At the heart of this matter lay three important constitutional questions: when the Commission issues directives after finding that human rights have been violated, can those directives be disregarded by persons against whom they are directed; what recourse does the SAHRC have when directives are ignored; and whether the Commission must approach the courts to give its findings a binding effect for every case?

The Constitutional Court has clarified that, after concluding an investigation, the SAHRC may issue directives as to appropriate redress. Where a respondent declines to act in accordance with those recommendations, the Commission or the complainant may approach a court to obtain appropriate relief. In this process, the Court recognised that the SAHRC’s investigations and reports will ordinarily provide the evidentiary foundation necessary to advance such cases.

The Court further confirmed that the Commission’s powers under section 184(2)(b) are primarily investigative and facilitative, requiring it to take steps to secure appropriate redress rather than to provide binding remedies itself. Although the Commission does not exercise adjudicative or remedial powers in the same manner as a court, its central constitutional role in supporting constitutional democracy remains firmly affirmed.

Importantly, the Court emphasised the continuing strength and relevance of the Commission, stating that:

“It must be stressed that recognising the absence of binding remedial powers does not diminish the constitutional importance of the SAHRC or render its work ineffectual. The SAHRC is far from toothless… Properly understood, the SAHRC’s strength lies precisely in its capacity to act in ways that courts cannot.”

This case arises from a complaint by the occupiers of the De Doorn Hoek Farm in Mpumalanga, who were deprived of access to water—an issue that directly affects dignity, health, and survival. The Commission investigated the complaint and issued directives to restore access to water and uphold the dignity of the complainants.

This matter, therefore, raises broader questions about access to justice, particularly for vulnerable communities that rely on the Commission as an accessible forum for the resolution of human rights complaints. The SAHRC finalises thousands of enquiries and complaints annually, many of which relate to socio-economic rights such as access to water, housing, healthcare, and education, among others. For many individuals, the Commission remains a critical point of entry into the justice system.

The Commission has previously raised concerns that requiring enforcement through courts in all instances of non-compliance may delay the resolution of human rights violations, increase costs for affected persons and communities, and place additional strain on both institutional and judicial resources. These practical implications remain important in understanding the full impact of the judgment. The SAHRC emphasises that its findings and recommendations continue to carry significant weight and should be respected, given serious consideration, and implemented unless there are valid reasons not to do so.

The Commission is carefully studying the judgment and its implications for its work. It remains committed to utilising all available mechanisms, including litigation where necessary, to ensure that effective redress is secured for those whose rights have been violated. As South Africa observes thirty years of the adoption of the Constitution, the SAHRC remains steadfast in its constitutional mandate to promote, protect, and monitor human rights, and to ensure that rights are realised in practice for all who live in South Africa.

ENDS

ISSUED BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION