Public Protector warns insults could attract R40,000 fine or 12 months’ jail

Public Protector issues legal warning after Constitutional Court judgment

The Office of the Public Protector has urged the public to engage with its reports lawfully and respectfully and warned that insulting the Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector is a criminal offence punishable by a fine not exceeding R40 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months.

Context: reaction to Constitutional Court ruling

The warning follows public reaction to the Constitutional Court judgment in the EFF matter, delivered on 8 May 2026. The Public Protector said it had “noted with concern, the public comments deriving from the Constitutional Court judgment” and emphasised that the judgment has no impact on its own investigation into allegations involving President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Phala Phala matter.

Office says its report remains unaffected

The institution pointed to Report No. 12 of 2023/2024, which it says deals with alleged violations of the Executive Ethics Code and claims of improper conduct by members of the South African Police Service, and stated that the report “remains unaffected.”

The Public Protector clarified that the Constitutional Court case addressed only Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment process, including the constitutionality of National Assembly Rule 129I and Parliament’s decision in December 2022 not to refer an independent panel report to an impeachment committee. The office said it “was not a participant in the parliamentary process and was not a party to the Constitutional Court proceedings.”

Separate legal processes, says office

The institution stressed that the ConCourt judgment “does not assess or overturn the Public Protector’s report” and “makes no findings on its investigation, conclusions or remedial action.” It added that the legal processes stemming from the Constitutional Court judgment and its own report are separate and should not be conflated.

The Public Protector noted that while its report is currently subject to a judicial review application pending before the North Gauteng High Court, the Constitutional Court order deals only with Parliament’s handling of the Section 89 panel report. “These are separate legal processes, operating in different areas, and they do not conflict with one another,” the office said.

Criminal offence and limits to free expression

The institution warned that insulting the Public Protector or its deputy is a criminal offence under section 9(a) of the Public Protector Act. It said:

“Any person convicted of this offence may be liable, in terms of section 11 of the Act, to a fine not exceeding R40 000-00 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.”

The Public Protector also cautioned that while the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, that right “is not unlimited. It is subject to lawful limitations and does not extend to conduct that constitutes a statutory criminal offence.”

Call for lawful engagement

The office urged members of the public to engage with its findings, conclusions and remedial action in a lawful and respectful manner, saying such engagement “forms part of democratic accountability.” It added:

“Members of the public are encouraged to engage with the findings, conclusions and remedial action contained in PPSA reports. It is precisely for this reason that the reports are published and made freely available.”

The Public Protector concluded by reaffirming its commitment to its constitutional mandate of investigating improper conduct in state affairs, reporting on it, and taking remedial action “independently, impartially, and without fear, favour, or prejudice.”