Is Jeremy Cronin's complaint about the Public Protector legally substantiated?
In a recent article on the Public Protector Jeremy Cronin, First Deputy General Secretary of the SACP contended that:
"Bear in mind the public protector's legislation calls on the office to report directly to parliament and not particularly second hand, via a media exclusive preview lock-up, a media conference, and much prior leaking and tweeting. Why was the report not tabled first in Parliament? This was not an oversight, as we have since learnt. Madonsela has explicitly said she will not formally table the report to the Speaker, until President Zuma has first provided his responses to the report to Parliament as she has recommended. But is it not a matter for Parliament to decide who should be called to respond to the report?" (Emphasis added)
The objection may have far-reaching consequences if the Public Protector in fact acted beyond the scope of her legal competencies.
However, did she? To determine that, it is best to look at what the enabling Act determines.
Section 8 of the Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 regulates the publication of findings by the Public Protector. The relevant provisions read as follows: