Home

Court judgments against Mkhwebane will do damage to the institution

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has warned that the recent court judgments against her will negatively affect the operations of her office.

In one of them earlier on Thursday, the High Court in Pretoria ordered that Mkhwebane pay 7.5% of the costs in her personal capacity and her office 85% in the case which relates to her Vrede Dairy Farm report, which was previously set aside as unconstitutional.

The Council for the Advancement South African Constitution (Casac) and the Democratic Alliance approached the High Court to have the report set aside.

Mkhebane’s Spokesperson, Oupa Segwale says, “The bankruptcy the Public Protector is being subjected to as a result of this judgement is not important to her. What is important is the issue of principle. She cares about this institution and she realises that there are people out there who are pursuing these personal cost orders, presumably targeting her as a person when in fact they are damaging the institution because these decisions will have impact on other Public Protectors, not just this one.”

Bosasa donation

Meanwhile, Segalwe says they are disappointed the same court has acceded to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s request to conceal certain records contained in the Public Protector’s investigation into the Bosasa donation.

The Deputy Judge President, Aubrey Ledwaba, met with the legal teams of both parties earlier on Thursday.

Ramaphosa wrote to the court, requesting it to prevent Mkhwebane from making public, details of some of the evidence that form the basis of her report into his CR17 presidential campaign.

Ramaphosa’s lawyers have accused Mkhwebane of unlawfully obtaining financial information from bank accounts linked to the campaign, which she used in her report implicating their client in money laundering.

Segalwe says they’re disappointed with the decision as Mkhwebane has since revealed the source of her information.

“The PP is disappointed with that decision because she strongly believes that the public has a right to know in this instance. But also she’s of the view that the President’s legal team did not make any basis for the kind of decision that was taken. If you recall in their letter, they only indicated that they suspected that the information was obtained illegally, and the PP has moved to clear all of that to say that she obtained this information from the statutory body – the FICA. So it could have not been obtained illegally.”

Author

MOST READ