Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane says she is confident that her findings in her report into funds relating to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s ANC presidential campaign are factual, rooted and in sound application of the law.

Mkhwebane said this following Ramaphosa’s announcement that he would be taking the report on judicial review after his legal team had carefully studied it and concluded it was “fundamentally and irretrievably flawed”.

On Friday, Busisiwe Mkhwebane found Ramaphosa “deliberately misled” Parliament when he responded to a question about a R500 000 donation to his 2017 ANC presidential campaign from former Bosasa boss Gavin Watson in November last year.

In a statement, the office said Mkhwebane welcomes Ramaphosa’s decision to seek recourse through the courts.

“The Public Protector has the power in terms of the Constitution to investigate, report on and appropriately remedy any conduct in state affairs or in public administration, in any sphere of government, which is alleged or suspected to be improper.

“In addition, the Public Protector has powers under pieces of legislation such as the Public Protector Act (PPA), the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act (PACCA) and the Executive Members’ Ethics Act (EMEA), all of which were relied upon during the investigation in question,” Mkhwebane’s spokesperson Oupa Segalwe said.

All the issues that the Public Protector considered for investigation, flowing from the complaints received and which she was obliged to look into under EMEA, fell within the remit of the office, Segalwe said.

“This includes claims of money laundering, which were considered under PACCA. The evidence gathered under this aspect of the investigation has, in terms of the PPA, been referred to the Prosecutions Authority.”

Segalwe said Mkhwebane would also seek to assist the court to arrive at the correct conclusion by defending the matter. 

The office has cautioned political parties and civil society organisations from making statements that may interfere with the office in violation of section 181(4) of the Constitution.