The North Gauteng high court on Monday set aside public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s 2018 report on the Estina dairy project meant to benefit poor farmers in Vrede, Free State.
Judge Ronel Tolmay said the report was unconstitutional and invalid, ruling in favour of the Democratic Alliance and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac) who brought the application to court last year.
The Free State government’s director-general Kopung Ralikontsane said his province would respond “if necessary.”
“Unfortunately, the Free State government was not party to the case in question, as the applicants did not cite us as an interested party. We will continue to make practical steps and efforts in ensuring that we sharpen and deepen our commitment towards the principles of sound financial management and good governance. We shall also continue to cooperate with all authorities which conduct investigations within our jurisdiction,” Ralikontsane said in a statement.
At least R200 million in public funds meant for Vrede black farmers allegedly flowed to Estina, a company linked to the controversial Gupta family. Some of the money was allegedly used to pay for the Guptas’ lavish family wedding at the Sun City resort in 2013.
The DA and Casac accused Mkhwebane of failing to do her job, saying she narrowed down the scope of the investigation to exonerate politicians in the Free State. They further accused her of altering a provisional report on Estina by her predecessor Thuli Madonsela.
On Monday, Mkhwebane’s office said she was “astonished” by Tolmay’s ruling and would consider approaching the Constitutional Court.
“Advocate Mkhwebane is still considering the option to appeal or apply for direct access to the Constitutional Court regarding Monday’s ruling of the North Gauteng High Court on her investigation into the Estina dairy farm project, which ruling she disagrees with fundamentally,” her spokesman Oupa Segalwe said.
“She is concerned over among other things that, in setting aside the entire report, the ruling might be interpreted as though the court condones the maladministration attributed to the parties against whom adverse findings were made.”
– African News Agency (ANA)