Read more
Western Cape High Court dismisses Mkhwebane’s bid to be reinstated
Mkhwebane was suspended by Ramaphosa a day after she announced her investigation into the Phala Phala Farm robbery that took place in February 2020.
Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane during an outreach programme at the Rabasotho Community Center in Tembisa, 21 August 2019. She was joined by the mayor of Ekurhuleni, Mzandile Masina to hear and provide solutions to the communities problems. Picture: Neil McCartney
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s urgent bid to be immediately reinstated to her position.
The court dismissed Mkhwebane’s application, saying Ramaphosa’s decision to suspend Mkhwebane had to be referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.
Mkhwebane was suspended by Ramaphosa a day after she announced her investigation into the Phala Phala Farm robbery that took place in February 2020.
On 9 September, the Western Cape High Court then ruled that the President’s decision to suspend Mkhwebane was unlawful and invalid.
“In our view, the hurried nature of the suspension of the applicant in the circumstances, notwithstanding that a judgment of the full court was looming on the same subject matter, leads this court to an ineluctable conclusion that the suspension may have been retaliatory and, hence, unlawful,” said the court at the time.
“It was certainly tainted by bias of a disqualifying kind and perhaps an improper motive. In our view, the President could not bring an unbiased mind to bear as he was conflicted when he suspended the applicant.”
Four days later, the DA filed an application for leave to appeal the High Court’s decision to the Constitutional Court, an application that immediately suspended the ruling.
ALSO READ: Ramaphosa to ‘seek guidance from constitution’ following court ruling on Mkhwebane
The DA said it believed the High Court’s judgment was incorrect and should have been dismissed.
“The DA further believes that the High Court order is subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court under sections 167(5) and 172(2) of the Constitution. This is due to the High Court order being one which declares the conduct of the President to be unconstitutional and unlawful. As a result, the High Court order has no effect until it is confirmed by the Constitutional Court,” said the DA at the time.
“Even if the High Court order is not subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court (which the DA disagrees with), the High Court order is suspended by the DA’s application for leave to appeal.”
