Western Cape High Court: Orders Revisit of Mbalula Ethics Committee Complaints

• The Western Cape High Court has ordered Parliament's Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests to reconsider complaints against former MPs Fikile Mbalula and Dikeledi Magadzi.
• The committee had previously closed the files in April 2023, citing the MPs' resignations from Parliament.
• Judge Hayley Slingers ruled that an MP's resignation does not absolve the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests of its duty to investigate conduct while in office.
• The complaints, lodged by #UniteBehind in September 2022, relate to alleged corruption at PRASA as highlighted by the Zondo Commission.
• The court dismissed a similar request concerning former MP Mosebenzi Zwane, as his complaint had already been deemed unfounded by the committee.

This judgment clarifies that a Member of Parliament's resignation does not absolve Parliament's Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests from its responsibility to consider complaints and make findings regarding their conduct while in office.

The Western Cape High Court has issued a significant ruling, compelling Parliament's Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests to revisit complaints lodged against former Members of Parliament Fikile Mbalula and Dikeledi Magadzi. This decision overturns the committee's previous stance from April 2023, which saw the complaints "closed" on the grounds that both individuals had resigned from their parliamentary positions. The court's directive means the committee must now thoroughly consider investigative reports and determine whether Mbalula, currently the Secretary-General of the ANC, and the late Magadzi breached the ethical code governing MPs during their tenure.

This judgment clarifies that a Member of Parliament's resignation does not absolve Parliament's Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests from its responsibility to consider complaints and make findings regarding their conduct while in office. The ruling effectively reinstates the complaints for formal consideration, ensuring that accountability mechanisms within Parliament remain robust even after an MP's departure.

The complaints against Mbalula and Magadzi were initiated by the activist organisation #UniteBehind in September 2022. These allegations stem from their purported involvement in corruption within the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA), as detailed in the comprehensive report by the Zondo Commission of Inquiry. #UniteBehind has consistently sought to hold politicians accountable for their roles in such matters.

Prior to the court's intervention, the acting Registrar of Members' Interests had conducted investigations into these complaints. The registrar's findings indicated that the complaint against Mbalula was "unfounded," while recommending that Magadzi had indeed breached parliamentary rules. However, the registrar also advised the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests that the existing code of conduct might prevent them from acting on these reports due to Mbalula and Magadzi no longer being serving MPs. This advice ultimately led to the committee's decision to close the files in April 2023, approximately six weeks after their resignations.

A full bench of the Western Cape High Court, with Judge Hayley Slingers presiding and two other judges concurring, reviewed the decision of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests. The court found that the resignations of the two MPs did not diminish the committee's obligation to address the complaints. Judge Slingers specifically highlighted that the registrar's findings and recommendations, despite being available, had not been considered at two prior meetings in November 2022 and were only tabled after the resignations, for reasons that remain undisclosed.

The court's order setting aside the decisions to close the files carries significant practical weight. It compels the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests to now engage with the registrar's reports and issue definitive findings on the alleged breaches of the ethical code. This ruling reinforces the principle that parliamentary oversight bodies retain jurisdiction over past conduct, irrespective of an individual's current status as a Member of Parliament.

The legal proceedings surrounding these complaints have been protracted and intricate, involving two related applications by #UniteBehind that were eventually consolidated. The complexity was further compounded by Parliament's adoption of a new code of conduct for MPs in May 2024, which occurred without informing #UniteBehind while the matters were still pending. Although #UniteBehind attempted to challenge this new code, particularly its confidentiality provisions and clauses concerning resigned MPs, the court ultimately declined to entertain these challenges, stating they were not properly placed before it.

Furthermore, the court dismissed #UniteBehind's attempt to secure a similar order against former MP Mosebenzi Zwane. In Zwane's case, the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests had already considered the registrar's report and concluded that the complaint was unfounded, rendering further judicial intervention unnecessary. The court also noted significant delays in the proceedings, criticizing both #UniteBehind and the respondents, including the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests and the Speaker of the National Assembly, for contributing to the extended period between the argument in August 2025 and the filing of subsequent papers regarding the admissibility of an affidavit by activist Zackie Achmat. The court refused to grant condonation for the late filing of this affidavit.

This judgment clarifies that a Member of Parliament's resignation does not absolve the National Assembly's ethics committee from its responsibility to consider complaints and make findings regarding their conduct while in office. Lawyers advising on parliamentary ethics or public accountability should note this precedent, as it reinforces the committee's ongoing jurisdiction and the potential for former officials to face scrutiny for past breaches of the code of conduct.

Source: Original reporting via news reports