Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation. This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.
Here are the papers submitted to the Constitutional Court in the two cases relating to the implementation of the Public Protector’s Nkandla Report.
DA case – Public Protector’s papers: DA 4th Resp Heads
DA case – Minister of Police’s Papers: DA 3rd Resp Heads
DA case – President Zuma’s papers: DA 2nd Resp Heads
DA case – Speaker’s papers: DA 1st Resp Heads
DA case – DA’s papers:DA App Heads
EFF case – Public Protector’s papers: EFF 3rd Resp Heads
EFF case – President Zuma’s papers: EFF 2nd Resp Heads
EFF case – Speaker’s papers: EFF 1st Resp Heads
EFF case – EFF’s papersEFF App HeadsBACK TO TOP