Helen Suzman Foundation v Robert McBride and Others

Robert McBride was appointed as Executive Director of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) for a five‑year term ending on 28 February 2019. Shortly before expiry, he engaged the Minister of Police regarding renewal. The Minister initially communicated that he had decided not to renew the contract, prompting McBride to allege unlawfulness on the basis that renewal decisions vested in Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Police (PCP), not the Minister. McBride launched urgent High Court proceedings seeking to set aside the Minister’s decision, compel the PCP to decide on renewal, and, if necessary, declare s 6(3)(b) of the IPID Act unconstitutional. While the application was pending, the parties (McBride, the Minister, and the PCP) settled, agreeing that the Minister’s stance was only a preliminary recommendation and that the PCP would decide on renewal. The settlement was made an order of court. The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF), admitted as amicus curiae, objected to the settlement and later appealed after the High Court refused it leave, despite the main parties no longer being in dispute.

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court’s order making the settlement agreement an order of court remained in force.

The case clarifies the limited role of an amicus curiae in South African litigation, confirming that an amicus may not continue or broaden litigation after settlement by the principal parties. It reinforces principles governing when courts may make settlement agreements orders of court, and affirms parliamentary oversight—rather than executive control—in decisions affecting the independence of IPID. It also underscores judicial reluctance to grant relief where events have overtaken the dispute.