“You Could Go to Jail”: Public Protector Warns South Africans Against 'Insulting' Remarks

• The Public Protector says the Constitutional Court ruling does not affect its Phala Phala investigation
• South Africans were warned they could face fines or jail time for insulting the office
• Social media users pushed back, saying public institutions must accept criticism and scrutiny

SOUTH AFRICA - The Public Protector of South Africa has warned citizens that insulting the office or its leadership could lead to serious legal consequences.

The warning comes after a heated public debate following the Constitutional Court’s recent judgment on President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Phala Phala matter.

It warned that offenders could face fines of up to R40,000, up to 12 months' imprisonment, or both. The institution added that while freedom of expression is protected under Section 16 of the Constitution, that right is not unlimited and does not cover conduct that breaks the law.

Public Protector defends its report on Phala Phala

Read also

Cyril Ramaphosa fights back: Takes on Phala Phala panel report

In a statement released on Monday, 11 May 2026, the Public Protector said the Constitutional Court ruling does not affect its own investigation into Ramaphosa and members of the South African Police Service linked to the Phala Phala farm scandal.

The Public Protector further defended its own Report No. 12 of 2023/2024, which investigated claims that Ramaphosa may have violated the Executive Ethics Code. The report also looked into allegations of misconduct by SAPS members connected to the alleged cover-up surrounding the burglary at Phala Phala Farm in Limpopo in February 2020.

According to the office, the Constitutional Court judgment does not overturn or cancel any of its findings or remedial actions.

The office explained that the Constitutional Court case only dealt with Parliament’s handling of the Section 89 impeachment process.

The institution stressed that it was not part of Parliament’s impeachment process and was also not involved in the Constitutional Court proceedings.

However, it was the Public Protector’s warning to the public that sparked strong reactions online. The office reminded South Africans that insulting the Public Protector or Deputy Public Protector is considered a criminal offence under Section 9(a) of the Public Protector Act.

Read also

General Molefe Fani suspended over PPE procurement, South Africans debate corruption within SAPS

See the public protector's statement posted on Tumi Sole's X account:

South Africans took to social media to voice frustration over the statement

@sowazis said:

"Yoh my Goodness. The way Advocate Mkhwebane was undressed by the public as Public Protector, and no one was charged, brings tears to my eyes."

@llutladi said:

"When the parliament impeachment committee is done with the president, Kholeka should be impeached within 24 hours."

@MthethwaMu97037 said:

"Threatening the same public she's supposed to protect."

@The_Villager_In said:

"Now we can’t criticise their work because it’ll constitute a criminal offence."

@Zizojavu said:

"Let her open a case against all of us."

3 Articles on the Public Protector

• Briefly News reported that South Africans are not impressed after the Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka cleared the Presidency of any wrongdoing in relation to the R600,000 catering expenses aboard the President’s aircraft.
• The Public Protector has officially cleared Dean Macpherson of all allegations arising from a complaint by the Economic Freedom Fighters that alleged that he breached the Executive Ethics Code by improperly intervening in the affairs of the Independent Development Trust (IDT).
• The Public Protector found that the Gauteng Crime Prevention Wardens were illegally established and has ordered the Gauteng Provincial Government to disband them and train them as Traffic Wardens.

Source: Briefly News