which these institutions report. We conducted a total of 59 one-on-one interviews (seethe list of references for organisations interviewed).Our interview schedule, though slightly varied depending on the respondent, focusedon the following issues: Understanding of the mandate of Chapter 9 institutions by both the Chapter 9institution and CSOs;Whether the relationship between Chapter 9 institutions and CSOs isprescribed in legislation, or is a result of operational necessity, where it doesexist;Current state of the relationship and how they would prefer it to be structured;andIdentification of instances that illustrate both a successful and a difficultrelationship between each Chapter 9 institution and a particular CSO in asimilar area. 1.4.3Case studiesWe had hoped to compile two case studies in each focus area: one illustrating asuccessful relationship that yielded a tangible outcome that benefited a sizeablecommunity of vulnerable people, and another demonstrating a difficult relationshipthat highlighted the problems that have beset Chapter 9s and CSOs, incapacitatingboth institutions and preventing them from working in a manner that engendersanything significant. However, we were unable to compile two case studies in all three focus areas. Thiswas only possible in the case of the SAHRC. We could only come up with one casestudy in relation to OPP, and only with the help of Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR).The OPP could only cite one case in which it had co-operated with CSOs. However,when we asked for a copy of the relevant report, we were informed by the OPP thatwe could not have access to it ‘in terms of the provisions of the Public Protector Act’.The case study that we eventually did use was provided by LHR.As for the CGE and civil society, we could only discern brief and disparate episodesof interaction. Our interviews did not bring out anything that amounted to a sustainedinteraction between the GCE and a particular CSO culminating in a particular tangibleoutcome.Our case studies are therefore uneven both in terms of numbers and detail. That wewere able to identify numerous case studies in the case of the SAHRC and civilsociety, from which we chose two, and very little on the other two institutions, is initself telling, not only of the saliency of the issues in which these institutions areinvolved, but also of their prominence and impact in their respective areas. 1.4.4Reference groupA reference group was constituted to assist the research team throughout the course ofthe research. The group was made up of representatives from civil society with directinterest in the three Chapter 9s – the CGE and the SAHRC (the OPP refused to15
participate) – and officials from the state departments that deal with these institutions.