Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |163 The court acknowledged that the President might have been following wrong legal advice and therefore acting in good faith, however it still concluded that; “It does not detract from the illegality of his conduct regard being had to its inconsistency with his constitutional obligations in terms of sections 182(1)(c) and 181(3) read with 83(b).”12 The court in this instance demonstrated that a breach of a constitutional duty remains a breach whether or not it occurs as a result of a genuine error. The National Assembly The constitutional court of South Africa found further that the National Assembly had failed in its constitutional obligation to scrutinise and oversee executive action and to hold the President accountable as a member of the executive.13 Regarding the role and tasks of the National Assembly, the court emphasised the importance of the oversight role that the National Assembly has over the executive and other State organs and further that this watch dog role meant that the National Assembly was instrumental in ensuring accountability and transparency in respect of the governance of the country.14 The Public Protector The constitutional court’s assessment was that the public protector was clearly acting within the powers of her constitutional mandate and further that such powers were legitimately derived from the constitution. She had conducted proper investigations of the allegations brought before her, produced a report and provided remedial actions which the President and the National Assembly saw fit to disregard and that was the constitutional crisis which objectors brought before the court. 12 ibid 13 Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Ors; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Ors (2016) ZACC 11. 14 Paragraph 22