I need more time, president tells court

I MUST at the outset point out that I was not an affected person in this investigation until October 2 2016 (some 11 days ago). Until then, the investigation conducted by the respondents and in respect of which the respondents intend to issue an interim report had nothing to do with me.

I am now expected to answer questions that relate to issues which back date to 2009 and in respect of which a proper investigation needs to be completed before I can provide accurate responses.

I have explained to the respondents in recent correspondence that I need a reasonable time to provide comprehensive answers to the questions. The respondents refused to provide me with a reasonable opportunity to give meaningful answers to the questions.

To do so, I would need to consult with the persons referred to in those questions. I do not have any power to compel those who I must obtain information from, to do so and to do so within the time the respondents have given me.

By way of illustration, I am being requested to furnish information regarding 21 individuals on whether they visited a particular residence and the reasons for their visits. A proper and complete answer to this question would entail me making contact with these individuals; enquire whether they have visited that particular residence; when they would have visited that particular residence; and ultimately what the reasons for those visits were.

Their questions are protected in terms of section 7(2) of the act, and can only be disclosed to this honourable court with the consent of the respondents.

I invite the respondents to provide such consent so that this honourable court can objectively determine whether the two sets of questions issued to me can be dealt with in time frames as provided for by the respondents.

Apart from the exercise being a tedious and time-consuming exercise, and without any power to compel them to give me answers, and to give me honest responses to the questions, the respondents still require me to do so by 11am on October 13 2016 before the second respondent vacates her office, which is October 14 2016.

This is despite the respondents being aware that I was on a state visit to Kenya and I arrived back in the country late on October 12 2016.

It is common cause that the investigation is one done by the Office of the Public Protector which office is a Chapter 9 institution with a life beyond the term of office of the incumbent. There is no rational explanation why the questions sent to me cannot be properly addressed and the answers furnished within a reasonable time to that office after the second respondent has left.

Further, the respondents threatened that if I do not respond to the questions, the respondents will make finding against me without hearing my version of the events. It is this threat that has exacerbated the bringing of this urgent application, as the publication of the interim report will infringe on my right to fair administrative action.

The respondents have not stated in so many words that it is intended to publish the interim report by October 14 2016. The manner in which the respondents have insisted that I provide a response by 11am on October 13 2016 makes the inference irresistible that the objective is to publish on October 14 2016 before the second respondent vacates her office.

Publication of the report will infringe on my right to fair administrative action