Public protector’s battle choices a concern

I AM NOT qualified to decide who is right in the matter involving Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Unfortunately, the issue has become muddied by agendas and it is difficult to tell right from wrong.

Mkhwebane found that Ramaphosa deliberately misled the National Assembly when he was asked about a donation that was made to his ANC election campaign by Bosasa, a company implicated in corruption.

She also found that he breached the provisions of the Executive Ethics Code and the Constitution.

On Sunday night, Ramaphosa described the report as “flawed” and announced that he would take it on urgent judicial review.

It is the right thing to do, and the stakes are high. Whoever loses will probably be kicked out of office.

What does concern me about our public protector is the choice of matters she decided to investigate and her competence.

At face value, it would seem there is an attempt to undermine Ramaphosa and those close to him.

Then, on Monday, came a Constitutional Court ruling that criticised her investigation into Absa/Bankorp. As a result, she, in her personal capacity, will have to pay the legal costs.

“This court holds that the public protector’s entire model of investigation was flawed and that she was not honest about her engagements during the investigation,” read the majority judgment.

In addition, she failed to engage with the parties directly affected by her new remedial action before she published her final report.

“This court finds that the public protector’s explanation for why she discussed the vulnerability of the Reserve Bank with the State Security agency was unintelligible.”

It was the latest blow to an office that, under Thuli Madonsela, became highly respected.

Meanwhile, I was impressed by Ramaphosa’s handling of the press conference in which he said he would take the matter on judicial review. He is coming across as a statesman.

He took us into his confidence. He was careful not to undermine the Office of the Public Protector but remained firm in his belief that he had been wronged.

If nothing else, I appreciated his honesty and transparency.

Compare him to former president Jacob Zuma and his appearance before the Zondo Commission.

I was looking forward to hearing Zuma because, in recent years, he isolated himself from us.

He steered away from media interviews unless they were carefully managed and his speeches became more formal and guarded. As a result, we lost touch with what he was thinking.

But what a disappointment. Zuma failed to take us into his confidence and provide insight into the many questionable decisions that were made under his presidency.

Give me Ramaphosa any time.