Least surprising about Thursday’s Constitutional Court judgment is that public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane suffered yet another bruising defeat in our courts.
Time and time again, Mkhwebane has been exposed to be legally incompetent at best, or worse, she has blatantly and unashamedly allowed herself and the office she leads to serve the political interest of an ANC faction.
On Thursday, the ConCourt ruled that she did not have the power to investigate the private affairs of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s ANC leadership campaign and the CR17 funds.
Nor was there validity in her findings that Ramaphosa had misled parliament when answering questions regarding the campaign funds.
Mkhwebane had approached the ConCourt to appeal a judgment by the North Gauteng High Court, which set aside her flawed report on CR17 campaign donations.
That court found that Mkhwebane had gone beyond the scope of her mandate both in her investigations as well as giving orders to other organs of state, such as parliament and the National Prosecuting Authority, as part of her remedial action.
Perhaps one of the most astonishing findings of the courts is how Mkhwebane unilaterally changed the wording of the ethics code that governs members of the executive, presumably seeking to convict Ramaphosa of wrongdoing.
This finding demonstrates Mkhwebane’s preparedness to abuse her power for sinister ends.
Yesterday’s ruling was also an important moment for the principle of transparency.
We welcome the court’s ruling on the application by amaBhungane centre of investigative journalism to be allowed access to financial records of campaign funds.
The ConCourt found that the high court had erred in refusing to consider amaBhungane’s argument and ordered the matter back to that bench for consideration.
This part of the ruling in particular is a welcome step in efforts to strengthen transparency in our constitutional democracy.
As citizens we deserve to know who is funding political parties vying for our votes, as well as the intraparty campaigns that ultimately decide who lead them.
This is integral to promoting transparency and to help the public make informed decisions about those we put in power.
The moral debate about this matter has been ongoing.
On Thursday, the apex court thankfully opened the door for the legal debate to begin.
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.