The ACDP is concerned re the appointment of these external members of tribunal:
- We acknowledge that professionals with experience are required, but we are concerned that the extent of the involvement of many of these nominated members, in current private sector development projects and future projects, is going to cause constant conflicts of interest during tribunal meetings and they will constantly be having to recuse themselves; that it places a massive burden on them having to be mindful of potential and real conflicts of interest, and one slip either ruins a private sector career or becomes a pocket-lining exercise
Further, we are concerned regarding the decision making process and its compliance with PAJA principles
- The only appeal available to the public after the Tribunals decision, will be the Mayor – then the courts.
- Firstly, we believe that an internal administrative appeal process should not end at a political level – but rather at the City Manager.
- Secondly, after an unsuccessful appeal to the Mayor, there is a massive financial burden on appellants (including RPA’s and similar community bodies) with legitimate, substantial, well-founded grounds of appeal, to first find the funds required to bring court applications – when the City has a bottomless pit of funds for court processes to defend or enforce its actions or decisions.
- In terms of administrative justice principles, this is not reasonable nor procedurally fair
PAJA: (3) In order to give effect to the right to procedurally fair administrative action, an administrator may, in his or her or its discretion, also give a person referred to in subsection (1) an opportunity to:
- (a) obtain assistance and, in serious or complex cases, legal representation.
We see no provisions for this in these agenda proposals today