CSL2601 Constitutional Law
Assignment 01 Semester 01 2025
, Question 1
1.1 Is an Anti-Corruption Commission Necessary?
The idea of establishing an Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) as a Chapter 9
institution raises an important question: Would it genuinely strengthen South Africa’s
fight against corruption, or would it merely duplicate existing structures? South Africa
already has multiple bodies tasked with combating corruption. The National Prosecuting
Authority (NPA), particularly through its Investigating Directorate against Corruption
(IDAC), has been empowered to investigate and prosecute cases of serious corruption.1
Similarly, the Public Protector, another Chapter 9 institution, is constitutionally mandated
to investigate misconduct within state institutions (s182).2 The Special Investigating Unit
(SIU) and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks) also play significant
roles in tackling corruption, particularly in law enforcement and state-owned
enterprises.3
Despite these existing mechanisms, the persistent problem of corruption—evident in
state capture, procurement fraud, and financial mismanagement—raises concerns
about whether these institutions have been effective enough. One argument in favor of
an ACC is that it would provide a constitutionally entrenched and independent body to
focus exclusively on corruption. Under Section 181(2) of the Constitution, Chapter 9
institutions are required to function without fear, favor, or prejudice, ensuring
independence from political interference.4 This could be particularly significant, given
the historical allegations of political meddling within the Hawks and other law
enforcement bodies.5
Moreover, an ACC could help streamline anti-corruption efforts. Currently, there is often
fragmentation and lack of coordination between the NPA, SIU, and Hawks. A single,
1
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
2
Ibid section 182.
3
Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996
4
Ibid note 1.
5
Public Protector v President of the Republic of South Africa, 2018 ZACC 35.
Assignment 01 Semester 01 2025
, Question 1
1.1 Is an Anti-Corruption Commission Necessary?
The idea of establishing an Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) as a Chapter 9
institution raises an important question: Would it genuinely strengthen South Africa’s
fight against corruption, or would it merely duplicate existing structures? South Africa
already has multiple bodies tasked with combating corruption. The National Prosecuting
Authority (NPA), particularly through its Investigating Directorate against Corruption
(IDAC), has been empowered to investigate and prosecute cases of serious corruption.1
Similarly, the Public Protector, another Chapter 9 institution, is constitutionally mandated
to investigate misconduct within state institutions (s182).2 The Special Investigating Unit
(SIU) and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks) also play significant
roles in tackling corruption, particularly in law enforcement and state-owned
enterprises.3
Despite these existing mechanisms, the persistent problem of corruption—evident in
state capture, procurement fraud, and financial mismanagement—raises concerns
about whether these institutions have been effective enough. One argument in favor of
an ACC is that it would provide a constitutionally entrenched and independent body to
focus exclusively on corruption. Under Section 181(2) of the Constitution, Chapter 9
institutions are required to function without fear, favor, or prejudice, ensuring
independence from political interference.4 This could be particularly significant, given
the historical allegations of political meddling within the Hawks and other law
enforcement bodies.5
Moreover, an ACC could help streamline anti-corruption efforts. Currently, there is often
fragmentation and lack of coordination between the NPA, SIU, and Hawks. A single,
1
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
2
Ibid section 182.
3
Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996
4
Ibid note 1.
5
Public Protector v President of the Republic of South Africa, 2018 ZACC 35.
