May 29, 2022

Mawazo Writing Africa

Writing about the main

Constitutional Court dismisses Mkhwebane’s rescission application

The Constitutional Court has dismissed public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s request for annulment or annulment of the verdict that cleared the way for impeachment proceedings against her in Parliament.

In a unanimous order of nine judges, has the Apex Court said its motion found no voidable errors in the judgment.

“Nor do there exist exceptional circumstances justifying the setting aside of the judgment,” the court said.

” Therefore, the court has concluded that the application should be dismissed as there is no ground for annulment.”

There was no reason to issue instructions requesting written submissions or answering affidavits would before they were filed its order.

On the same day, the ConCourt responded to a letter from Mkhwebane’s attorneys about the infamous text message that “on very good grounds” the he predicted the outcome of the annulment motion.

The message was sent on April 24 to Council for Speech He of Parliament Andrew Breitenbach in a separate but related case in the Western Cape High Court. It read: “Hello Adv Breytenbach [sic], subject: The public protector case tomorrow. I know on very good authority that the ConCourt declined to hear the public protector’s motion for annulment. The decision will be announced sometime in the coming week, but no later than Friday. I thought I would share this with you in the strictest confidence. Thank you.”

When Mkhwebane’s lawyers wrote to the Constitutional Court to ask whether the content of the SMS was true, the Supreme Court said the matter was being investigated and that “the outcome of the request for direct access and annulment will be communicated to the parties when the court has completed its proceedings and reached its decision.”

This did not satisfy Mkhwebane, who sent a lengthy response request wrote detailed questions about the nature of the investigation, expressing concern that it “sounds like an indirect confirmation of some illegally transmitted information.”

One of the questions asked was whether it was permissible to reach a “result” without instructions from the Chief Justice.

Friday’s letter from the Apex Court was terse: “Please note that the court reiterates its response of April 29 and will not engage in any correspondence of this nature with any litigant in this regard.”

Support independent journalism by subscribing to The Sunday Times. Only 20 R for the first month.