​ConCourt scrutinises interim interdicts in public protector ‘rogue unit’ case

 

 

NEWS ANALYSIS

Counsel for the Economic Freedom Fighters, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, faced intense questioning at the Constitutional Court on Thursday when he sought to persuade the justices that courts should treat interim interdicts against the public protector differently to other interim interdicts.

Thursday’s hearing saw the justices and counsel grappling with some of the legal implications thrown up by the Constitutional Court’s previous judgment in the Nkandla case. The number of court cases against the public protector has increased significantly — an “inevitable” result of the Nkandla decision, suggested her counsel, Thabani Masuku SC.

That judgment decided that public protector reports must be implemented unless set aside by a court.

One of the big questions on Thursday — raised pertinently by the EFF — was whether the existing test for the granting of interim interdicts, pending final resolution of litigation, was appropriate when dealing with the public protector.

The case was an appeal against the interim interdict ordered by Sulet Potterill in the Pretoria high court. Mkhwebane had in her report found that there was an unlawfully created investigation unit at the South African Revenue Service that went “rogue” and was illegally spying on people. She directed far reaching remedial action, including that President Cyril Ramaphosa take disciplinary action against Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan, who was finance minister at the time.

Judge Potterill’s order suspended the remedial action until Gordhan’s court review of the report has been finally determined. In making her decision, she applied the existing rules of interim interdicts, as earlier set out by the Constitutional Court in its Outa decision on e-tolls.

But on Thursday, Ngcukaitobi argued that the highest court should tailor a “public protector-specific” test for an interim interdict, which would only be granted in the strictest of circumstances.

He said this was necessary in order to protect the effectiveness and accessibility of the public protector as an institution. If it was too easy for public officials to get interdicts, it would defeat the whole purpose of the public protector — a quick way for average people to address maladministration by the state.

The public protector would then become a paper tiger, he argued.

But Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga suggested that the Constitutional Court had already said, in the Outa judgment, that courts should be slow to grant interim interdicts against the exercise of statutory powers and should only do so in exceptional cases. Why was Ngcukaitobi asking for “exceptional, exceptional?” he asked.

Ngcukaitobi responded that it was not so much about exceptional exceptional but rather that the court should consider different factors when it came to the public protector than what was considered in Outa — in particular the courts should factor in whether granting the interdict would impact on the public protector’s effectiveness and accessibility.

But, asked Justice Zukisa Tshiqi, the report was done and dusted, and it was released. How would an interim interdict hinder the public protector in the exercise of her powers, or prevent her from exercising her functions, she asked.

Variations of these two questions were repeated by a number of the justices. How, asked Justice Sisi Khampepe, would a temporary halt of an order of the Public Protector make her office less accessible? In his replying argument, Ngcukaitobi said that if the Constitutional Court were to go for a “refined Outa test” rather than a completely new test, it should include the accessibility and effectiveness of the PP’s office as one of the factors to consider.

Ngcukaitobi said it was important that the test developed by the Constitutional Court should be based on the ordinary person — “Gogo Dlamini” — whose pension had not been paid, rather than powerful litigants like the president and a government minister.

However counsel for the president, Matthew Chaskalson SC, said the case before the Court was not a Gogo Dlamini case and that the Outa test, as it stood, would be able to cater for Gogo Dlamini’s case.

Another question apparently preoccupying the justices of the Constitutional Court was about the principle of audi alteram partem — the protector’s duty to listen to those who she investigating and who she may make findings against. In her “rogue unit” investigation, Mkhwebane did give hearings to Gordhan and former acting Sars Commissioner Ivan Pillay, but only on her intended findings — not on the remedial action she ultimately took against them.

Masuku argued that this was sufficient to satisfy the audi requirements of the Public Protector Act and the Constitution. But Madlanga suggested that his argument would mean that the position under the Constitution was less progressive than that under the common law: “Your submission is that the Constitution has introduced a retrograde step. Can that be so?,” he asked. Masuku answered that it would depend on what kind of remedial action had been directed by the Public Protector.

Counsel for Gordhan, Wim Trengove SC went, in detail, through the remedial orders from Mkhwebane in the report. They included the “bizarre” order to implement a report (at the time classified as secret) from the Inspector General of Intelligence, which she pretended not to have read, he said. There was also an instruction to the police to investigate an alleged breach of laws, but which disclosed no criminal offence (not every breach of law is a criminal one). And her remedial action directed at Ramaphosa went right “to the very heart of discretionary executive power”.

Trengove said the remedial action was “a reckless attempt to make findings against Minister Gordhan, and some of her remedial orders were “incoherent, unlawful and bizarre”. Yet all of these remedial orders were made without anyone being given a hearing on them, he said.

Ross Hutton SC, counsel for former acting Sars commissioner Ivan Pillay, said Pillay had specifically asked to address the PP if she decided to take remedial action against him. “He was simply ignored,” Hutton said. And even at the hearing he was given — to respond to her preliminary findings — the public protector simply disregarded everything he had to say, said Hutton. Pillay “got a hearing, but he was not listened to at all”.

The “unfortunate” language used in the litigation was also something canvassed with counsel. From the beginning of the litigation, Masuku took issue with the allegations made by Gordhan that the Public Protector’s report had an ulterior motive. He said Gordhan had accused Mkhwebane of corruption and of being part of a state capture project – the kind of statements any court should be concerned about. He also took issue with how Gordhan’s court papers referred to Mkhwebane’s “crass” mistakes.

Chaskalson referred to a letter the president received from the public protector, which accused the president of a “display of sheer cluelessness” and Trengove took issue with how Mkhwebane spoke of Potterill’s judgment.

Mkhwebane who had relied on a wrong version of the Executive Ethics Code, he said. Yet when this was pointed out by Potterill in her judgment, Mkhwebane responded by saying Potterill’s judgment was a “gross misinterpretation” and that the high court “chose to rewrite” the code. This amounted to an accusation of misconduct of the highest order, said Trengove, and the public protector owed an apology to Potterill.

Justice Chris Jafta said in all his years of being on the bench, he had never come across this kind of a description of a judge’s judgment. Masuku acknowledged that the litigation had been “robust” and would not object if the court wanted to say something on it.

Towards the end of the hearing, Jafta ruminated on the effect all this litigation was having on the fiscus. Masuku said that if public officials were properly fulfilling their duty to protect and support the institution of the Public Protector, there shouldn’t be so much litigation.

But Jafta appeared skeptical: “It’s unavoidable that the reviews are going to be there, and it seems to me that it’s going to be very expensive.” 

Franny Rabkin
Franny Rabkin
News Editor, Mail & Guardian. Editor, Advocate. Former legal reporter at Business Day. Still obsessed with law and politics
Advertisting

Mabuza’s ‘distant relative’ scored big

Eskom’s woes are often because of boiler problems at its power plants. R50-billion has been set aside to fix them, but some of the contracts are going to questionable entities

ANC faction gunning for Gordhan

The ambush will take place at an NEC meeting about Eskom. But the real target is Cyril Ramaphosa

Despite tweet, Zuma keeps silent about providing his taxpayer information

The Public Protector has still not received confirmation from former president Jacob Zuma that she may access his tax records —...

Ahead of WEF, Mboweni will have to assure investors that...

The finance minister says despite the difficult fiscal environment, structural reforms are under way to put SA on a new growth path
Advertising

Press Releases

New-style star accretion bursts dazzle astronomers

Associate Professor James O Chibueze and Dr SP van den Heever are part of an international team of astronomers studying the G358-MM1 high-mass protostar.

2020 risk outlook: Use GRC to build resilience

GRC activities can be used profitably to develop an integrated risk picture and response, says ContinuitySA.

MTN voted best mobile network

An independent report found MTN to be the best mobile network in SA in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Is your tertiary institution is accredited?

Rosebank College is an educational brand of The Independent Institute of Education, which is registered with the Department of Higher Education and Training.

Is your tertiary institution accredited?

Rosebank College is an educational brand of The Independent Institute of Education, which is registered with the Department of Higher Education and Training.

VUT chancellor, Dr Xolani Mkhwanazi, dies

The university conferred the degree of Doctor of Science Honoris Causa on Dr Xolani Mkhwanazi for his outstanding leadership contributions to maths and science education development.

Innovate4AMR now in second year

SA's Team pill-Alert aims to tackle antimicrobial resistance by implementing their strategic intervention that ensures patients comply with treatment.

Medical students present solution in Geneva

Kapil Narain and Mohamed Hoosen Suleman were selected to present their strategic intervention to tackle antimicrobial resistance to an international panel of experts.