The Office of Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka has accused the African Transformation Movement (ATM) of shameless bravado and disinformation following its claim of a supposed “court victory” regarding the review of the Public Protector’s (PP’s) Phala Phala report.
Last week ATM told Sunday World that the Pretoria High Court has granted it permission to take the PP’s Phala Phala report on review.
However, the public protector has come out guns blazing, pouring cold water on the
party’s version of events.
Spokesperson Khulu Phasiwe said claims by ATM leader Vuyo Zungula that the court had granted his party permission to take the matter on review was “presumptuous and disingenuous”.
Phasiwe said claims that the ATM “won” a court battle regarding the review of the
Phala Phala report is false, opportunistic and contrived to mislead the public regarding the nature of court proceedings and the true state of affairs of the litigation.
He said the fact of the matter is that none of the pleadings in the review application brought by the ATM are, or have been the subject of judicial consideration or confirmation. The court has not pronounced on any respect of the matter or other merits of the case. ATM’s claim of any form of legal victory in the matter is presumptuous and disingenuous, he said.
“The PP is a party to the litigation, has duly opposed the application, and has thus far conducted the litigation with the necessary decorum, despite the applicant’s (ATM’s) disregard for court processes and timelines,” Phasiwe said.
He said the party was within its rights to lodge a review application with the Gauteng Division of the Pretoria High Court, on July 31, 2023, and no special “permission” was required or granted.
Phasiwe aptly highlighted the ATM’s procedural failings since lodging the application. He said the party showed a complete disregard for court processes and timelines. The ATM delayed its supplementary affidavit by over a month.
On the other hand, said Phasiwe, the PP conducted itself with “decorum”, dutifully opposing the ATM’s application and adhering to the legal timeline. Despite the ATM’s repeated requests for extensions, citing various reasons such as unavailability of counsel and election campaigning, the PP remained unwavering, patiently waiting for the ATM to fulfil its commitments.
Critically, he said that the ATM’s failure to submit its heads of argument had significantly disrupted the process. He pointed out the absurdity of the situation: “As of today, the ATM has still not delivered its heads of argument,” he said, adding that by last month, the ATM failed to meet even its own deadlines, leaving the case in prolonged limbo.
“The High Court will only allocate a date of hearing on notice to all parties and would not do so in circumstances where the ATM, as the applicant and dominus, has not filed its heads of argument.
“The allegations that a high court would, without notice to other parties, arbitrarily allocate a date to ATM are misleading and not in the public interest,” Phasiwe stated.
“This kind of misinformation does a disservice to the public and erodes trust in our legal
institutions.”
Phasiwe said Gcaleka respected the rule of law and “because the matter was under judicial consideration, and therefore sub judice, she would not respond to or be drawn into public discussions around the merits of the matter, pending the proper ventilation of the
issues before a court of law as per the applicant’s selection”.
