Please log in or register to like posts.

Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane says she is confident
that her findings in her report into funds relating to President Cyril
Ramaphosa’s ANC presidential campaign are factual, rooted and in sound
application of the law.Mkhwebane said this following Ramaphosa’s announcement that
he would be taking the report on judicial review after his legal team had
carefully studied it and concluded it was “fundamentally and irretrievably
flawed”.On Friday, Busisiwe Mkhwebane found Ramaphosa
“deliberately misled” Parliamentwhen he responded to a question about
a R500 000 donation to his 2017 ANC presidential campaign from former Bosasa
boss Gavin Watson in November last year.In a statement, the office said Mkhwebane welcomes
Ramaphosa’s decision to seek recourse through the courts.”The Public Protector has the power in terms of the
Constitution to investigate, report on and appropriately remedy any conduct in
state affairs or in public administration, in any sphere of government, which
is alleged or suspected to be improper.”In addition, the Public Protector has powers under
pieces of legislation such as the Public Protector Act (PPA), the Prevention
and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act (PACCA) and the Executive Members’
Ethics Act (EMEA), all of which were relied upon during the investigation in
question,” Mkhwebane’s spokesperson Oupa Segalwe said.All the issues that the Public Protector considered for
investigation, flowing from the complaints received and which she was obliged
to look into under EMEA, fell within the remit of the office, Segalwe said.”This includes claims of money laundering, which were
considered under PACCA. The evidence gathered under this aspect of the
investigation has, in terms of the PPA, been referred to the Prosecutions
Authority.”Segalwe said Mkhwebane would also seek to assist the court
to arrive at the correct conclusion by defending the matter. The office has cautioned political parties and civil society
organisations from making statements that may interfere with the office in
violation of section 181(4) of the Constitution.

Share this page to Telegram


Already reacted for this post.


Nobody liked ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.