By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein has ordered Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane to provide the DA proof of her job application for the State Security Agency (SSA).
This comes as the two parties prepare for a legal showdown on spying claims made by the DA against Mkhwebane.
This ruling overrides that of the Western Cape High Court which earlier dismissed the party’s application to compel Mkhwebane to produce the requested documents.
The DA claims that Mkhwebane was a spy appointed to the Public Protector post with the aim of perpetuating state capture.
Following the Western Cape High Court ruling, the DA escalated the matter to the SCA, seeking to compel Mkhwebane to reveal certain records.
The initial ruling said that it would be inappropriate and illogical for the DA to rely on the requested documents to prove the truthfulness of its statements.
The party insists that Mkhwebane’s employment at the State Security Agency after her return from China is relevant to determine whether she ever worked as a spy, or that she was a spy on the payroll of the State Security Agency at the time she was nominated to the position of Public Protector.
DA MPs Glynnis Breytenbach and Werner Horn have succeeded in forcing Mkhwebane to reveal details of her application for a job at the State Security Agency (SSA).
SCA judges Mahomed Navsa, Daniel Dlodlo, Caroline Nicholls, Zeenet Carelse and Owen Rogers upheld the DA’s appeal and set aside the high court judgment.
“The applicants in the main application under case number 19668/17 are directed to produce for inspection and copying the first applicant’s application for the post of Analyst: Domestic Branch: DBO1 in the State Security Agency, referred to in ‘PPSA5’ by no later than 1 April 2021,” reads the SCA ruling.
The judges also directed Breytenbach and Horn to file their answering affidavit by no later than April 16, 2021, and ordered Mkhwebane to pay their legal costs.
The SCA found that Mkhwebane’s application for appointment by the SSA is relevant in that it is bound to contain details of her employment history, including those relative to the time when she was deployed to China.
“The timeline is critical. In my view, that document should be produced by Mkhwebane. The court below erred in concluding that there was no reference to the application for appointment to the post of analyst and that it was irrelevant,” reads the judgment.