Steenhuisen and Another v Van Rooyen and Others

While serving as Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, David Des van Rooyen was asked a written parliamentary question by John Steenhuisen MP enquiring whether, since taking office, he or his deputy ministers had met members, employees or associates of the Gupta family or attended meetings at the Gupta residence or elsewhere. Van Rooyen replied that neither he nor his deputies had met such persons in their official capacities. Kevin Mileham MP lodged a complaint with the Public Protector alleging that Van Rooyen had lied and wilfully misled Parliament, relying on media reports that Van Rooyen had visited the Gupta residence shortly before and around the time of his brief appointment as Minister of Finance. The Public Protector upheld the complaint and found that Van Rooyen had deliberately misled Parliament in breach of the Constitution and the Executive Ethics Code. On review, the Gauteng Division of the High Court set aside the Public Protector’s report as irrational and unlawful. Steenhuisen and Mileham sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs was made, applying the Biowatch principle.

The case reaffirms the principle that decisions of the Public Protector are subject to legality and rationality review and must be grounded in a correct interpretation of the issue under investigation. It underscores that the Public Protector may not ignore the wording of a parliamentary question or rely on irrelevant evidence. The judgment also clarifies the proper application of the standard of ‘wilful misleading’ under the Executive Ethics Code and highlights the constitutional importance of clarity in parliamentary questions to ensure effective accountability.