As expected, Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane is to go directly to the Constitutional Court to argue that the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) erred in finding that President Cyril Ramaphosa did not mislead Parliament on the Bosasa #CR17 campaign donation or benefit materially from the lobby to support his election as ANC president.

According to a City Press report, Mkhwebane wants the Constitutional Court to clarify the powers of the Public Protector’s Office because of what she argues are inconsistent rulings from the same courts.

The Public Protector’s office said the papers seeking to be granted leave to appeal the High Court's decision had been served on the relevant parties, but not yet filed with the court.

Last month a full Bench of High Court ruled that Mkhwebane’s decision to investigate and report on the #CR17 election campaign in December 2017 was invalid and set it aside. The court also nullified the related findings and remedial orders.

Mkhwebane argues the High Court order was made in the face of 'uncontested evidence' before her – 'regarding millions of rands that were donated into the #CR17 campaign and uncontested e-mails contradicting (Ramaphosa’s) statements on oath that he was kept ignorant of the identities of those who donated millions to his campaign'.

The ruling also went against the clear provisions of the Constitution, the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, and the Executive Ethics Code, as well as case law in both the SCA and the Constitutional Court regarding the scope and powers of the Public Protector when dealing with investigations, she said, according to the City Press report.

Mkhwebane said the High Court ruling contradicted its previous judgment in respect of the powers of the Public Protector and the scope of remedial action.

‘I submit that this matter requires consistent application of the principles set out by our courts and should be binding in respect of matters in which similar disputes are involved. I submit that only this honourable court can bring these weighty constitutional matters to finality.’

Mkhwebane said her application for leave to appeal was ‘about the constitutional obligations and statutory powers of the Public Protector (and), most importantly, it is about the accountability of all holders of public power within the state. I submit that I have good prospects of success and ask the above honourable court to grant me leave to appeal.’

She also asked for condonation of the late application, which had been due at the end of March, but could not be filed on time because of the Covid-19 coronavirus national lockdown regulations.

Full City Press report