Browsing: Judge A Millar

The High Court in Pretoria suspended the Minister’s decision to dissolve the National Arts Council. Judge A Millar reinstated the council members pending a judicial review. The Minister may not appoint a replacement council until the review is complete. The National Arts Council (NAC) has been reinstated after the High Court in Pretoria suspended the decision by Sports, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie to dissolve the statutory body while a judicial review is in progress. Judge A Millar also prohibited the Minister from appointing a replacement council, stating that the applicants had shown they qualified for urgent interim relief and that the dissolution had effectively left the National Arts Council without the governance structure outlined in the National Arts Council Act. The applicants, Twain Siboniso Ngwenya, Zolani Mkiva, Jewel Mashao, Pamela Evidence Ndlovu, Henry Vusumizi Leeuw, Lesiba Mothoa, Celenhle Thembayena Dlamini, Michael Edwin Worsnip, Themba Ndulini, Thobile Komazi, and Queen Neo Mononela Mopeli, approached the High Court to challenge the Minister’s decision. Bonus dispute preceded dissolution The conflict began when the Minister wrote to the National Arts Council on 22 April 2026, asking for an urgent special council meeting to consider a one-time, full resolution of a labour dispute over employee performance bonuses for the financial years 2019/20, 2020/21, and 2021/22. In that letter, the Minister acknowledged that the council had already determined employees had no contractual or legal claim to the bonuses but stated that continuing the litigation was no longer in the public interest. He wrote, “Despite the legal view that no entitlement exists, I am satisfied, having carefully considered the matter, that continuing this dispute is not in the public interest… The legal costs already incurred by the NAC, along with those likely to be incurred if the matter goes to the Labour Court, greatly exceed the value of the claim.” While urging the council to meet urgently, the Minister also acknowledged that it remained the statutory decision-maker, saying, “Nothing in this letter undermines that authority.” The council set the requested meeting for 29 May 2026. However, before it could address the matter, the Minister sent a second letter on 25 May 2026, dissolving the National Arts Council under section 5(5) of the National Arts Council Act. Minister cited governance concerns In the second letter, the Minister criticised the council for not finalising the settlement and noted that it had postponed serious consideration of the matter until the scheduled meeting. He also mentioned receiving “credible information” about procurement decisions and alleged that there had been a “broader breakdown in institutional leadership and governance” leading to the council's dissolution. Council members argued that the decision was unreasonable and illegal. They claimed that appointing a replacement council before the review was heard would effectively make the proceedings pointless since their terms would already have ended. The Minister opposed the urgent application, arguing that any urgency was self-created. He also claimed that no process to appoint a new council had started and estimated that the appointment would take over six months. Judge finds council left ‘rudderless’ Judge Millar rejected the Minister’s claim that the application was not urgent. He found that the applicants acted promptly after the dissolution removed their access to the National Arts Council’s resources. The judge also accepted the Minister’s late submission of his opposition papers. Regarding the substance of the case, Judge Millar determined that the council had never been given a chance to deal with the Minister’s request before it was dissolved. He noted that the Minister’s first letter did not specify when the special meeting had to occur. He also said that the council’s handling of the bonus dispute did not seem reasonable grounds for its dissolution. The judge challenged the Minister’s reliance on vague procurement concerns, mentioning that the references to “credible information” did not identify which procurement decisions were supposedly problematic. Judge Millar stated that the Minister’s decision had left the National Arts Council “rudderless.” While the chief executive officer remained the accounting officer, the judge pointed out that the legislation required the CEO to report to the council and did not allow the office-bearer to carry out the council’s governance and policy-making roles independently. Applicants satisfied the legal test Applying the standards for an interim injunction, Judge Millar held that the applicants demonstrated a prima facie right, a reasonable fear of irreparable harm, that the balance of convenience favoured granting relief, and that no suitable alternative remedy existed. Rejecting the Minister’s argument that the applicants accepted they had no right to remain in office, the judge clarified that they simply recognised the Minister's statutory authority to dissolve the council when warranted. “There is no Council. There needs to be a Council for the statutory scheme to function,” Judge Millar stated. He further concluded that “the reasons that justify the dissolution of the Council do not seem to appear in the documents before me,” concluding that the applicants had shown a right to reinstatement pending the review. The judge added that dismantling the governance structure created by Parliament caused enough harm to warrant interim protection. “Undermining an Act of Parliament must lead to a fear of harm,” he noted. Court order Judge Millar suspended the Minister’s decision from 25 May 2026 to dissolve the National Arts Council and reinstated the applicants along with the remaining council members while the review is being finalised. The court also prohibited the Minister from enforcing the dissolution, taking further steps related to it, or starting, continuing, or completing any process to appoint a new council. Additionally, the Minister was ordered to pay the costs of the urgent application, including the fees for two counsel on Scale C. Conviction.co.za Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

What's Hot

Attorney removed from late sister’s estate for using estate funds in personal court fight

Court reinstates National Arts Council and freezes replacement process pending review

A genuine reset of the Section 22 Committee can restore confidence and strengthen accountability

Browsing: Judge A Millar

Court reinstates National Arts Council and freezes replacement process pending review

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

Attorney removed from late sister’s estate for using estate funds in personal court fight

Court reinstates National Arts Council and freezes replacement process pending review

A genuine reset of the Section 22 Committee can restore confidence and strengthen accountability

Fort Hare names international moot court competition after Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga

Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

OUR PICKS

R112,000 hospital bill reduced to R750, allowing refugee child’s body to be released for burial

Attorney who briefs advocate remains liable for fees unless agreement states otherwise

Legal Practice Council ordered to disclose records behind English-only admission exams

Subscribe to Updates

What's Hot

Browsing: Judge A Millar