MHLANTLA J had the legal authority to make the policy-determination now being challenged or exceeded her powers”.36 This Court, therefore, had to consider whether the Minister exceeded the bounds of legality when making the specific policy. This Court did not consider whether the nature of the Minister’s powers is executive or administrative – it was decided on the assumption that the adoption of the policy was executive action. In the current matters before this Court, there is a dispute about the nature of the Minister’s powers – that is, whether it is executive or administrative. In my view, the Minister’s reliance on Electronic Media Network Limited is therefore misplaced. Nonetheless, I agree with the Minister that the decision to determine the analogue switch-off date was an exercise of executive power, for the reasons set out below. [34] In Motau,37 this Court held that when considering whether it is appropriate to subject the exercise of public power to scrutiny under a review, it is necessary to consider whether such scrutiny is appropriate given that the power bears on policy matters, to which courts should show judicial deference.38 When determining whether the decision of the Minister was an executive function or administrative action, it is useful to consider what this Court held in SARFU:39 “Determining whether an action should be characterised as the implementation of legislation or the formulation of policy may be difficult. It will . . . depend primarily upon the nature of the power. A series of considerations may be relevant to deciding on which side of the line a particular action falls. The source of the power, though not necessarily decisive, is a relevant factor. So too is the nature of the power, its subject matter, whether it involves the exercise of a public duty, and how closely it is related on the one hand to policy matters, which are not administrative, and on the other to the implementation of legislation, which is.”40 36 Id at para 20.1. 37 Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau [2014] ZACC 18; 2014 (5) SA 69 (CC); 2014 (8) BCLR 930 (CC). 38 Id at para 43. 39 President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union [1999] ZACC 11; 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC); 1999 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC). 40 Id at para 143. 17