Personal cost order will set bad precedent for public office, PP tells ConCourt

The “punitive personal costs” sought against Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane over her legal defence of the Bankorp-CIEX report would set a bad precedent for her office, Mkhwebane’s lawyers told the Constitutional Court on Tuesday.

Mkhwebane is fighting a February 2018 High Court order which ruled that she was personally liable for part of the legal costs incurred by the SA Reserve Bank in the Bankorp matter.

The Public Protector, in 2017, had said that Absa must repay R1.125bn for a “lifeboat” provided to Bankorp by the SA Reserve Bank during the apartheid era. Bankorp was acquired by Absa in 1992. The central bank and Absa both went to court to have the report and its findings set aside.

Mkhwebane appealed the February 2018 ruling, but the high court in Pretoria dismissed her application in late March. She then approached the Constitutional Court.

In his submission before the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, Mkhwebane’s attorney Vuyani Ngalwana asked if it was reasonable to have the office of the Public Protector slapped with “punitive costs” while carrying out its functions.

“Can the country afford to have a head of a Chapter 9 institution operating under a threat of punitive legal costs … is it reasonable, is it appropriate, is it desirable,” he asked.

Ngalwana further argued that the order that the Public Protector personally pay 15% of the central bank’s legal costs could set a negative precedent, and dismissed allegations that Mkhwebane acted unreasonably.

Kate Hofmeyr, on behalf of the Reserve Bank, said the Public Protector “did not act in a manner that is becoming of the high office she occupies”.

Hofmeyr argued the Public Protector had “secret meetings” with the Presidency during the investigation and did not disclose those interactions in her report. “We submit that the costs be paid by the Public Protector personally,” she said.

Mkhwebane’s 2017 report, which separately recommended a review of the Reserve Bank mandate, caused market jitters with a R1.3-billion sell-off in government bonds, according to Hofmeyr’s submission.

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng reserved judgment in the matter. — News 24

We make it make sense

If this story helped you navigate your world, subscribe to the M&G today for just R30 for the first three months

Subscribers get access to all our best journalism, subscriber-only newsletters, events and a weekly cryptic crossword.”

Related stories

WELCOME TO YOUR M&G

Already a subscriber? Sign in here

Advertising

Latest stories

Is the US supreme court bent on doing harm?

Two recent rulings by America’s apex court are profoundly troubling

Lights, camera, action!

Meet Kuda Jemba, the emerging film director who went from directing music videos for some of SA’s biggest stars to directing Kelly Khumalo’s upcoming reality show

War on diamonds: Toil and triumph on the rich barren...

“I’m willing to take a bullet” says Northern Cape natives who claim the land, and its diamonds, belong to them.

Shell v Wild Coast: Science, research and erring on the...

Court applicants have argued that the company should be required to conduct an environmental impact assessment, based on the best available science, which has advanced considerably since Shell’s permit to conduct seismic surveys was granted
Advertising

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…
×