Zuma to discuss the situation, which Zuma agreed to three weeks later. Mogoeng was widely praised for his "courageous and principled leadership" and his "efforts to protect the independence of the judiciary". One commentator even said "Mogoeng's intervention might one day be seen as one of the courageous acts that saved South Africa's budding democracy". In 2012, Mogoeng upheld a constitutional challenge by Mario Oriani-Ambrosini, of the minority Inkatha Freedom Party, to rules of Parliament that allowed an individual MP to introduce a Bill only if he or she first obtained the majority's approval. Mogoeng also held against the government in the high-profile litigation in Helen Suzman Foundation v President. His majority judgment struck down several sections of the South African Police Service Amendment Act of 2012 (the so-called Hawks Act) on the basis that they did not constitute an "adequately independent" anti-corruption unit. (Other members of the Court would, however, have gone further, and struck down other sections which Mogoeng upheld.) Mogoeng's Court also found against the government in Democratic Alliance v President (per Yacoob ADCJ), setting aside President Zuma's highly controversial appointment of Menzi Simelane as National Director of Public Prosecutions. And in October 2014 his Court handed down judgment in National Commissioner of the SAPS v SALC (per Majiedt AJ) and ordered the South African Police Service to investigate allegations of torture in Zimbabwe committed by and against Zimbabwean nationals. This judgment was hailed as a victory for universal jurisdiction. In its wake, one influential columnist said that those who had expected the Constitutional Court to take a pro-executive turn under Mogoeng had been proved wrong. Finally, in 2016, Mogoeng himself wrote the Court's judgment in Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly, which declared that President Zuma had violated the South African Constitution by failing to act on the Public Protector's Nkandla report. Mogoeng's "powerful" and "profound" judgment was hailed as a "triumph for the rule of law", and a major blow to the widely criticised President, of whose conduct the judgment was "scathing". One commentator said Mogoeng's judgment was "his moment of triumph and redemption", and marked his transformation from a supposed "tool" of the establishment to a "national hero" in a manner reminiscent of Earl Warren. A year later, Mogoeng delivered the unanimous judgment in UDM v Speaker of the National Assembly, in which he granted an application brought by opposition parties