“According to section 7(2) of the Constitution, Commissioners can engage in other activities, including management or control of a body corporate, or of any other body carrying on business for profit if such engagement is granted by the Minister responsible for human rights.

The HRADC reports that section 11 of individual staff “contract of service” makes explicit reference to conflict of interest. For instance, there is an expressed provision in relation to conflict of interest in the employment contract of the Director of the HRADC.

However, there do not appear to be additional provisions – in legislation, regulation, or another binding administrative guideline – that provide further guidance on what types of activities constitute a conflict of interest or the process by which a determination would be made about the existence of such a conflict.

In addition, the HRADC reports that the Chairperson is also the Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The HRADC reports that, in order to prevent conflict of interest, the Acting Chief Justice does not preside over constitutional redress applications, neither does he make decisions with respect to complaints before the HRADC.

The SCA notes that the Paris Principles require an NHRI to be independent from government in its structure, composition, decision-making and method of operation. The avoidance of conflicts of interest protects the reputation, and the real and perceived independence of an NHRI.

The SCA encourages the HRADC to advocate for the development of further binding guidance with respect to what constitutes a conflict of interest and the process by which a determination would be made about the existence of such a conflict.”