Agrochemical and Beef Giants Avoid Sahrc Food System Inquiry As Hearings Resume

Major agrochemical and beef companies notably absented themselves from the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) food systems hearings, raising critical questions about corporate accountability in addressing widespread food insecurity and malnutrition in South Africa. These hearings, grounded in the constitutional right to food enshrined in Section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution, aim to scrutinise the entire food value chain. The companies' non-participation highlights a significant challenge for the SAHRC, particularly in light of the recent Constitutional Court judgment in *South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC and Another*, which clarified that the Commission's directives are not legally binding. This development complicates the SAHRC's ability to compel private sector engagement and enforce its recommendations, underscoring the need for robust mechanisms to ensure corporate responsibility in human rights matters.

The second phase of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) national investigative hearings into the country's food systems commenced with a notable absence: major agrochemical and beef companies failed to appear or provide submissions. This non-participation has ignited urgent questions regarding corporate accountability and commitment to tackling the pervasive issue of food insecurity in South Africa, a nation where millions regularly experience hunger despite possessing the agricultural capacity to feed its population.

The SAHRC inquiry is a crucial undertaking, designed to unpack the complex structural, economic, and policy factors that influence access to food, affordability, and nutritional outcomes across the entire food value chain. The absence of key private sector players, particularly those at the 'upstream' end of the agricultural supply chain and in meat manufacturing, undermines the comprehensive understanding sought by the Commission. This article will explore the legal framework underpinning the SAHRC's inquiry, the implications of corporate non-participation, and the challenges posed by recent judicial pronouncements on the SAHRC's powers, particularly concerning its ability to enforce engagement and recommendations.

The South African Human Rights Commission is a Chapter 9 institution, established under Section 184 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, with a mandate to promote respect for human rights, protect, develop, and monitor their observance. Its powers and functions are further elaborated in the South African Human Rights Commission Act 40 of 2013. Central to the current inquiry is Section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution, which unequivocally states that "everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water." This right is further buttressed by Section 28(1)(c), which guarantees every child the right to basic nutrition.

Despite these constitutional guarantees, South Africa faces significant challenges in achieving food security, with an estimated 14 million people, representing 22.2% of households, regularly experiencing hunger, and child malnutrition remaining a serious concern. The SAHRC initiated its National Investigative Hearing into South Africa's Food Systems in response to these alarming statistics and findings from its monitoring work. The inquiry aims to assess all aspects of the food system, from production and distribution to regulation and consumer choices, with a view to compiling a final report outlining recommendations for government, the private sector, and other stakeholders. The National Policy on Food and Nutrition Security, approved by Cabinet in 2013, provides a broad framework for the fulfilment of this constitutional imperative, emphasising the need for coordinated efforts to ensure availability, accessibility, and affordability of safe and nutritious food.

The recent non-participation of major agrochemical and beef companies in the SAHRC food systems hearings underscores a significant challenge to corporate accountability. While some entities, such as the Sparta Group, sought postponements, arguing that the SAHRC's requests were not subpoenas compelling attendance, the Commission expressed disappointment at the lack of engagement. This stance by some private sector actors highlights a critical tension between the SAHRC's constitutional mandate to investigate human rights violations and its practical ability to compel cooperation from non-state entities.

This challenge is further compounded by the Constitutional Court's recent unanimous judgment in *South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC and Another* (2026). The Court clarified that while the SAHRC plays a vital role in protecting human rights, its directives are not legally binding or enforceable in the same way as those of the Public Protector. The judgment affirmed that the SAHRC can investigate complaints, make findings and recommendations, facilitate mediation, and assist complainants in approaching courts, but it cannot issue binding orders that compel compliance. This means that if a party ignores an SAHRC recommendation, the Commission or affected individuals must initiate separate legal action in a competent court to obtain a binding order.

The *Agro Data* ruling, while not rendering the SAHRC "toothless" as it retains significant investigative powers, undeniably impacts its ability to directly enforce participation or compliance from private sector entities in inquiries such as the food systems hearing. The private sector, including agrochemical suppliers and beef producers, plays a central role in shaping the food system, from production methods and pricing to distribution and nutritional outcomes. Their insights are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of market concentration, pricing practices, and environmental impacts that affect the right to food. The absence of these key stakeholders, therefore, creates significant gaps in the evidence base the SAHRC is trying to build.

SAHRC Commissioner Sandra Makoasha indicated that the Commission would announce steps and possible investigations following the non-appearances. Given the *Agro Data* judgment, these steps would likely involve pursuing litigation to enforce the underlying human rights violations identified, rather than directly compelling attendance at the inquiry. This judicial clarification places a greater burden on the SAHRC to engage in protracted legal battles to ensure accountability, potentially delaying resolutions and straining resources. The broader implication is that while corporations have a responsibility to respect human rights, the mechanisms for compelling their engagement and ensuring accountability in non-judicial inquiries remain a complex area of South African law.

The non-participation of major agrochemical and beef companies in the SAHRC food systems hearings presents a critical juncture for corporate accountability in South Africa. It highlights the inherent tension between the constitutional right to food and the practical challenges of ensuring that powerful private sector actors contribute meaningfully to addressing systemic issues like food insecurity. The recent Constitutional Court ruling, affirming that the SAHRC's directives are not legally binding, further complicates the Commission's ability to compel such engagement, necessitating a more litigious approach for enforcement.

For legal practitioners, this development underscores the importance of understanding the SAHRC's investigative powers and the potential for subsequent court action if its recommendations are disregarded. Companies operating within South Africa's food system should be advised on their human rights obligations and the strategic benefits of proactive engagement with Chapter 9 institutions, even in the absence of directly binding directives. Looking ahead, the SAHRC's announced "steps and possible investigations" will be closely watched, as will any legislative efforts to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms available to the Commission. Ultimately, ensuring a food system that upholds the right to sufficient food for all South Africans will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders, backed by robust and enforceable accountability frameworks.