The scope of the powers of the Public Protector was one of the main questions for determination by the Constitutional Court in the landmark case of Economic Freedom Fighters vs Speaker of the National Assembly. This note critically examines that case, especially in relation to its finding that the remedial actions of the Public Protector have a binding effect. The note argues that the court erred by ignoring the text and history of the Constitution in its interpretations of the powers of the Public Protector. We argue that the Court got it wrong when it dismissed an argument that the powers of the Public Protector should be sourced from the Public Protector Act and not directly from the Constitution. In its critical analysis of Economic Freedom Fighters vs Speaker of the National Assembly, the note engages with two other related decisions from lower courts.

在经济自由斗士与国民议会议长一案具有里程碑意义的案件中，宪法法院决定的主要问题之一是公共保护者的权力范围。本说明批判性地研究了该案，特别是关于其发现“公共保护者”的补救措施具有约束力的情况。该说明指出，法院在解释《公共保护者》的权力时忽略了《宪法》的文本和历史而犯了错误。我们认为，法院驳回“公共保护者”的权力应来自《公共保护者法》而不是直接来自《宪法》的论点是错误的。在《经济自由斗士对国民议会议长》的批判性分析中，该说明还与下级法院的其他两个相关决定相关。