South Africa’s apex court ruled Monday the country’s anti-corruption ombudswoman had been “deceitful” and ordered her to pay from her pocket part of the legal costs incurred in a row with the central bank.
Busisiwe Mkhwebane is South Africa’s Public Protector — a position with a constitutional mandate to investigate public corruption and misconduct — but is viewed by some as an ally of graft-tainted ex-president Jacob Zuma who appointed her before he was ousted.
Cyril Ramaphosa, who succeeded Zuma as president of the ruling ANC and of the country in a divisive contest, said Sunday he would take Mkhwebane to court over a report that found he had misled parliament about a donation to his campaign fund.
The highest court said Mkhwebane had been “deceitful” and acted in “bad faith” in an investigation involving local bank Absa, whose predecessor Bankorp had received an illegal lifeline from the central bank during the apartheid years.
She had ordered the country’s anti-graft Special Investigation Unit to recoup 1.125 billion rands (about $80 million today) from the new, democratic-era central bank.
“The Public Protector’s entire model of the investigation was flawed,” the Constitutional Court said in its judgement.
“She was not honest about her engagement during the investigation,” it found and concluded: “this type of conduct falls far short of the high standards required of her office.”
‘Irrational’
The ruling came the day after Ramaphosa slammed as “fundamentally and irretrievably flawed” Mkhwebane’s findings regarding a donation to his 2017 campaign for the ANC presidency.
Ramaphosa said he would challenge the report in court as it contained findings which were “irrational” and “wrong in law”.
Respected cabinet minister Pravin Gordhan, a Ramaphosa ally in charge of public enterprises, is also challenging a Public Protector report that found he had lied to lawmakers over a meeting with a controversial business family at the heart of many corruption allegations.
After Monday’s judgement, Mkhwebane told journalists she “never told falsehoods under oath”.
The opposition Democratic Alliance said it would initiate steps to have the ombudswoman, appointed in 2016, removed from her seven-year post.
“Today’s court judgement proves that the Public Protector’s failings go much deeper than simple technical errors,” the DA said in a statement.
“She is not fit to hold the office she occupies and is grossly incompetent”.
[The Guardian]
