Court rules Ramaphosa didn’t mislead Parly on R500k Bosasa donation

In a scathing judgment, Elias Matojane found there are fundamental difficulties with Mkwhebane’s findings that Ramaphosa deliberately misled Parliament.

President Cyril Ramaphosa waits to deliver his State of the Nation address at Parliament in Cape Town on 13 February 2020. Picture: AFP

JOHANNESBURG – The High Court in Pretoria has found President Cyril Ramaphosa did not intentionally mislead Parliament about a R500,000 Bosasa payment as found by Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane.

In a scathing judgment on Tuesday, Judge Elias Matojane found there are fundamental difficulties with Mkwhebane’s findings that Ramaphosa deliberately misled Parliament.

He said the president was correct to say Mkhwebane is confused

The court has set aside the Public Protector's remedial actions against President Ramaphosa as contained in her 2019 report on Bosasa.

WATCH: Court: Ramaphosa didn’t intentionally mislead Parliament on CR17 funding

The scathing judgment follows a review application by Ramaphosa and others who argued the Public Protector misapplied the law during investigations.

The full bench of the Pretoria High Court has described Mkhwebane's findings against the president as irrational, reckless and informed by misdirected conflation and confusion.

On the conclusion that Ramaphosa misled when he answered a question posed to him by former Democratic Alliance leader Mmusi Maimane related to his son and the Bosasa donation, the court ruled that the explanation did not amount to the deliberate misleading of Parliament.

Mkhwebane's treatment of the issue is regarded as a demonstration of a flawed approach.

The ruling found that Mkhwebane did not have jurisdiction to investigate the conduct of the CR17 campaign as it did not constitute public or state affairs.

The court has further dismissed the Public Protector's assertion that the NDPP should investigate the president and the CR17 campaign for money laundering.

The court said in dealing with this issue, the Section 9 institution failed to properly analyse facts before it and demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge of the law and its application.