Quote of the week

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.

KHAMPEPE J and THERON J
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (CCT107/18) [2019] ZACC 29 (22 July 2019)
23 April 2007

What a surprise

The Public Protector, Advocate Lawrence Mushwana, has announced that his office will not investigate Chippy Shaik over arms deal bribery allegations. The Sowetan reports:

Mushwana said the Public Protector did not have powers to conduct criminal investigations and to institute prosecutions. “It is therefore for the National Prosecuting Authority to decide whether the allegations made by Der Spiegel warrant any further investigation in South Africa, at this time.” According to Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine, Shaik, brother of convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik, was allegedly paid a US3 million (about R21 million) bribe by one of the arms-deal bidding companies.

The Public Protector does have the power to investigate corruption and then to refer the matter to the NPA for criminal investigation. Guess Chippy has friends in high places and the Wise One is not prepared to upset them. If only I could feign surprise….

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest