Abstract
This case note employs a doctrinal legal methodology, involving close textual analysis of the judgment, synthesis of judicial precedents, and critical engagement with academic scholarship, to examine the Constitutional Court’s unanimous decision in Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau (2014). The case contributes to promoting accountability of state leadership not only in administrative functions and actions but also in executive functions. It addresses a persistent question in administrative justice: the distinction between administrative and executive action under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) 2000. The case held that the Minister’s termination of public entity board members constituted an exercise of executive function, not an administrative action under PAJA. Tracing the evolution of administrative justice from common law due process to constitutional entrenchment in section 33 and PAJA, the analysis dispels the notion that ministerial decisions automatically trigger PAJA’s procedural fairness requirements. Instead, it contends that executive actions must remain rational, lawful, and procedurally fair within the bounds of legality. The decision in Motau advances transformative constitutionalism by reinforcing accountability in employment decisions for public servants and entities. It has implications for good governance, public administration, and individual rights against the state, cementing the judiciary’s role in South Africa’s democratic project.