The office of the Public Protector says Busisiwe Mkhwebane will cooperate with authorities regarding the perjury charges from the case lodged by Accountability Now’s Advocate Paul Hoffman.
The office says in a statement that the case was opened based on what it says was the split Constitutional Court judgment regarding the Public Protector’s Reserve Bank/CIEX report.
The Public Protector office’s statement argues that no adverse findings were made against Mkhwebane in the dissenting judgment. Her spokesperson Oupa Segalwe quotes part of the dissenting judgment.
Segalwe says Mkhwebane will present herself at the High Court to face the perjury charges on January 21st. However, he has accused Hoffman of having an agenda against Mkhwebane.
PP @AdvBMkhwebane to cooperate with authorities on perjury charges pic.twitter.com/xlZh3r3V4r
— Public Protector SA (@PublicProtector) December 18, 2020
Mkhwebane can appeal SARS judgment
Legal consultant Paul Ngobeni said Mkhwebane has the right to lodge a Constitutional Court appeal after the High Court in Pretoria set aside her report on the so-called South African Revenue Service (SARS) rogue unit.
In its judgment last week Monday, the court issued punitive costs order against Mkhwebane.
This comes after she found that former SARS commissioner Pravin Gordhan, who is the current Public Enterprises Minister, had misled Parliament by failing to disclose that he held a meeting with members of the Gupta family.
Mkhwebane also found that Gordhan had violated intelligence laws by overseeing the establishment of the rogue unit.
The court said Mkhwebane relied on discredited information to compile her report and was biased against Gordhan and former SARS executive Ivan Pillay.
Ngobeni says Mkhwebane can appeal on the basis that an old code of ethics was used.
“In exonerating Gordhan about misrepresentation to Parliament, they are relying on the code of ethics from earlier years from 2000. The Constitutional Court itself in the Nkandla judgment relied on a 2007 code of ethics – that code is the one former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela used and that the current Public Protector Mkhwebane used. I think that is a clear case of an appeal. The Constitutional Court is going to have to deal with the question of if the 2000 code is the one that is still valid and applicable why did they in the Zuma case used the 2007 code. “
