CR17: Mogoeng Rejects ConCourt Ruling, Says Ramaphosa Did Benefit
- Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng does not stand with the Constitutional Court's ruling that stated that President Cyril Ramaphosa benefited from the CR17 campaign donations
- Justice Mogoeng stated that the act of receiving donations is regarded in itself as a personal benefit
- He further stated that by accepting donations, Ramaphosa put himself in the position of possibly being in a conflict of interest
PAY ATTENTION: Click “See First” under the “Following” tab to see Briefly.co.za News on your News Feed!
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng came out with a minority judgement in the case of the Public Protector vs President Cyril Ramaphosa. In his judgment, Mogoeng believes that Ramaphosa did personally benefit from his CR17 campaign to become president of the ANC.
Mogoeng stated that Ramaphosa was the direct beneficiary of the donations received by the CR17 campaign, stating that act of receiving donations constituted as personal benefit, according to The South African.
Source: Getty Images
Mogoeng's minority judgement comes after the majority judgment handed by Justice Chris Jafta and other Justices within the Constitutional Court stated that the Public Protector failed to prove that Ramaphosa had personally benefited from the CR17 campaign and subsequently dismissed that case against that president.
PAY ATTENTION: Never miss breaking news – join Briefly News' Telegram channel
In a report by IOL, Mogoeng stated that by accepting donations, Ramaphosa put himself at risk of being in a conflict of interest.
”When people or entities other than the then deputy president’s party gave him sponsorship or financial assistance for the purpose of realising his ultimate political dream, he was, by accepting help or allowing others to accept help on his behalf, exposing himself to a situation involving the risk of conflict,” said Mogoeng.
Mogoeng added that those who donated to Ramaphosa's campaign knew that if they needed favours from the state they could approach Ramaphosa and that is where the risk of a conflict of interest could arise.
Despite Justice Mogoeng's judgement, the Constitutional Court's majority judgment in Ramaphosa's case still stands.
Mkhwebane vs Ramaphosa: ConCourt says the president did not mislead Parliament about CR17
In other related news, Briefly News reported that the Constitutional Court found that Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane had changed the wording of the Executive Ethics Code. She concluded that President Cyril Ramaphosa purposely misled the legislature.
The ConCourt dismissed the PP's appeal regarding a judgement at the Pretoria High Court. In March last year, Mkhwebane's report was set aside. The report found that the president misled Parliament in terms of funding the CR17 campaign.
The Constitution and Public Protector Act do not allow for Mkhwebane to probe the private affairs of political parties.
The Constitutional Court had to rule on whether the president had misled Parliament in terms of the donations made the CR17 campaign. In short, the appeal by the PP was dismissed and leave to appeal was granted, this is according to IOL.
Enjoyed reading our story? Download BRIEFLY's news app on Google Play now and stay up-to-date with major South African news!
Source: Briefly News
