Minister of Home Affairs v The Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa

Mr Reginald Ananius Marimi, an employee of the Department of Home Affairs stationed as First Secretary at the South African embassy in Cuba, was recalled to South Africa following complaints from the Cuban government regarding his alleged misconduct. Although the Cuban authorities did not request his removal or declare him persona non grata, the Department recalled him, halted his cost of living allowance (COLA), and threatened disciplinary action that was never finalised. After prolonged silence and procedural delays by the Department, Marimi lodged a complaint with the Public Protector alleging maladministration relating to his recall, the withdrawal of his COLA, and the failure to conclude disciplinary proceedings. The Public Protector investigated, found maladministration, and directed remedial action. The Minister of Home Affairs and the Director-General sought to review and set aside the Public Protector’s report and remedial action in the High Court, which dismissed the application. They then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This case is significant for clarifying that the Public Protector’s investigative, reporting and remedial actions are not administrative action under PAJA but are reviewable under the principle of legality. It reinforces the constitutional independence and authority of the Public Protector and aligns with jurisprudence confirming that the Public Protector’s remedial action is binding unless set aside on review.