Lobby group AfriForum has argued in its submissions to the Constitutional Court that the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) does not have the power to make legally binding decisions, as per South Africa’s Constitution and in line with international trends.

The organisation has submitted court documents to be admitted as a Friend of the Court (amicus curiae) in a case that will determine whether the findings and recommendations made by the SAHRC are legally binding or not.

Last year, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled that the SAHRC’s findings were not enforceable in themselves and could only be enforced by a court.

The SCA’s judgment was delivered in a case between the SAHRC and agricultural company AgroData, in which the SAHRC argued that their findings and directives in a dispute regarding borehole access were binding.

AfriForum was also a Friend of the Court in this case, despite the SAHRC’s protests.

AfriForum head of public relations Ernst van Zyl said his organisation’s involvement as a Friend of the Court in this case was to present the constitutionality, relevant considerations and international customs before the court and assist the court in making a “fair and constitutional” finding.

“It’s exciting to be able to contribute to such a landmark case with such far-reaching implications. Institutions should not have more power than they are constitutionally allocated, especially not institutions with as many controversies and instances of double standards on their track record as the SAHRC,” he said.

Van Zyl advocated for a debate on the separation of powers and the limits of such power for institutions like the SAHRC.