He says the test is not what the Public Protector thought, but what the reasonable observer thought.Justice Zukisa Tshiqi asks whether Mkhwebane could have perceived that Ramaphosa was biased, after he suspended her two days after he received her Phala-Phala questions. He says that a reasonable observer would not view these dates in isolation, and would know all the events that had preceded the suspension.
"Does the fact that in the middle of this, Arthur Fraser decides to lodge his compliant," adds Budlender.In the months before Ramaphosa suspended Mkhwebane - and prior to the emergence of Fraser's Phala-Phala claims - the President gave her multiple extensions to provide representations to him about why she should not be suspended. She eventually gave him those representations in May.
He also details that Ramaphosa gave Mkhwebane several extensions to submit her submissions on why she shouldn't be suspended. He says if anything, the president bent over backwards to accommodate Mkhwebane.In response to questions from Justice Rammaka Mathopo, Budlender says he will focus on Ramaphosa's alleged bias in suspending Mkhwebane on 9 June. Budlender says Mkhwebane's case that Ramaphosa was conflicted because he was under investigation by her office is"hopeless".
He says their submission is whatever test you apply, it doesn't matter, because on the facts of the case, there is no showing of bias.Budlender says Mkhwebane and his lawyers have spent more time arguing that it was not required for the Constitutional Court to confirm the invalidity of Ramaphosa's decision to suspend the Public Protector"than they do on the actual merits".
Budlender says Mkhwebane has a pathology of changing her case"whenever the shoe pinches". This paints Mkhwebane"in a bad light", he says.- Jan Gerber - Karyn Maughan It is not my interest to defend the President or his motives, Budlender says. It is however the DA's case that Mkhwebane's suspension by Ramaphosa was manifestly appropriate.Budlender says his interest is not to defend Ramaphosa.
The result is obvious
She knows she's going to lose here & that's why she was forcing the WCHC to put her back in office. The most difficult question to answer is going to be how & why she should he allowed back at work when her impeachment process isn't concluded.
Ofcoz the suspension decision will be upheld and she will foot the bill... Nothing new
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: SABCNews - 🏆 37. / 51 Read more »