Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka has been told to stop playing hide-and-seek and indicate whether she would oppose a challenge that seeks to have her report on Phala Phala reviewed and set aside.
The Hola Bon Renaissance Foundation (HBR) has requested Gcaleka to file a notice of intention to oppose its application to challenge her report on Phala Phala.
This after the foundation challenged the report to be reviewed and set aside in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria last month.
The application was served on August 11, 2023.
However, Gcaleka’s office has not served and filed a notice of intention to oppose the legal challenge.
The letter was issued by Zehir Omar Attorneys who said: “Our instructions are that you, with respect do not display the same eagerness to have the correctness of your findings scrutinised by the high court relating to actions of President Cyril Ramaphosa and his conduct at Phala Phala.
“Please serve and file your notice of intention to oppose and please let us have your answering affidavit.”
Gcaleka’s spokesperson Ndili Msoki said the office received an application to review the Phala Phala report and was considering its legal position. Thereafter, it would determine its next course of action
In her final report released in July, Gceleka cleared Ramaphosa of any wrongdoing regarding the theft of US dollars in cash from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
The report stated that the allegation that Ramaphosa had violated the Executive Ethics Code and that there was a conflict of interest between his business dealings and his constitutional obligations “is not substantiated”.
But HBR’s Mothopeng Msieleng said there were stark differences in the finding by Section 89, presided over by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, compared to Gceleka’s findings.
He said that as a result, Gcaleka should scream out for final resignation.
Last year, the panel last year found that Ramaphosa has “a prima facie” case to answer. It said Ramaphosa contravened sections 96(2)(b) and 83(b) of the Constitution.
The attorneys said Msieleng had relied heavily on the findings made by the panel and had asked the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria to allow him to use the contents and findings under rule 35(4) read with rule 35(13).
The attorneys also made the following demands:
- Correspondence between attorney and client containing communications of a confidential nature in relation to the matters in question in this action prior to, in contemplation of and during the continuance of these proceedings.
- Statements of witnesses and reports brought into existence prior to, in contemplation of and during the continuance of these proceedings and correspondence and documents in relation to the evidence to be used and in relation to information that might lead to the obtaining of such evidence or otherwise to enable the plaintiff’s (Msieleng) case in this action to be conducted, with statements, reports, correspondence and documents are by their nature privileged.
- Plans, photographs, instructions to counsel, cases for the opinion of counsel’s advise and drafts of documents given upon such instruction and briefs to counsel which came into existence prior to, in contemplation of and during the continuance of these proceedings solely for the purpose of obtaining for or furnishing to the plaintiff’s or his attorneys legal advise in relation to these proceedings, or which may have been made confidential in relation to the matters in by their nature privileged.
- All other documents and correspondence brought into existence to enable the plaintiff’s action to be conducted, which are by proceedings between the parties.
Meanwhile, Gcaleka was to be named the next public protector, replacing advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane tomorrow (Monday) but the announcement has been delayed by 10 days.
This after the National Assembly’s programming committee re-arranged its programme for tomorrow to deal with the motion to remove Mkhwebane, who is on suspension, from office.