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.
I see there was a coup d’etat in Mauritius. Wonder where that leaves the NPA request for the diary that shows Mr. Jacob Zuma met with arms dealers who allegedly paid him a bribe? Mr. Zuma’s appeal on that matter is still pending in the Mauritius courts. If I was a conspiracy theorist – which I am not – I would wonder about the timing of this coup and whether it has anything to do with a plot against the NPA!
UPDATE: Eish! I am obviously so obsessed with the Zuma matter that in my haste between appointments I read Mauritius for Mauritania! So no plot against the NPA then.BACK TO TOP