Former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng has called for the court-sealed CR17 bank statements, which were instrumental in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s rise to power, to be made public.
Speaking at the inaugural SAfm public lecture at SABC in Auckland Park, Mogoeng expressed his belief that the public has the right to know who funded Ramaphosa’s ascension to the presidency of the African National Congress (ANC) and subsequently, the country.
Mogoeng referenced his dissenting judgment in the July 2021 case of the Public Protector versus President, where the Constitutional Court set aside the findings of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane that Ramaphosa had acted unlawfully in relation to donations made to his CR17 campaign. The court found that Mkhwebane had made errors in fact and law in reaching her conclusions and had exceeded her powers by investigating the funding of the CR17 campaign.
Mogoeng, who wrote a dissenting judgment in the same case, accused the president of relying on a technicality and ultimately lying about his knowledge of the CR17 campaign funders.
He pointed to emails, allegedly stolen or intercepted, which indicated that Ramaphosa was aware of the funders. However, neither Ramaphosa nor his CR17 campaign provided an explanation for misleading the Public Protector.
Mogoeng argued that it was the president’s duty to disclose the sources of funding for his campaign, both as a composite benefit from the CR17 campaign as an entity and from individual donors.
He underlined the significance of openness in enabling the public and Parliament to comprehend who had contributed to Ramaphosa’s campaign and whether these connections could present a conflict of interest.
According to Mogoeng, the disclosure of campaign funders would enable close scrutiny of the relationship between the president and donors, ensuring that financial support did not compromise his constitutional obligations or result in preferential treatment for certain individuals or organizations.
Mogoeng highlighted that openness, accountability, and adherence to regulatory frameworks were essential values in a democratic society. He argued that the president’s failure to disclose the funders and the subsequent misleading of the Public Protector undermined these foundational principles.
Mogoeng mentioned the role of a whistleblower in revealing emails that contradicted Ramaphosa’s claim of being “strategically kept ignorant” about the campaign funding. He emphasized that the president acknowledged the existence and authenticity of these emails, demanding an explanation from the Public Protector regarding their source.
Mogoeng criticized the president for not addressing why he and his team chose to mislead the Public Protector instead of telling the truth.
He argued that the emails were not only relevant to the Public Protector’s findings but also exposed the falsehoods presented by the president and the CR17 campaign managers. These falsehoods included a deliberate plan to withhold information about the donors and the use of financial assistance received for the campaign.
Mogoeng concluded by stating that if the truth contained in the emails were revealed, there would be an obligation to disclose the names of the funders and the amounts they contributed to the National Assembly.
He emphasized that the president’s deliberate conveyance of falsehoods in such a crucial matter undermined the constitutional imperative to promote and observe high ethical standards, as well as the principles of openness and accountability.
In calling for the release of the court-sealed CR17 bank statements, Mogoeng has sparked a renewed debate about transparency in campaign funding and the responsibility of political leaders to disclose their sources of support.
The outcome of this debate could have far-reaching implications for the future of political financing in South Africa.
