[ad_1]
“How that becomes a proclivity escapes me,” he said.
On the issue of legal advice, Madlanga said that Mkhwebane had received two conflicting opinions, one from Hamilton Maenetje SC and one from Muzi Sikhakhane SC, and that he had preferred one of them.
“The correct legal position could have been the one stated in one, or the other, or neither,” Madlanga said.
The higher court’s conclusion “is not very credible and it is gratuitous,” he said.
Madlanga said that this order for costs and one that had previously been filed with the Constitutional Court in the case of the public protector against Pravin Gordhan were “very worrying.”
He said that of four cases before the ConCourt in which personal cost orders against the public protector were a problem, the superior court had sanctioned only one.
His wariness was not due to a “maudlin sympathy for the public protector,” he said.
“I’m not even saying that compensation for personal costs against the public protector should be done in moderation. That is not the law. I am saying that the courts must apply the existing law correctly. “
In a statement, Mkhwebane’s office said it appreciated the ruling. He added that he would study it and decide what action to take in the future.
TimesLIVE
[ad_2]
