Protector wants more time on Gigaba
Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has asked President Cyril Ramaphosa for an extension of time for her inquiry into a complaint that Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba violated the Constitution, the Executive Members Ethics Act and the code of ethics.
Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has asked President Cyril Ramaphosa for an extension of time for her inquiry into a complaint that Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba violated the Constitution, the Executive Members Ethics Act and the code of ethics.
The complaint by DA chief whip John Steenhuisen followed the finding by a high court judge that Gigaba lied to the court.
The case relates to an application by the Oppenheimer family’s Fireblade Aviation for a declaratory order to compel the minister to abide by a decision he had taken to grant the company’s application to operate an immigration and customs service at its premises at OR Tambo International Airport.
In March, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed Gigaba’s application for leave to appeal against the judgment on the grounds that there was no reasonable prospect of success.
Steenhuisen submitted his complaint on February 20, and Mkhwebane had 30 days within which to complete her probe.
Acting spokesman for the office of the public protector Oupa Segalwe said the investigation was still under way.
“Executive Members Ethics Act investigations, such as the matter in question, ought to be completed within a month. Should the public protector come to the realisation that she will not be in position to complete the investigation within the stipulated timeframe, she must inform the president,” he said.
Mkhwebane had written to Ramaphosa informing him that the investigation would not be completed within 30 days and requesting an extension, he said.
She had also written to Gigaba alerting him to the allegations made against him and asking him to respond. Gigaba’s response was still awaited.
Segalwe said there had not been a delay “per se — it is just the processes that take place upon receipt of a complaint, including drafting an investigation plan and obtaining approval and drafting letters to parties and obtaining approval”.
Asked how long the investigation was likely to take, he said that would depend on how soon the response from the minister was received and its contents.
Steenhuisen said on Tuesday that it was “frankly unfathomable why the public protector would need more time in this particular matter. A full bench decision of the high court found the minister to have lied to the court and to have violated the Constitution. This judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal.”
IT IS UNFATHOMABLE WHY THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR WOULD NEED MORE TIME … THE HIGH COURT FOUND HE LIED