Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister Des van Rooyen has once again applied to the Pretoria High Court to restrain the public protector from issuing the “state capture” report insofar as the report implicated him. Van Rooyen originally sought to interdict the report‚ but withdrew his application on October 21 because he said the report did not implicate him.The High Court in Pretoria is scheduled to hear an application by President Jacob Zuma to stop the release of the report on Tuesday.However‚ Zuma has applied for the matter to be postponed‚ because of an application by former African National Congress MP Vytjie Mentoor’s application to intervene.Zuma also wants to amend his application.The Democratic Alliance has opposed Zuma’s application for a postponement. “The new relief that the president seeks – effectively a review of the public protector’s conduct - can and should be dealt with after the report has been released as the Public Protector Act and the Constitution require‚” attorney for the DA‚ Elzanne Jonker‚ said in her answering affidavit filed on Sunday.In the latest application‚ Van Rooyen seeks an order setting aside the report insofar as it implicated him directly or indirectly or created and inference concerning him.He also wants the public protector to provide him with the copy of the report‚ to the extent that it dealt with him.The application follows a report in the Sunday Times‚ in which Van Rooyen is alleged to have visited the Gupta family seven times in the days before he was appointed as finance minister in December last year.The newspaper said the visits were revealed during the probe into alleged state capture by the family.In his affidavit‚ Van Rooyen said he was lulled into a false sense of security by assurances given to him by former public protector Thuli Madonsela.“What is more‚ none of the implications contained in the Sunday Times report … were revealed to me by the previous public protector nor was I asked to comment on such implications‚” Van Rooyen said.He said the information received by the public protector was allegedly derived from his cellphone records.“This evidence must have been unlawfully procured‚ it is significant that the public protector – in fact some of the earlier press reports seem to suggest that recordings of my cellphone conversations had been made.”Van Rooyen said if the relief he sought was not granted‚ he would suffer irreparable harm.“The public protector’s findings and recommendations into the Gupta family has attracted an enormous amount of publicity in the media and public interest.“The publication of adverse findings against me which I have not had a reasonable opportunity fully to deal with and rebut will inevitably cause grave damage to my reputation and will put me in peril of the sanctions appropriate to those conclusions and even to the possibility of criminal charges‚” Van Rooyen said in his application.He said newspaper reports critical of him were one thing‚ but a binding finding by the public protector was another.“Though the public protector’s findings and recommendations may be reviewed‚ this alone cannot be an adequate remedy for the infringement of my rights that will be occasioned by a publication of a report that had been produced while failing to observe procedural fairness in the course of finalising the investigation.”Van Rooyen said he was disturbed by the fact that Madonsela‚ knowing that his procedural rights had not been observed‚ nevertheless rushed to finalise her report in her last days in office.“I can only conclude that she had some ulterior motive which remains unexplained.”- TMG Digital..