Public Protector responds to the controversy surrounding the Constitutional Court case

13 October 2015

The Public Protector is shocked that the Chief Whip has responded in the manner he did. She considers the statement an attack on her. The Public Protector also considers it a veiled threat about her continued occupation of the position of Public Protector. She trust that the Chief Whip has not discussed the statement with the ANC because the ANC should know better, with regard to the issue of the Public Protector's independence and practicality of the matter at hand.

The Public Protector only joined the EFF after it was given the opportunity to be heard by the Constitutional Court. This was because there would have been no other forum to hear the same case. The Chief Whip would have known this had he sought legal advice before issuing the statement. The decision to join the EFF in the matter was informed by the "nothing about us without us" principle. In other words, the Public Protector sought to avoid a situation where her office's powers are determined without her input. A careful study of the pleadings the Public Protector makes in court papers, will show that the Public Protector confined herself to the powers of the office and not the merits of the EFF's argument. This is because the Public Protector believes that her report speaks for itself.

The Public Protector took a decision a long time ago that she will not take government to court but she would join court proceedings as an amicus curaie if a complainant she ruled in favour of takes government to court for implementation of remedial action. This is done by Public Protector-like institutions across the globe. It should be noted that, on the Nkandla matter, it was the Public Protector that advised the President himself to take the report to court.

Regarding insinuations of bias to the EFF in respect of the Public Protector's daughter joining the party, the Public Protector would like to put it on record that her office does not have in its case load a complaint lodged by her daughter. The daughter was advised by the Public Protector to rather lodge her complaint with the Human Rights Commission precisely because of the issue of conflict of interest. The Public Protector therefore views this insinuation as calculated to besmirch her and to undermine her legitimacy.

Statement issued by the Public Protector, 13 October 2015