On 22 April 2026, the Constitutional Court dismissed the South African Human Rights Commission’s (SAHRC) appeal in the Agro Data CC case, ruling that the Commission does not have the authority to issue binding directives under section 184(2)(b) of the Constitution. The Court clarified that while SAHRC’s recommendations carry weight, they do not create enforceable legal obligations on their own.
The matter originated from a dispute over Agro Data CC restricting community access to borehole water on Doornhoek farm. The SAHRC had issued directives, but the Constitutional Court confirmed these are not binding and must be enforced through courts if not complied with.
The Court distinguished the SAHRC’s powers from those of the Public Protector, who can issue binding remedial actions in certain circumstances. Justice Caroline Nicholls described the SAHRC as “a potent and indispensable guardian of human rights within our constitutional scheme,” despite the limitations on issuing binding orders.
Tshepo Madlingozi, SAHRC commissioner, emphasised during a media briefing reported by eNCA on 8 October 2026 that South Africans are free to criticise Constitutional Court judgments but must avoid encouraging the public to disregard them. He warned, “If we don’t do so, we are on our way to a very dangerous slippery slope.” Madlingozi added that government members may critique judicial decisions but must do so with care, respecting the constitutional democracy and the authority of court rulings.
The SAHRC reaffirmed in a media statement that both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court have consistently held that its directives are not binding and require court enforcement when contested. This latest ruling follows the Supreme Court of Appeal’s 2024 decision that first set this precedent, prompting the Constitutional Court appeal.
This decision underlines the SAHRC’s role as a human rights promoter through investigation, advocacy, and facilitating access to justice rather than an enforcement body. It highlights the necessity for democratic institutions to operate within constitutional limits, respecting judicial processes and rulings.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling and Madlingozi’s comments come amid broader discussions on the balance between institutional authority and public trust in South Africa’s constitutional democracy. While scrutiny of court decisions is a democratic right, the SAHRC stresses the importance of upholding the rule of law by respecting Constitutional Court rulings.
The Cape Flats News will continue monitoring any further developments or responses from the SAHRC, government officials, or civil society regarding this matter.