Public Protector in State of Capture report secrecy wrangle
Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has had problems swearing to secrecy one of seven respondents cited in Jacob Zuma's legal challenge to the State of Capture report.
All parties must be sworn to secrecy before she files her replying affidavit‚ which her office says contains private and confidential documents.
Public Protector spokesman Oupa Segalwe she that she had decided to give her affidavit directly to a judge as it contained confidential annexures.
He would not be drawn to naming the respondent who did not sign the confidentiality agreement.
Respondents in the matter include the Economic Freedom Fighters‚ United Democratic Movement‚ Congress of the People‚ Democratic Alliance as well as the Council for the Advancement of SA Constitution.
Segalwe said once the confidentiality wrangle had been resolved or upon a directive by Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba‚ who is the case manager in the matter‚ Zuma would have a period of 10 days within which to supplement his founding papers.
“Once (Zuma) has done so‚ the Public Protector will have a period of 30 court days within which to deliver her answering affidavit‚” he said.
In her State of Capture report released in October 2016‚ former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela found that Zuma may have breached the executive code of ethics and may be conflicted over his son‚ Duduzane's relationship with the controversial Gupta family.
Madonsela directed that a commission of inquiry into the allegations of state capture be conducted and that Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng appoint a judge to preside over it.
Zuma approached the Pretoria High Court in December 2016 to review and set aside the directive that a commission of inquiry be established as it "violates the rule of law that it is inconsistent with the Constitution and breaches the separation of powers principle".
He further argued that any move to implement the remedial action would be an abdication of his constitutional responsibility‚ rendering the judicial inquiry unlawful.