1. The author requests that the Public Protector investigate the conduct of Parliament and the South African Human Rights Commission regarding a policy that deemed employees who accepted nomination for elected office as having resigned. 2. The policy was found to be unconstitutional by the CCMA and the SAHRC found there was a prima facie case of unconstitutionality but failed to fully investigate. 3. The author argues that both bodies have failed to properly execute their constitutional mandates to protect human rights and act impartially.

1. 1 Honeysuckle Walk
Belhar
7493
23 April 2009
Adv L Mushwana
The Public Protector
4th Floor
51 Wale Street/Cnr Bree Street
Cape Town
8000
Dear Adv Mushwana
PREJUDICIAL CONDUCT: PARLIAMENT & SAHRC
I hereby wish to request that your office investigate the conduct of Parliament (RSA) and the South
African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), in terms of section 182 (1) of the Constitution (Act
108, 1996) and sections 6(4)(a)(ii) and 6(4)(a)(v) of the Public Protector Act (Act 23, 1994).
In March 2006, a colleague and I1 were ‘resigned’ by Parliament (RSA), when we transgressed a
generally unknown workplace policy. The policy stated;
‘If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory
body, he/she is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the
date on which he /she accepts such nomination or appointment.’
The CCMA found that it was not a resignation, but a dismissal. I later referred the unconstitutionality2
of the policy to the SAHRC, which pronounced on 20 April 2007 (two years ago!) that there was a
‘prima facie’ case, but further investigation was needed. Since then, they have however been non-
committal to execute their constitutional mandate ‘without fear, favour or prejudice’. Parliament
deliberately provided insufficient information or ignored the deadlines of the SAHRC to provide
supporting documents to show that this policy was in line with the Constitution and/or national
legislation. The Human Rights Commission Act (Act 54, 1994) provides the SAHRC with the legal
powers to ensure (force) the cooperation of individuals and state organs to provide the required
assistance in support of the execution of its constitutional mandate, i.e. it is a criminal offence not to
cooperate with a SAHRC investigation. On that basis I (not the SAHRC!) laid a complaint with the
South African Police Service, but it indicated that it would be ‘difficult’ to show criminal intent. It
seems that the SAHRC lacks the ethical and political will to use its powers to protect its integrity,
independence and impartiality, as per the Constitution and its own Act.
The above-mentioned policy was changed in July 2006, because I pointed out to Parliament that some
employees were members of statutory bodies (School Governing Bodies and Community Police
1
My colleague (Independent Democrats) and I (Independent candidate) stood as candidates in the 2006 Local
Government Elections.
2
“Every adult citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office” (section 19(3)(b),
Constitution)

2. Forums) and were unknowingly contravening this policy3. These bodies were established in terms of
the South African Schools Act and the South African Police Act, respectively.
The amended policy however remained substantively the same;
‘An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the
National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will
be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her
candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.’
In early March 2009, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) published, on its website, the
names of five employees of Parliament, who were on the candidate lists of political parties for the
2009 elections. Since then, these employees have been harassed by their managers to withdraw their
candidacy before the IEC issued the certificates on 7 April 2009, when they would be ‘resigned’. Two
of them refused to withdraw, after I explained to them the unconstitutionality of the policy. On 2 April
2009, Mr Coetzee, the acting Secretary to Parliament4, ‘temporarily suspended’ the policy, after
numerous faxes from me arguing the unconstitutionality of the policy. I also led a protest march on 6
March 20095 to highlight the political oppression of Parliament’s employees.
Parliament is however adamant that the policy that was applied to me and my colleague did not violate
our human rights, even though the (old) March 2006 and (suspended) July 2006 policies are
substantively the same! The stance of the SAHRC to this new development? Disinterest!
In my last letter (30 March 2009) to the SAHRC, written by my attorney, I asked whether it will use
its legal powers to bring my case to its logical conclusion; if not, why not? The deadline (15 April
2009) for a response has passed, which indicates the SAHRC’s lack of respect for the Constitution and
its own Law6.
Enclosed, please find the following;
1. Letter: Parliament to G Campher - 6 March 2006
2. Letter: G Campher to Parliament - 7 March 2006
3. Letter: Parliament to G Campher - 3 May 2006
4. Article: Cape Times - 14 March 2006
5. Letter: Prof Asmal to ZA Dingani - 20 March 2006
6. Letter: G Campher to Parliament - 6 December 2006
7. Letter: G Campher to ConCourt - 10 May 2006
8. Letter: ConCourt to G Campher - 29 May 2006
9. CCMA Award - 10 September 2006
10. Policy - 6 March 2006 (applicable at this time)
11. Policy - 1 July 2006 (enforcement date)
12. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 23 June 2006
13. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 18 September 2006
14. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 7 November 2006
15. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher - 20 April 2007
16. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 30 August 2007
17. Letter: G Campher to Speaker - 21 January 2008
3
These employees were NOT ‘resigned’! This clearly indicates that Parliament applied its (illegal and
unconstitutional) policy prejudicially and inconsistently.
4
As you are aware, Mr Dingani, the Secretary to Parliament and Accounting Officer, was suspended for dereliction
of duty, because he openly allowed fraud, corruption and nepotism by senior managers to plague the institution.
5
The third anniversary of my illegal and unconstitutional dismissal.
6
“[The SAHRC is] independent, and subject only to the Constitution and the law, and [it] must be impartial and must
exercise [its] powers and perform [its] functions without fear, favour or prejudice.” (section 181(2), Constitution)

3. 18. Letter: G Campher to Chair (NCoP) - 21 January 2008
19. Letter: Speaker’s Office to G Campher - 21 February 2008
20. Letter: Prof Asmal to SAHRC - 25 January 2008
21. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament - 4 Feb 2008
22. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC - 11 Feb 2008
23. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher - 20 March 2008
24. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 11 April 2008
25. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 9 May 2008
26. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 22 July 2008
27. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 19 September 2008
28. E-mail: G Campher to SAHRC - 9 October 2008
29. E-mail: SAHRC to G Campher - 17 October 2008
30. Criminal Charges - 22 December 2008
31. Fax: G Campher to SAHRC - 20 January 2009
a. Letter from ConCourt
b. Letter from SAPS
32. Fax: G Campher to Parliament - 22 January 2009
33. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament - 26 Jan 2009
34. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC - 28 Jan 2009
35. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament - 17 Feb 2009
36. Fax: G Campher to Parliament - 19 Feb 2009
37. Memorandum: G Campher to Parliament- 6 Mar 2009
38. Fax: G Campher to SAHRC - 10 Mar 2009
39. Fax: G Campher to Parliament - 13 March 2009
40. Letter: Parliament to G Campher - 17 March 2009
41. Fax: G Campher to SAHRC - 20 March 2009
42. Fax: SAHRC to G Campher - 25 March 2009
43. Fax: G Campher to Parliament - 27 March 2009
44. Letter: Dykman Attorneys to SAHRC - 30 Mar 2009
45. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC - 6 Mar 2009
46. Circular: M Coetzee to Staff - 2 Apr 2009
47. E-Mail: Manager to P Sipamla(COPE) - 3 Apr 2009
I would appreciate your intervention in this important matter, which goes to the heart of our
constitutional democracy. The dignity and integrity of two critical Constitutional Bodies, as well as
that of a private citizen, are at stake.
If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully
GABRIEL CAMPHER
E-mail: gcampher@greens.org.za
Fax: 086 503 8705
Cel: 073 793 2406