What happened
The Public Procurement Act 28 of 2024 was meant to replace no fewer than 34 pieces of legislation governing procurement by the state with a single regime. Two applications under section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution, one by the Premier of the Western Cape and one by the City of Cape Town, each joined by amaBhungane and, in the City's case, Solidarity, asked the Constitutional Court to declare that Parliament and the provincial legislatures had failed in their constitutional duty to facilitate reasonable public involvement when passing it.
The complaints centred on the late stages of the Bill. A new Chapter 4 was substantially rewritten and stakeholders were given about four hours on 17 November 2023 between receiving it and the start of their meeting with the Standing Committee, and two minutes each to present. Parliament's own framework and practical guide for public participation were departed from, and no satisfactory explanation was given for the truncated timeline.
What the court held
In Premier of the Western Cape Government and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others; City of Cape Town and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2026] ZACC 37, handed down on 17 September 2026, the Constitutional Court held that Parliament failed to comply with its obligations under sections 59(1)(a) and 72(1)(a) of the Constitution to facilitate public involvement before passing the Act.
Given the importance of the Bill and the extent of the amendments to Chapter 4, four hours to consider them and two minutes to present on them could not be reasonable, and affected stakeholders' ability to engage meaningfully. Taken with the other deficiencies raised and the unexplained departure from Parliament's own process, the court could find no justification for the truncated timeframe.
Under section 172(1)(a) the court was obliged to declare the Act invalid, and it did so in its entirety. The court did not need to reach the applicants' remaining grounds. Costs followed the result, including the costs of two counsel, against the Speaker, the Chairperson of the NCOP and the provincial legislatures that opposed.
What it means for your practice
For procurement practitioners the headline is simple: the single consolidated regime is not coming on the timetable anyone planned for. The existing framework, the Public Finance Management Act and the Municipal Finance Management Act with their regulations, the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and the supply chain management regulations, remains the law to advise on and to litigate under. Any client memo, precedent or training built around the new Act should be withdrawn or marked as not in force.
For litigators the judgment is also a public participation case of real weight. The court applied the reasonableness standard to the specific facts of the committee process: how much time stakeholders had, how much the text had changed, and whether Parliament followed its own published framework. That is a checklist for any challenge to legislation on participation grounds, and the departure from Parliament's own guide without explanation was treated as telling.
For commercial clients who tender to the state, the practical advice is to keep operating under the current fragmented regime and to expect Parliament to start again. A re-enacted Bill will go through a public participation process that, after this judgment, will be considerably more careful, and the stakeholders who were given two minutes last time will be given more.
What to do on your files
Check any opinion, tender submission or dispute strategy that refers to the Public Procurement Act 28 of 2024 as the governing or incoming law, and correct it. The Act was invalid from the declaration on 17 September 2026 and, having been adopted in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, was never validly enacted.
Where you have a pending bid challenge or review, make sure the pleaded framework is the existing legislation and regulations, not provisions of the invalid Act.
Where you advise organised business or a public body on legislative engagement, the judgment is the authority to cite when a committee compresses the timeline: reasonable public involvement is measured against the scale of the amendments and against Parliament's own stated process.
The court's media summary, from which this note is drawn, is not binding and the judgment should be read in full before you rely on it.
Source: Premier of the Western Cape Government and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others; City of Cape Town and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2026] ZACC 37 (CCT 103/25 and CCT 144/25), Constitutional Court, 17 September 2026. The court's own page: https://www.concourt.org.za/index.php/judgement/663-premier-of-the-western-cape-government-and-another-v-speaker-of-the-national-assembly-and-others-city-of-cape-town-and-others-v-speaker-of-the-national-assembly-and-others-cct-103-25-and-144-25