IGL seeks to enter Constitutional Court matter as Amicus Curiae: Ngoye and Holele v Passenger Rail Agency South Africa and others (CCT 109/2024)

On 28 September 2026, the Institute for Governance and Law (IGL) submitted its application to enter as amicus curiae in the Constitutional Court matter Ngoye and Holele v Passenger Rail Agency South Africa and others (CCT 109/2024).

Martha Ngoye and Tiro Holele were executive employees in the Passenger Rail Agency South Africa (PRASA) who, in the course of their employment, reported maladministration. In March 2020, Ngoye and Holele gave evidence to the Judicial Inquiry into State Capture headed by former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, providing testimony on irregular contracts at PRASA. The Zondo commission described them as whistleblowers. In January 2021, the board at PRASA dismissed Ngoye and Holele for allegedly abusing (sic) the five-year limit on executive contracts. However, the Labour Court found that both staff were permanent employees, and the judge found that the dismissal was unlawful and ordered their reinstatement.

On their return to work, Ngoye and Holele were immediately suspended on a series of charges. Arbitration cleared Ngoye of all charges while an arbitration date was never set for Holele. Meanwhile, PRASA appealed to the Labour Appeal Court (LAC). The LAC agreed that the dismissal was unlawful but found that it would be unfair to reinstate their employment as the relationship had broken down. Most concerningly, the judge ordered Ngoye and Holele to pay PRASA’s costs, stating that “In the result, the appeal must succeed. Costs must follow the result.”

The IGL seeks to be admitted as amicus curiae in the matter in order to raise several concerns that we believe the Constitutional Court should consider:

1. There is a need to develop and strengthen the constitutional framework around protecting those who make disclosures about abuses of power. Ngoye and Holele have suffered repeated abuses of power that include losing their employment, multiple appearances in court, and being held responsible for the costs by the Labour Appeal Court.
2. The costs order in the Labour Appeal Court raises a distinct constitutional issue as our law already recognises a difference between costs orders in labour litigation and civil litigation. Letting this result stand would have a chilling effect on employees attempting to vindicate their rights against large, powerful companies.
3. Our petition to the Constitutional Court is that it should consider extending a similar principle to the one enunciated in Biowatch. In Biowatch, it was held that public interest litigants acting in good faith in constitutional matters will not be burdened by crippling costs awards even if they fail in their petition.
4. A fourth issue the Constitutional Court should consider is the application of international law. The events at PRASA indicate multiple breaches of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). UNCAC requires member governments, which includes South Africa, to develop laws that protect those who make disclosures on reasonable grounds to competent authorities.

The IGL is represented by attorneys Dyllon Nicholls and Associates and advocate Matthew Kruger. The IGL hopes that this case will afford greater protection against abuses of power, especially for those who make disclosures against maladministration and corruption.  

Click the button below to get access to the IGL’s Founding Affidavit.