Concourt reserves judgment in appeal by DA, President Cyril Ramaphosa on Mkhwebane

Public Protector Busiswe Mkhwebane and President Cyril Ramaphosa. Picture: Mike Hutchings/Reuters and Jacques Naudé/ANA

Public Protector Busiswe Mkhwebane and President Cyril Ramaphosa. Picture: Mike Hutchings/Reuters and Jacques Naudé/ANA

Published Nov 25, 2022

Share

Cape Town - The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in the joint application by the DA and President Cyril Ramaphosa to overturn a Western Cape High Court decision that declared the president’s suspension of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane invalid.

In a cross-appeal, which brought the Speaker of the National Assembly and the chairperson of the section 194 committee into the matter, Mkhwebane also questioned the legality of Parliament’s impeachment proceedings against her and whether Concourt had any jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Mkhwebane’s lawyer, Dali Mpofu SC, argued that not every action or conduct attributed to the president amounted to “conduct of the president” within the meaning of the Constitution.

“If the president dismisses his driver and his conduct is subsequently declared to have been unlawful, or such dismissal is set aside for whatever reason, it can hardly be seriously argued that the resultant reinstatement cannot take effect unless confirmed by the Constitutional Court, even though the dismissal is indeed, literally speaking, conduct of the president.”

Mkhwebane also argued that the president had been caught up in a conflict of interest when he suspended her. She claimed she was suspended because of her investigation into the Phala Phala farm scandal.

For the president, Geoff Budlender SC argued there could only be a real risk of a conflict of interest if it was shown the president would benefit his private interests if he exercised his public responsibility in a particular way.

“There would thus be a real risk of a conflict of interests if it were shown that, by exercising his official power to suspend the public protector, he would benefit his private interests through having the investigation into the Phala Phala matter conducted in a particular manner, or with a particular outcome.”

He said there was absolutely no evidence to show that this was the case.