Mkhwebane might approach Constitutional Court on its judgment about Ramaphosa
The public protector insists she did not ‘change’ the executive code of ethics
04 July 2021 - 16:08
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane. Picture: ESA ALEXANDER/THE SUNDAY TIMES
Public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is considering approaching the Constitutional Court to ask it to reconsider its finding that she “changed” wording in the executive code of ethics when it dismissed her appeal on her report on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s CR17 ANC election campaign funding.
Mkhwebane approached the Constitutional Court to appeal against a Pretoria high court judgment that set aside her finding that Ramaphosa had misled parliament about the funding for his 2017 bid to be elected ANC president.
Reports said the apex court also held that both the constitution and the Public Protector Act do not empower Mkhwebane to investigate the private affairs of political parties.
Public protector spokesperson Oupa Segalwe said Mkhwebane was considering asking the court to reconsider its finding that she changed wording of the executive code of ethics by removing the adjective “wilfully” and replacing it with “deliberately and inadvertently” in relation to Ramaphosa allegedly misleading parliament.
“She is aggrieved because the suggestion here is that she is so unscrupulous that she would go as far as edit the code so as to have it read in the terms of her preference for purposes of making an adverse finding at all costs,” said Segalwe.
He said the truth was that there were two versions of the code. One, said Segalwe, was published in 2000, which used “wilfully”, and the other was published in 2007 as part of the Ministerial Handbook, where the adjectives “deliberately and inadvertently” are used instead.
“The ConCourt relied on the former while the PP [Public protector] relied on the latter. Accordingly, with the greatest of respect, the court got it wrong when it concluded that the PP ‘changed’ the code,” said Segalwe.
He said the Constitutional Court relied on the 2007 version of the code in its “Nkandla judgment”.
“In addition, the PP has previously relied on the same version when she made adverse findings of misleading parliament against the likes of former minister Lynne Brown,” he said.
“On the strength of the finding, President Ramaphosa released Ms Brown from office. This much his office confirmed to the PP in writing. In fact the office has always used this version of the code,” said Segalwe. “This dates back to the time of adv [Thuli] Madonsela, who relied on the same version in her report on the late former minister of local government, Sicelo Shiceka,” he said.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Mkhwebane might approach Constitutional Court on its judgment about Ramaphosa
The public protector insists she did not ‘change’ the executive code of ethics
Public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is considering approaching the Constitutional Court to ask it to reconsider its finding that she “changed” wording in the executive code of ethics when it dismissed her appeal on her report on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s CR17 ANC election campaign funding.
Mkhwebane approached the Constitutional Court to appeal against a Pretoria high court judgment that set aside her finding that Ramaphosa had misled parliament about the funding for his 2017 bid to be elected ANC president.
Reports said the apex court also held that both the constitution and the Public Protector Act do not empower Mkhwebane to investigate the private affairs of political parties.
Public protector spokesperson Oupa Segalwe said Mkhwebane was considering asking the court to reconsider its finding that she changed wording of the executive code of ethics by removing the adjective “wilfully” and replacing it with “deliberately and inadvertently” in relation to Ramaphosa allegedly misleading parliament.
“She is aggrieved because the suggestion here is that she is so unscrupulous that she would go as far as edit the code so as to have it read in the terms of her preference for purposes of making an adverse finding at all costs,” said Segalwe.
He said the truth was that there were two versions of the code. One, said Segalwe, was published in 2000, which used “wilfully”, and the other was published in 2007 as part of the Ministerial Handbook, where the adjectives “deliberately and inadvertently” are used instead.
“The ConCourt relied on the former while the PP [Public protector] relied on the latter. Accordingly, with the greatest of respect, the court got it wrong when it concluded that the PP ‘changed’ the code,” said Segalwe.
He said the Constitutional Court relied on the 2007 version of the code in its “Nkandla judgment”.
“In addition, the PP has previously relied on the same version when she made adverse findings of misleading parliament against the likes of former minister Lynne Brown,” he said.
“On the strength of the finding, President Ramaphosa released Ms Brown from office. This much his office confirmed to the PP in writing. In fact the office has always used this version of the code,” said Segalwe. “This dates back to the time of adv [Thuli] Madonsela, who relied on the same version in her report on the late former minister of local government, Sicelo Shiceka,” he said.
TimesLIVE
Constitutional Court rejects Mkhwebane’s appeal over Ramaphosa report
Who will protect us from the protector?
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Related Articles
WATCH | ConCourt delivers judgment on CR17 election campaign donations
FIC says CR17 Bosasa bank records remain confidential even if court seal removed
Busisiwe Mkhwebane: first round goes to Ramaphosa
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.