The case arose from the Public Protector’s investigation into the so‑called Bankorp/Absa “lifeboat” transaction, in which the South African Reserve Bank advanced approximately R3.2 billion to Bankorp Limited (later acquired by Absa) during the apartheid era. Following earlier investigations (including CIEX, Heath J and the Davis Panel), a complaint was lodged in 2010 alleging failure by the state to recover misappropriated public funds. The Public Protector ultimately issued remedial action in 2017 directing, among other things, that the Special Investigating Unit recover funds from Absa and that Parliament initiate an amendment to section 224 of the Constitution altering the mandate of the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank and Absa successfully challenged the remedial action in the High Court, which set it aside and made a punitive costs order. Fifteen per cent of the Reserve Bank’s costs were ordered to be paid personally by the Public Protector on an attorney‑and‑client scale. The Public Protector applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal solely against the personal costs order.
Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The High Court’s order requiring the Public Protector to pay 15% of the Reserve Bank’s costs personally on an attorney‑and‑client scale remained intact. The Reserve Bank’s cross‑appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs was made in the Constitutional Court.
The case is a leading authority on personal and punitive costs against constitutional office‑bearers in South Africa. It confirms that the Public Protector is not immune from personal costs where she acts in grossly negligent disregard of her constitutional and statutory obligations. At the same time, the strong dissent underscores ongoing tension between accountability and protecting the independence of Chapter 9 institutions, shaping future debates on institutional integrity and judicial oversight.