Concerns about Constitutional Court (ConCourt) delays appear justified after a Freedom Under Law report notes that, in the 2022-2023 reporting period, only 18% of judgments were delivered within target timeframes.
Report unpacks ConCourt backlog
While South Africa’s highest court continues to hear major cases, concerns grow that beneath the surface is an “overwhelmed” institution.
On Tuesday, Freedom Under Law (FUL) released a report titled “A review of the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction and operating practices in light of its increased workload and consequential delays.”
FUL’s research shows that applications at the Constitutional Court have more than tripled in recent years. In 2021, the court received 393 applications, up from 118 in 2010.
The court aims to deliver judgments in at least 70% of cases within three months of reserving judgment. In the 2022-2023 reporting period, it missed this target, with only 18% of judgments delivered within this timeframe.
Challenges causing Constitutional Court delays
According to FUL, Constitutional Court delays reflect efficiency challenges, including slow judgment delivery and processing of petitions.
The increase in cases stems from the expansion of the court’s jurisdiction. It now handles more generalist appeals rather than only constitutional or public-interest matters.
Many litigants treat the court as the final appeal court for all matters, including cases with limited merit.
Even after President Cyril Ramaphosa recently appointed two judges, the ConCourt still faces capacity constraints.
Justice Nambitha Dambuza-Mayosi and Justice Katharine Savage were appointed to the Constitutional Court, effective 1 May 2026.
Ramaphosa said: “Judge Dambuza-Mayosi and Judge Savage have for decades served the cause and practice of justice with great diligence, foresight and, most importantly, clear commitment to our Constitution.”
Some commentators are concerned that any retirement in the foreseeable future could place further pressure on the bench.
Recent ConCourt rulings
The ConCourt recently found that Parliament’s vote to reject the Section 89 panel’s report on Phala Phala was unconstitutional.
The court ruled that an impeachment committee must consider the report. The president maintained his innocence and said nothing in the report compels him to resign.
In another matter, the ConCourt upheld a ruling declaring sections of the National Health Insurance Act unconstitutional. The ruling relates to the requirement for healthcare professionals to obtain a Certificate of Need before establishing or expanding practices.
Trade union Solidarity argued the provisions were restrictive and could potentially discourage healthcare investment. The ConCourt ruling effectively removes the requirement from legislation.
As the Constitutional Court delivers rulings that shape governance, rights and policy, its growing caseload places increasing pressure on its ability to keep pace with high-stakes decisions. These demands continue to test whether it can balance efficiency with its constitutional mandate.
