения и цель, для которой присуждается соответствующая исполнительная власть. Применяя этот дополненный стандарт, суд постановил, что президент Джейкоб Зума действовал иррационально и неконституционно, назначая Мензи Симелан в качестве национального директора по государственным преследованиям , учитывая, что он пренебрегал, чтобы рассмотреть доказательства Prima Facie о нечестности.

Фон и предыдущие действия

В 2009 году президент Джейкоб Зума назначил Мензи Симелане национальным директором по государственным обвинениям , главой Национального прокурора . Демократический альянс , крупнейшая оппозиционная партия Южной Африки, возражала против назначения на том основании, что Зума, казалось, игнорировала различные факторы, которые ставят под сомнение целостность и честность Симелана. Среди прочего, Комиссия по расследованию Джинвалы под председательством Френа Гинвала , вызвала такие сомнения в своем окончательном отчете. Результаты Джинвалы, в свою очередь, были переданы в Комиссию по государственной службе , которая рекомендовала Симелану подвергнуться дисциплинарному расследованию, хотя эта рекомендация не была принята.

The Democratic Alliance sought judicial review of Simelane's appointment in the Gauteng High Court, where Van der Byl AJ dismissed their application, finding that the appointment was valid. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the party's appeal in December 2011; in a judgment written by Judge Mahomed Navsa, the appellate court found that Simelane's appointment was irrational and therefore unconstitutional. The order of the Supreme Court was referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation. Counsel included Owen Rogers SC and Anton Katz SC for the applicant, Marumo Moerane SC for the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, and David Unterhalter SC and Gcina Malindi SC for Simelane.

Judgment

On 5 October, 2012, the Constitutional Court unanimously confirmed the Supreme Court's order of unconstitutionality. However, in the majority judgment written by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Zak Yacoob, the court diverged from the Supreme Court's reasoning, outlining a more nuanced evaluation of the rationality of Zuma's decision-making process.

It was common cause among the disputants that the exercise of executive power is constrained by the principle of legality, viz. must not exceed the authority conferred by law and must not be misconstrued, and therefore is subject to rational basis review. As Yacoob phrased it, the standard of rationality requires, "that the decision must be rationally related to the purpose for which the power was conferred" and that the "means employed are rationally related to the purpose for which the power was conferred". The court's innovation was to explicate that not only the substance of the decision, but also the process by which the decision was taken, must be rationally related to the purpose for which the power was conferred.

On this basis, the court held, some executive decisions might be irrational not necessarily in substance but because they were reached by irrational processes, including processes which irrationally ignored certain information. Yacoob outlined a three-step test for applying rationality review to executive decision-making processes which ignored certain factors:

The first [step] is whether the factors ignored are relevant; the second requires us to consider whether the failure to consider the material concerned (the means) is rationally related to the purpose for which the power was conferred; and the third, which arises only if the answer to the second stage of the enquiry is negative, is whether ignoring relevant facts is of a kind that colours the entire process with irrationality and thus renders the final decision irrational.

The court's application of this test to Simelane's appointment was structured by section 9(1)(b) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998, which held that the National Director of Public Prosecutions must "be a fit and proper person, with due regard to his or her experience, conscientiousness and integrity, to be entrusted with the responsibilities of the office concerned." The court interpreted this provision as an objective standard for the exercise of the President's constitutional power to appoint a National Director, and found that, in ignoring prima facie indications of Simelane's dishonesty at the Ginwala Commission, the President had acted inconsistently with the purpose with which he had been entrusted, that of appointing a "fit and proper" person to the office. By these means, the court established that Simelane's appointment was irrational, without considering the fact of the matter as to Simelane's fitness for office.

Исполняющий обязанности судья Рэймонд Зондо согласился с сущностью суждения Якуба, но принес отдельное мнение для повышения квалификации на незначительном пункте. Зондо был обеспокоен тем, что, в котором изложено дисциплинарное расследование Симелана перед Комиссией по государственной службе, решение большинства подразумевало, что Комиссия по государственной службе не была обязана уважать права на партии Ауди Ауди Ауди . Такой вывод не повлияет на владение судом по этому вопросу, но Зондо не хотел подписываться на него.