The Constitutional Court has warned the country’s high courts to be wary of issuing personal cost orders against Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane without merit, as it set aside another such order on Tuesday.
The court overturned a North Gauteng High Court order that said she must personally pay 15% of SARS commissioner Edward Kieswetter’s legal fees in her failed attempt to convince the court that she had the power to subpoena confidential tax records.
The case stems from a subpoena Mkhwebane issued to former SARS acting commissioner Mark Kingon to provide former president Jacob Zuma’s tax records. She was investigating allegations that Zuma had received payments from businessman Roy Moodley’s company Royal Security.
News24 Wire Mkhwebane s position on the matter remains that her office is entitled to have access to a taxpayer s information for purposes of an investigation. Public Protector, Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane during a press briefing at the Public Protectors House, 12 December 2019, Pretoria. Picture: Jacques Nelles
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday did not grant Mkhwebane’s application for leave to appeal this ruling. In a unanimous decision, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga said: “This court takes the view that an appeal does not engage this court’s jurisdiction.”
The court did, however, grant Mkhwebane’s application for leave to appeal the personal costs handed down against her in the case.
Bernadette Wicks They have been at odds over the issue since Mkhwebane moved to subpoena former president Jacob Zuma’s tax records. Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane. Picture: Jacques Nelles D-day has arrived for Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and the South African Revenue Service (Sars). The question of whether Mkhwebane has the power to subpoena taxpayer information from Sars will be decided once and for all by the Constitutional Court today. They have been at odds over the issue since Mkhwebane moved to subpoena former president Jacob Zuma’s tax records. This was part of an investigation into allegations that during the early days of his presidency, Zuma was on the payroll of Royal Security, a KwaZulu-Natal-based company owned by controversial businessman Roy Moodley. ALSO READ: Protect the public from
Jan Gerber, News24
The Constitutional Court dismissed Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane s application for leave to appeal the ruling that her powers of subpoena do not extend to taxpayers information.
The apex court did, however, set aside the personal cost order against Mkhwebane.
Mkhwebane wanted to access corruption-accused former president Jacob Zuma s tax information.
Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane suffered another loss in court when the Constitutional Court dismissed her direct application for leave to appeal a High Court ruling on her matter to obtain corruption-accused former president Jacob Zuma s tax information.
However, she also scored a victory when the personal cost order against her was set aside by the Constitutional Court, and the court expressed concern about the tendency to seek personal cost orders against her.
Bernadette Wicks In March, the North Gauteng High Court ruled Sars was entitled to refuse to hand over Jacob Zuma s tax information to the public protector. Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane. Picture: Jacques Nelles
Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, who penned the apex court’s ruling, said the application’s urgency was “contrived” and that it bore no prospects of success.
He did, however, overturn the personal costs order she was slapped with in the High Court.
In March, the North Gauteng High Court ruled Sars was entitled to refuse to hand the information in question over to the Public Protector and ordered her to pay a percentage of Sars’ legal costs, out of her own pocket. This on the back of a protracted tug o’ war between the two over former president Jacob Zuma’s tax records.