SOUTH AFRICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM LAUNCH LEGAL ACTION TO FORCE PARLIAMENT TO COMPLY
- Mpho Dube
- 1 hour ago
- 3 min read
Citizens sue over public participation, accountability and transparency. "Chickens are coming home to roost"
By Mpho Dube, Editor-in-Chief
The Azanian | Truth. Fearless. Unfiltered.
AZANIAFROCOMEDIA – The Catalyst of Impact
PRETORIA — South Africans for Constitutional Reform has launched legal action to force the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa to comply with its constitutional duties on public participation, accountability and transparency.
For thirty years South Africans were told the Constitution belongs to them.
Now they are demanding Parliament act like it.
South Africans for Constitutional Reform [SACR] filed the case this week and launched a BackaBuddy campaign to fund legal costs, consultations, court processes and constitutional advocacy.
"You asked us to ACT. We’ve responded," said Princy Mthombeni, NECSA official and SACR campaign leader.
Mthombeni has become the public voice of SACR. In videos shared this week she said the Constitution is a contract and that Parliament is in breach of its duties to consult the public.
In a post 1 day ago she also targeted appointments to the Immigration Advisory Board:
"Someone who recently took Department of Home Affairs to court over immigration policy has no place serving on the Immigration Advisory Board. The conflict of interest is impossible to ignore."
This legal action follows years of petitions.
On http://sacro.org.za, SACR lists a closed petition titled "Reform South Africa's Constitution — Prioritise Citizens, Enforce Accountability."
Supporters: 30,274 verified on http://Change.org.
SACR used that petition to inform a formal submission to Parliament's Constitutional Review Committee.
The organisation states: "Citizen-backed petitions calling for accountability, reform and meaningful public participation. SACR launches a petition when a specific reform needs public pressure."
SACR’s OPEN petition to Parliament now calls for an amendment to section 4 of the Immigration Act, 2002.
The proposal is to prevent people who have acted as legal representatives against government on immigration, asylum or refugee matters in the past 3 years from being appointed as independent members of the Immigration Advisory Board.
SACR argues the conflict of interest undermines public trust.
A 15 June 2026 Maverick News report by Rebecca Davis also noted SACR is raising questions around state oversight of NGOs and foreign influence on policy. The organisation says the issue is transparency and accountability.
SACR argues Parliament has failed to facilitate meaningful public participation as required by sections 59 and 72 of the Constitution.
The organisation says laws are being passed with consultation treated as a formality, while citizens are excluded until after decisions are made.
The BackaBuddy campaign is intended to cover the cost of taking that argument to court.
Voice notes circulating nationally capture the mood:"It's about time that people must speak for themselves. And rectify things that are unconstitutional."
While government delegations were in Beijing this week for the South Africa - China Electricity & Energy Investment Conference, SACR was mobilising citizens at home around the Constitution.
The contrast highlights the core of SACR’s argument. Big policy and investment decisions are made, but the public participation required by law is missing.
For SACR, this is not about politics. It is about process. About the Constitution being applied as written.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
1. The Legal Case: SACR will file papers to compel Parliament to comply with public participation, accountability and transparency obligations.
2. The Petition: The open petition on the Immigration Advisory Board remains before Parliament.
3. Public Mobilisation: SACR says more petitions and campaigns will follow where constitutional duties are not met.
With 30,000 signatures behind it, a legal fund launched, and a national spokesperson in Princy Mthombeni, SACR has moved from online posts to the court room.
For thirty years South Africans were told the Constitution belongs to them.
Now, South Africans for Constitutional Reform are testing whether Parliament agrees.
Comments