“Section 7(5) of the enabling law provides the reasons for which a Commissioner may be removed from office but is silent on the process for dismissal. Article 7(5)(g) mentions “misconduct or incompetence” as one of the grounds for dismissal. However, these terms are not defined in the Law.

The HRCZ notes that Article 270 of the Constitution provides the appointing authority the power to confirm appointments, to exercise disciplinary control over the person holding or acting in the office and to remove that person from office. The SCA acknowledges advocacy by the HRCZ to include in the Constitution the same level of security of tenure for commissioners as is guaranteed for judges.

The SCA is of the view that requirements to ensure the security of tenure of the members of the governing body are essential to ensure the independence of, and public confidence in, the senior leadership of an NHRI.

In addition, the SCA emphasizes that the grounds for dismissal must be clearly defined and appropriately confined to only those actions which impact on the capacity of the members to fulfil their mandate. Where appropriate, the legislation should specify that the application of a particular ground must be supported by a decision of an independent body with appropriate jurisdiction.
The SCA refers to Paris Principle B.3 and to its General Observation 2.1 on ‘Guarantee of tenure for members of the NHRI decision-making body’.”