Public Interest SA Raises Concern Over Public Protector Statement on “Insult” Provisions

Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa. Tuesday, 12 May 2026 — Public Interest SA notes with concern aspects of the recent media statement issued by the Office of the Public Protector South Africa (PPSA) regarding public commentary following the Constitutional Court judgment in EFF and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others.

While we fully acknowledge and support the constitutional importance of safeguarding Chapter 9 institutions from unlawful interference, intimidation, threats, and obstruction, we are concerned by the PPSA’s invocation of criminal provisions relating to “insulting” the Public Protector in the context of public debate and criticism.

South Africa’s constitutional democracy is founded upon openness, accountability, responsiveness, and freedom of expression. Robust public scrutiny of constitutional office bearers — including the Public Protector — is not only constitutionally protected but indispensable to democratic accountability.

Public Interest SA is concerned that the PPSA statement may create the unfortunate impression that lawful criticism, dissent, ridicule, or strong public disagreement with the Office of the Public Protector could expose citizens, journalists, commentators, activists, or political actors to criminal sanction. Such a perception risks chilling constitutionally protected speech and undermining public confidence in democratic discourse.

The distinction between unlawful interference with a constitutional institution and legitimate criticism of public office bearers is both critical and constitutionally settled.

Section 16 of the Constitution protects freedom of expression precisely because democracy requires citizens to engage openly and fearlessly with matters of public governance and constitutional accountability. Public officials occupying positions of immense constitutional authority must necessarily tolerate robust, and at times harsh, scrutiny.

While freedom of expression is not absolute, any limitation thereof must comply with the Constitution’s strict standards of legality, rationality, necessity, and proportionality.

Criminalising vague concepts such as “insult” within political discourse raises serious constitutional questions, particularly where such provisions may have a chilling effect on legitimate democratic participation.

Importantly, existing South African law already provides adequate protection against:

• threats and intimidation;

• defamation;

• crimen injuria;

• incitement to violence; and

• unlawful interference with the functioning of Chapter 9 institutions.

Accordingly, care must be taken to ensure that statutory provisions are not interpreted or applied in a manner that appears inconsistent with constitutional values or suggestive of institutional intolerance toward criticism.

Public Interest SA reiterates its unwavering support for the independence, dignity, and constitutional mandate of the Public Protector. Chapter 9 institutions remain vital pillars of South Africa’s constitutional democracy and must be protected from improper political interference and attacks on their institutional integrity.

However, respect for constitutional institutions cannot come at the expense of constitutional freedoms. The legitimacy and credibility of democratic institutions are ultimately strengthened — not weakened — by open engagement, public scrutiny, and constitutional debate.

In the same vein, criticism of institutions such as the NPA, SAPS, IPID, or SIU must not be misconstrued or recast as attacks on those institutions or their employees generally. In a constitutional democracy, robust scrutiny of public institutions and their decisions is both legitimate and necessary for accountability.

We therefore urge all constitutional institutions and public representatives to exercise restraint, uphold constitutional values, and foster an environment in which democratic engagement can occur freely, responsibly, and without fear.

South Africa’s constitutional project demands nothing less.

END

_____

Issued by Public Interest SA