RT @setumostone: #CRvPP Judge President Dustin Mlambo leads the full bench to deliver the judgment on President Ramaphosa's review application against Public Protector Mkhwebane's Bosasa report into the CR17 ANC presidential elections campaign in 2017 
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: The case is about the Public Protector's Bosasa report and the competencies of the findings she made. Do the findings stand the test of constitutional rationality? At the heart of the case is the question of the outer limits of Public Protector's powers
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court going through the case background from Ramaphosa's answer in Parliament to former DA leader Mmusi Maimane; CR's later withdrawal of the answer and Maimane's complaint to Mkhwebane
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: EFF's Floyd Shivambu was also the complainant. The EFF was admitted as the fourth respondent during the review hearings. Shivambu complained that CR may have violated the executive ethics code act.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: The court: CR made several important facts in reply to Mkhwebane. Includes that CR was not directly involved in soliciting of funds, generally not aware of donations except for his & 2 others. Arrangement precluded suggestion that CR's goodwill could be bought
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court now discusses Mkhwebane's findings and remedial action. Court summarizes as three issues: Misleading of Parly, disclosure of benefits issue and money laundering issue.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court now dealing with the grounds of review. Speakers said Mkhwebane overreached. NDPP Shamila Batohi said remedial action to her unlawful and unconstitutional. Speaker and CR seek a court order, but CR did not seek personal costs.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: Did President Ramaphosa mislead Parliament in his reply on the Bosasa donation? The court finds that there are some fundamentals difficulties with Mkhwebane's findings. It is apparent that Mkhwebane was confused about the legal foundations.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: Mkhwebane replaced willfully with deliberately or inadvertently. This error is repeated. It occurs also in the final findings.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: Ramaphosa may have been careless in his answer to Maimane but it couldn't be said he deliberately mislead Parliament. Mkhwebane's finding is fatally flawed due to an error of law. But there are other reasons. She did not establish that CR acted wilfully.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: CR answered in line with Maimane's question & what Maimane put as facts. The information discovered in hindsight was then not known either to CR or Maimane. It's difficult to understand how CR's answer could therefore not be seen as reasonable
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The EFF submitted that CR acted unethically. Court disagrees. It says no rule of Parliament is mentioned to substantiate the breach of ethical conduct by CR.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: CR's version that he was insulated from knowing about donor information is undisputed. It seems to be a reasonable strategy to employ to avoid a possible conflict of interest.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: On all fairness, CR was entitled to be exonerated. The PP did not make an obvious finding that CR had told the truth about his son having a contract with Bosasa. Shows she did not act in open mind & reached an irrational & unlawful conclusion
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: Can Mkhwebane investigate private political funding in the #CR17 campaign? Maimane's complaint not about the #CR17 campaign. Shivambu's compliant also not about #CR17. No doubt about PP powers, however, those powers are not unlimited.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The PP enjoys wide powers within the sphere of her jurisdiction. She cannot initiate her own investigation on an issue falling outside her sphere of competence.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: What is state affairs? Is the conduct of CR a matter of state affairs because when he received private donation he was then Deputy President? One can't give state affairs a wide meaning in terms of political science that does not serve purpose.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The PP's sphere of competence to investigate is limited to public matters. She cannot investigate any conduct she choose simply because it is alleged, no matter how serious the impropriety is alleged to be.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The activities of #CR17 fell squarely within the rights of participating members. It is within the private domain. The conduct of members not conduct in state affairs. They acted in furtherance of their right to participate in party activities
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: On CR's disclosure of #CR17 benefits? Were the donations a direct sponsor to CR & therefore a material financial benefit? There is some overlap of issues. In particular, the misdirected conflation that PP makes on the activities of #CR17 permeates
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: CR involved in #CR17 activities as a member of the ANC. Nothing says his involvement placed himself at the risk of conflict with his official responsibilities. Nothing substantiates the finding that CR was enriched. Finding is based on earlier conflation
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: If CR did not personally benefit, how could PP rationally conclude that he was obliged to disclose donations? The exec code sets out financial interests that must be disclosed. Nothing substantiates the finding that CR was under obligation to disclose
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: On prima facie suspicion of money laundering - The focus of the money laundering was payment of Bosasa's Gavin Watson. However, Mkhwebane extended the scope to include all payments to #CR17. Mkhwebane relied on #PRECCA, which does not cover laundering
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: The accounts through which the money flowed had nothing to do with CR as far as the Bosasa R500k is concerned. It only went into one #CR17 account. There was one straightforward transaction. The finding not based on evidence at disposal or any evidence.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: PP did not have facts or evidence that public officials and funds were used. It is inexplicable how PP made her finding. There is no evidence that money laundering was at play and #PRECCA has nothing to do with the issue. It's #POCA that deals with it.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The essence of the offence is the concealment of the proceeds of crime. Unless the money involved is the proceeds of crime, it does not matter how many accounts or transactions are involved. There cannot be an offence without proceeds of crime.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: No evidence before PP that any donations were proceeds of crime nor that CR agreed with Watson to conceal money that was proceeds of crime. No evidence that CR knew or ought to have know that money from Watson constituted proceeds of crime.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: PP failed to complete analyse the facts. She shows a complete lack of understanding of the basics of law. Had she been vigilant, she would not have arrived at that conclusion. The #FIC also told PP that it's investigation could not find money laundering.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: The PP assumed that money to the #CR17 constituted bribes. It is not clear who she assumed was the criminal. But she was investigating the President. The allegation is serious. Even if implied, it ought not to be made without strong supporting evidence
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The PP made serious findings on unfounded assumptions. Her findings were not only irrational, but indeed reckless.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The remidial action related to money laundering is serious for CR. In terms of the remedial action, the NDPP is referred to investigate, which makes the President a suspected criminal. Therefore the PP should have forewarned him.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The Speaker challenges two of the PP's remedial action: refer President to ethics committee and demand publication of all donations received. Speaker points of that CR is no longer an MP. Similarly, the register applies to MPs.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: The PP did not engage with this issue. If the ethics committee does not have competency to consider the matter, it is something she should have taken seriously. The remedies by the PP are ineffective & inappropriate. Breaches powers of legislature
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: This was an unwarranted encroachment on the Speaker's powers and it is similarly rebuked and set aside.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: PP directed NDPP to present to her an implementation plan of how remedial action will be implemented. No organ of state may hinder the NPA in the exercise of its functions. The remedial action to NDPP goes much further than it is permitted.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP: That the implementation was to be subject to the PP's approval was concerning to the NDPP. Response from PP's office was surprising, and made it clear that NDPP was expected to comply. Further, NDPP was accused of aligning herself with the President.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The PP has no power to direct or monitor the NDPP's conduct, which would undermine prosecutorial independence. PP may only bring the matter to the attention of the NDPP.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: The Zuma case precedence also ignores important considerations. What was at issue in the Zuma case was alleged corruption of the then President in state affairs. This current case says nothing about the alleged corruption of CR.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: On our case, the PP was entitled to bring prima facie evidence of money laundering to NDPP, but she could not order NDPP to investigate on her directive. PP showed a complete lack of understanding of the limits of her powers.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: Amabhungane application on transparency and access to information in political campaign funding has not satisfied the grounds for a constitutional challenge. In order to grant the order, we must find that the executive code is inefficient.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court on costs orders: EFF intervened on a constitutional matter and should not be burdened with costs. But PP must face costs. CR said PP was determined to malign the President. Wanted costs on a punitive scale to mark disapproval of PP's conduct.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: What makes PP's conduct worse is that she refused to give CR sight of the remedial action. It is unclear why she failed to comply with one of the most important principle of natural justice. It would have not slowed down her investigation.
@setumostone RT @setumostone: #CRvsPP The court: PP received full representation from CR but she did not engage with the submissions meaningfully. She recklessly ignored evidence at her disposal. In doing so, she breached her duty to approach every investigation in an open minded manner.
