U S vs South Africa administrative accountability
🔹 What Is Administrative Accountability?
Administrative accountability refers to the legal and institutional mechanisms through which government agencies and public officials are held responsible for their actions, particularly when exercising public power.
Key principles in both countries:
Rule of law
Due process / procedural fairness
Legality and ultra vires
Rationality and reasonableness
Judicial review
Transparency and openness
🇺🇸 United States: Administrative Accountability & Case Law
In the U.S., administrative accountability is primarily governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, and constitutional principles (due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
Citation: 467 U.S. 837
Issue: What level of deference should courts give to administrative agencies in interpreting statutes?
Ruling:
Established the Chevron deference doctrine.
Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers if the law is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.
Significance:
Strengthened agency autonomy, but also formalized the judicial review process.
Under review and criticism in later years for potentially weakening accountability.
2. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Citation: 397 U.S. 254
Facts:
New York terminated welfare benefits without a hearing.
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause require a hearing before terminating welfare benefits?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that procedural due process must be followed before depriving someone of government benefits.
Significance:
Landmark case on administrative fairness and accountability.
Established that entitlements require procedural protections, not just discretionary policies.
3. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm (1983)
Citation: 463 U.S. 29
Issue:
Can an agency reverse a rule without adequate explanation?
Ruling:
No. The Court struck down the agency’s decision as arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
Significance:
Reinforced that agencies must provide reasoned justifications for decisions.
Strong check on agency discretion.
4. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC (1978)
Citation: 435 U.S. 519
Issue:
Can courts impose procedural requirements on agencies beyond the APA?
Ruling:
No. Agencies must follow APA procedures, and courts can’t impose additional procedural burdens.
Significance:
Protects agencies from judicial overreach, but reaffirms compliance with statutory procedure.
5. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)
Citation: 401 U.S. 402
Issue:
Was the Secretary of Transportation’s decision to approve highway construction through a public park reviewable?
Ruling:
Yes. Courts can review such decisions under the APA.
The agency had to show that no feasible alternatives existed.
Significance:
Expanded judicial review over discretionary decisions.
Promoted transparency and evidence-based administration.
🇿🇦 South Africa: Administrative Accountability & Case Law
In South Africa, administrative action is governed by:
Section 33 of the Constitution
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) 3 of 2000
Common law principles (influenced by Roman-Dutch and English law)
1. President of the Republic of South Africa v. South African Rugby Football Union (SARFU) (1999)
Citation: 1999 (4) SA 147 (CC)
Issue:
Was the President’s decision to appoint a commission of inquiry administrative action subject to review?
Ruling:
No. The Constitutional Court held that certain executive actions are not administrative, and thus not subject to PAJA.
Significance:
Clarified the distinction between executive and administrative functions.
Set parameters for when actions are reviewable under administrative law.
2. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA v. President of the Republic of South Africa (2000)
Citation: 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC)
Issue:
Can the President’s decision to bring an Act into force be reviewed?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that all public power must conform to the Constitution.
Decisions must be rationally connected to their purpose.
Significance:
Cemented the principle of legality in administrative law.
Reinforced judicial oversight of even high-level executive decisions.
3. Minister of Health v. New Clicks SA (2006)
Citation: 2006 (2) SA 311 (CC)
Issue:
Was the Minister’s decision on medicine pricing reviewable under PAJA?
Ruling:
Yes. It was administrative action and had to comply with PAJA and constitutional fairness.
Significance:
Reaffirmed PAJA’s reach over regulatory decision-making.
Highlighted the need for public participation and rational decision-making.
4. Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v. Minister of Environmental Affairs (2004)
Citation: 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC)
Issue:
Was the allocation of fishing rights reasonable and fair?
Ruling:
The Court emphasized the standard of reasonableness in administrative action.
Recognized the role of transformation and redress in state decisions.
Significance:
Balanced deference to expertise with constitutional accountability.
Key case on reasonableness and equity in public decision-making.
5. Sidumo v. Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd (2007)
Citation: 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC)
Issue:
Can arbitrators’ decisions be overturned if the reviewing court disagrees?
Ruling:
No. Court introduced a "reasonableness" standard—a decision must be one a reasonable decision-maker could make.
Significance:
Created a measured test for reviewing administrative decisions, including labour arbitration.
Reinforced judicial oversight without overstepping into administrative discretion.
📊 Comparative Summary: U.S. vs. South Africa
| Feature | United States | South Africa |
|---|---|---|
| Main Law | Administrative Procedure Act (APA) | Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) & Constitution |
| Key Constitutional Principle | Due Process (5th & 14th Amendments) | Right to Just Administrative Action (Sec 33) |
| Review Standard | Arbitrary & capricious, Chevron deference | Legality, rationality, reasonableness |
| Landmark Cases | Goldberg, Chevron, State Farm | Pharmaceutical, New Clicks, Bato Star |
| Deference to Agencies | High in technical areas (Chevron), but limited by reason-giving | Respectful but constrained by constitutional supremacy |
| Public Participation | APA requires notice and comment rulemaking | PAJA emphasizes procedural fairness, public involvement |
🧠 Key Takeaways
✅ Similarities:
Both jurisdictions uphold judicial review as a mechanism of accountability.
Reasonableness and rationality are central standards.
Courts are careful not to substitute their own views for that of administrators—but ensure procedural fairness and legality.
✅ Differences:
South Africa’s system is constitutionally anchored—all administrative action must align with constitutional rights and values.
U.S. law emphasizes separation of powers and deference to agencies under Chevron.
South Africa’s PAJA provides more explicit procedural and substantive criteria than the APA.
RELATED Blog
0 comments