Despite the Constitutional Court ruling that the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) cannot issue binding directives, the Court stressed that its judgment does not diminish the constitutional importance of the Commission.

The court made a ruling on Wednesday, in the case of SAHRC v Agro Data CC and FC, relating to a 2018 complaint by Tubatsi Mosotho and other occupiers of De Doorn Hock Farm in Mpumalanga.

They alleged that the farm owner, Francois Gerhardus Boshoff, and Agro Data CC had unilaterally restricted their access to borehole water.

Following an investigation, the SAHRC concluded that the respondents violated the occupiers’ constitutional rights to water and dignity and issued directives requiring Agro Data to restore the water supply within seven days and to engage in good faith discussions regarding water management.

The Court noted that the SAHRC’s strength lies in its capacity to act in ways that courts cannot, highlighting that the Commission remains a “powerful, potent guardian of human rights”.

If a respondent refuses to comply, the Commission must litigate the matter on the underlying facts to make the findings binding.

The SAHRC said the ruling confirmed that the commission is designed to act as an influential watchdog that acts cooperatively.

In this process, the Court recognised that the SAHRC’s investigations and reports will ordinarily provide the evidentiary foundation necessary to advance such cases, it said.

The Court further confirmed that the Commission’s powers under section 184(2)(b) are primarily investigative and facilitative, requiring it to take steps to secure appropriate redress rather than to provide binding remedies itself.

The SAHRC said while this necessitates a different enforcement strategy, its investigations remain vital in identifying violations and providing the evidence needed for courts to grant final relief.