The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others

Following an adverse High Court judgment setting aside the President’s decision to appoint a commission of inquiry into SARFU, the President, the Minister of Sport and Recreation, and the Director-General appealed to the Constitutional Court. Shortly before the appeal hearing, the fourth respondent, Dr Louis Luyt, applied for the recusal of four (effectively five) Constitutional Court judges, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from their appointment by President Mandela, alleged political affiliations, personal or professional relationships with the President, and various procedural rulings by the Court perceived as favouring the President. The application was lodged at a very late stage, after extensive preparation for the appeal, and if granted would have deprived the Court of a quorum. The Court heard argument on the recusal application as a preliminary matter.

The application for the recusal of the four judges was dismissed. The Court held that it had jurisdiction, that no objective grounds for recusal were established, that each judge declined to recuse himself, and that the wasted costs occasioned by the recusal application were reserved.

This case is a leading authority on judicial recusal in South African constitutional law. It affirms the objective test for reasonable apprehension of bias, underscores judicial independence in the constitutional era, and clarifies that prior political associations or appointment by the executive do not, without more, justify recusal. The judgment protects the institutional integrity of the Constitutional Court and guards against strategic or abusive recusal applications that could paralyse the Court.