Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen has been dealt with a blow following the dismissal of his leave to appeal application involving former Finance Minister Des van Rooyen.
Steenhuisen had approached the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) seeking to a high court judgment, which set aside one of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s 2018 reports.
Background
The report found that van Rooyen deliberately misled Parliament when he responded to a question posed by Steenhuisen during a National Assembly sitting in 2016.
Steenhuisen asked Van Rooyen whether he ever met with any Gupta family member or their close associate and whether he attended any meetings at their Saxonworld Estate in Johannesburg.
Van Rooyen, who was when he was Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) Minister at the time, denied that he never the Guptas on his official capacity.
ALSO READ: Van Rooyen blames ‘white capital’ for ‘politically driven narrative’ that he’s corrupt
DA MP Kevin Mileham then lodged a complaint with the Public Protector following media reports that Van Rooyen visited Saxonworld on several occasions in December 2015.
The former minister revealed in his response to the Public Protector’s investigation was that he met the Guptas in his capacity as treasurer-general of the now-disbanded uMkhonto we Sizwe Military Veterans Association (MKMVA).
Following Mkhwebane’s adverse findings against him, Van Rooyen then successfully the Public Protector’s report in 2021.
The Pretoria High Court set aside the report and ordered Steenhuisen as well as Mileham to pay Van Rooyen’s legal costs.
‘Irrelevant evidence’
But on Monday, the SCA upheld the high court’s ruling and dismissed the DA’s appeal application.
In its judgment, the appeal court explained that Steenhuisen’s parliamentary question to Van Rooyen was unclear.
Therefore, this led to the Public Protector reinterpreting it and finding that Van Rooyen lied to Parliament.
“In reviewing and setting aside the Public Protector’s decision, the high court found that the starting point of her investigation was misguided.
READ MORE: Van Rooyen’s Gupta-linked advisors had access to documents, without contracts – Fuzile
“Whereas the words ‘since taking office’ referred to the period following Mr Van Rooyen’s assumption of office as a minister, the investigation incorrectly related to the period preceding his appointment as such,” Justice Nambitha Dambuza said.
“The high court found that Mr Van Rooyen’s response was not evasive or misleading and was relevant to the question asked. Furthermore, the complaint was not related to the parliamentary question that had been posed. In addition, the Public Protector relied on irrelevant evidence in reaching her decision. Consequently, the decision of the Public Protector was set aside as irrational,” the judgment further reads.
No costs order
While Steenhuisen’s lawyers argued during the appeal application, which was heard in November last year, that the matter should be remitted to the Public Protector if a report was to be set aside, Dambuza stated that no purpose would be served by doing so.
“The complaint was founded on media reports which had not been included in the question and which related to a different period from that specified in the question.
READ MORE: Mkhwebane cries ‘women abuse’ against ConCourt judgments
“Any investigation conducted on the complaint would yield a negative result on the issue of willful misleading of Parliament.
“The irregularities pertaining to the question, the complaint and the investigation thereof are irremediable. For the reasons I have given above, the application for leave to appeal must fail.”
No costs order was made against the applicants.
Read the full judgment below:
sca2023-78 by Molefe Seeletsa on Scribd
