LIVE BLOG: ConCourt rules Ramaphosa did not wilfully mislead Parly on CR17 campaign

The Constitutional Court hands down its judgment on the case involving Cyril Ramaphosa's campaign for the ANC presidency.

The ConCourt rules that Ramaphosa did not willfully mislead Parliament.

The matter is remitted to the High Court for the amaBhugane complaint. Ramaphosa is to pay these costs.

The appeal by Mkhwebane is dismissed.

The ConCourt found that the High Court erred in declining amaBhungane's complaint.

Mkhwebane had no authority to make remedial findings on the Speaker of Parliament, the NPA head and the Police Commissioner.

There is no evidence of money laundering as the funds only passed through one account and not any other intermediaries. 

Mkhwebane is not empowered to probe private funds of political parties as it is not a state affair.

Jafta says Mkhwebane did not have the authority to probe matters outside the complaint lodged.

Justice Jafta says there is no proof that Ramaphosa and his son had anything to do with the fund account.

Justice Jafta says Mkhwebane changed the wording of a paragraph to include that Ramaphosa deliberately misled Parliament. On the basis on the changed quote, she concluded he deliberately misled Parliament because he did not give a well-informed response. Jafta says she was wrong in doing this, What she did went beyond parameters of interpretation. He says he cannot inadvertently and deliberately mislead. Therefore, she was wrong on the info and law.

The Public Protector, the EFF and amaBhungane then brought the case to the ConCourt.

The High Court the remedial action by Mkhwebane in her report was unlawful. 

Ramaphosa, the NPA and the Police Commissioner launched an application to challenge the report.

The Commissioner of Police was asked to investigate a violation by Bosasa and submit a plan on how he would implement this action.

Mkhwebane also found that Ramaphosa used his position to solicit funds, but this was not within her jurisdiction to investigate, sats Justice Jafta. She proceeded to find on whether he personally benefitted and concluded that by failing to declare, he breached Paragraph 2 of the Ethics Code, which was also not within the scope of the probe.

Mkhwebane found Ramaphosa did mislead Parliament.

Justice Jafta now moves to his findings on whether Ramaphosa misled from Mkhwebane...

Mkhwebane had also requested bank records from the account where the R500k was deposited into. She received the account details. R190 million was deposited into the account in total, which was then disbursed to accounts such as the Ramaphosa Foundation. 

Emails were anonymously delivered to her office but she couldn't verify the authenticity of them. Ramah

Gavin Watson confirmed the money was paid on his instance but that it was a donation to the campaign. He said he was approached by one of the fund managers for a donation. 

Ramaphosa disputed that he was obliged to disclose the duties. He also said the donations were not to him directly, but to the campaign. Mkhwebane asked CR17 fund managers for details of all donations, but they only gave her info on the Bosasa R500k donation as they said other donations were not relevant to the matter. Managers told her Ramaphosa was not involved in raising donations and how they are spent - Ramaphosa had previously reiterated at the Zondo commission that he was not privy to all details on fund raising.

In December, Mkhwebane invited Ramaphosa to submit a response to Maimane. He did so in January 2019 in written form during a meeting with her.

The second complaint to Mkhwebane was launched by the EFF's Floyd Shivambu. Justice Jafta says both complaints did not raise 

Ramaphosa had said the funds were a mere donation but Maimane lodged a complaint with the Public Protector that the donation was improper and raised suspicion of money-laundering. He said Ramaphosa lied.

Justice Jafta recounts that although Ramaphosa was not obliged to answer on the spot, he did so.

Justice Jafta reads out the legal framework within which the case arose. He also recounts Ramaohosa appearing before Parliament in 2018 while answering an official question from Mmusi Maimane - then DA - leader about funds received for the CR17 campaign. Maimane asked Ramaphosa if he knew anything about these funds received by his son Andile Ramaphosa from Bosasa.

Proceedings have now kicked off. Justice Jafta is presi

The court also found she didn't have the jurisdiction to investigate the campaign funding.

Mkhwebane then approached the Constitutional Court, which is expected to rule on Thursday on whether the president did mislead Parliament and whether the Public Protector's investigation into the CR17 campaign was within her scope.

Ramaphosa took the decision on review and the Pretoria High Court found in his favour, setting it aside in an equally scathing judgment that called it “inexplicable,” “reckless” and “without basis in fact or law”.

But Mkhwebane's report went further than that, delving into all donations to the campaign totalling well over R200 million according to her.

The Public Protector was scathing, saying there was merit to the suspicion that money laundering was involved and recommending remedial action.

The legal battle centres on a half a million-rand donation to Ramaphosa's campaign to become ANC president and the Mkhwebane's finding that as President of South Africa, Ramaphosa had misled Parliament about that donation.

Ramaphosa challenged Mkhwebane's report and won. She then took her cause to the Constitutional Court.

Known as CR17, the campaign landed Ramaphosa in hot water with the Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, who found he had misled Parliament about campaign donations.

The Constitutional Court is expected to hand down its judgment on Thursday on the case involving Cyril Ramaphosa's campaign for the ANC presidency.