The Public Protector South Africa (PPSA) has issued a sharp warning to critics attacking the institution in the wake of the Constitutional Court’s latest judgment linked to the Phala Phala scandal, cautioning that insulting the Public Protector or Deputy Public Protector is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to R40,000 or 12 months imprisonment.
In a statement released on Monday, the Chapter 9 institution said growing public commentary following the Constitutional Court ruling in EFF and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others had wrongly created the impression that the court judgment invalidated or overturned Public Protector findings related to President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Phala Phala matter.
The PPSA stressed that the Constitutional Court ruling dealt only with Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment process and had “no bearing” on the Public Protector’s own report into allegations surrounding the 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.
“The Constitutional Court judgment has no bearing on the Public Protector’s Report No.12 of 2023/2024,” the office said.
The institution emphasised that the court did not assess, overturn or make findings on the Public Protector’s conclusions or remedial action linked to the investigation into alleged violations of the Executive Ethics Code and alleged improper conduct by members of the South African Police Service.
Instead, the Constitutional Court focused narrowly on whether Parliament acted lawfully when it declined to establish an impeachment committee following the Section 89 Independent Panel report into the Phala Phala matter.
“The Constitutional Court case dealt solely with the constitutionality of Parliament’s section 89 process,” the statement read.
The Public Protector further clarified that its report remains subject to a separate judicial review process currently awaiting a hearing date in the North Gauteng High Court, adding that the Constitutional Court ruling and the judicial review are “separate legal processes” that “do not conflict with one another”.
However, it was the institution’s hardline warning against attacks on the Public Protector that quickly became the focal point of the statement.
“The PPSA takes this opportunity to remind members of the public that insulting the Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector constitutes a criminal offence in terms of section 9(a) of the Public Protector Act.”
It added: “Any person convicted of this offence may be liable, in terms of section 11 of the Act, to a fine not exceeding R40 000-00 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.”
The PPSA also cautioned against using freedom of expression as a shield for unlawful conduct, stressing that constitutional rights are subject to legal limits.
“The right to freedom of expression, guaranteed under section 16 of the Constitution, is not unlimited. It is subject to lawful limitations and does not extend to conduct that constitutes a statutory criminal offence.”
The warning comes as political tensions surrounding the Phala Phala matter continue to intensify following the Constitutional Court ruling ordering Parliament to reconsider aspects of its impeachment process linked to the Section 89 panel findings.
Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka’s 2023 report cleared Ramaphosa of violating the Executive Ethics Code over the controversial theft of foreign currency from his farm, a finding that triggered fierce political debate, legal scrutiny and sustained criticism from opposition parties.
Despite the backlash, the PPSA said public engagement with its reports remains important in a constitutional democracy but warned that criticism must remain within the boundaries of the law.
“Such engagement is a valued part of the democratic accountability that the PPSA exists to advance. However, all such engagement must take place within the confines of the law and in a manner that upholds the constitutional rights and human dignity of all persons, including holders of constitutional offices.”
The institution said it remains committed to carrying out its constitutional mandate “independently, impartially, and without fear, favour, or prejudice.”
The Star