Steenhuisen and Another v Van Rooyen and Others

In December 2015, Mr Van Rooyen was appointed Minister of Finance by President Zuma and removed four days later, being appointed Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs. On 11 April 2016, Mr Steenhuisen (a DA member of Parliament) posed a written parliamentary question asking whether Mr Van Rooyen or his Deputy Ministers had ever met with the Gupta family or their associates since taking office. Mr Van Rooyen answered that he and his Deputy Ministers had never met with members, employees or associates of the Gupta family in their official capacities. Mr Mileham (another DA member of Parliament) lodged a complaint with the Public Protector alleging that media reports showed Mr Van Rooyen visited the Gupta residence in Saxonworld between 2-8 December 2015 (before his appointment as Minister of Finance), and that he deliberately misled Parliament. Mr Van Rooyen explained he had visited the Guptas on 7 December 2015 in his capacity as Treasurer General of the MKMVA to enlist business support. The Public Protector found that Mr Van Rooyen deliberately distorted the meaning of 'since taking office' and misled Parliament. The High Court reviewed and set aside this decision. The applicants sought leave to appeal.

• Whether the Public Protector's investigation and decision were rationally related to the parliamentary question posed
• Whether Mr Van Rooyen wilfully misled Parliament in breach of sections 96(1) and (2)(b) of the Constitution and paragraph 2.3(a) of the Executive Ethics Code
• The proper interpretation of the parliamentary question, particularly the phrase 'since taking office'
• Whether the Public Protector's investigation was based on an appropriate interpretation of the complaint and question
• Whether the matter should be remitted to the Public Protector

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

An administrative decision by the Public Protector must be rationally related to the question or complaint being investigated. Where a public body interprets a parliamentary question in a particular way, it cannot abandon that interpretation to reach a conclusion of wrongdoing based on matters falling outside the scope of the question as interpreted. All words in a parliamentary question must be given meaning in interpretation unless their inclusion leads to an absurdity. An investigation into whether a member of the executive wilfully misled Parliament must focus on the actual question posed and the response given, not on extraneous matters reported in the media that were not part of the question. A decision that is not rationally related to the subject matter of the inquiry is reviewable and must be set aside.

The court observed that the parliamentary question and answer procedure is one of the pillars on which South Africa's multi-party system of democratic government is anchored, designed to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness. However, vague and ambiguous questions detract from the efficiency of this process. The court advised that the Speaker should ensure parliamentary questions are clear before members are called upon to respond. The court noted that the Public Protector used the phrase 'deliberately and inadvertently misled' when the applicable legal test under clause 2.3(a) of the Executive Ethics Code is whether there was 'wilful' misleading. While the court acknowledged the importance of parliamentary accountability mechanisms, it emphasized that any inquiry into the veracity of answers given must accord with relevant legality prescripts.

This case is significant in South African administrative law as it reinforces the principle that decisions by constitutional bodies like the Public Protector must be rationally related to the matters they investigate. It demonstrates that even where parliamentary accountability is at stake (a matter of constitutional importance), administrative decisions must comply with rationality requirements under the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). The judgment emphasizes that investigations cannot extend beyond the scope of complaints or questions posed, and that constitutional bodies must consistently apply their own interpretations when reaching conclusions. The case also highlights the importance of clarity in parliamentary questions to ensure effective accountability mechanisms. It provides guidance on textual interpretation, confirming that all words in questions or documents must be given meaning unless absurdity results. The application of the Biowatch principle on costs in matters of public importance concerning parliamentary accountability is also noteworthy.