Public Protector's Office Withdraws from Bredell Ethics Breach Case Citing Legal Risks

In a turn of events that have stirred the South African political arena, the Office of the Public Protector of South Africa (PPSA) has elected to withdraw from defending the review application regarding Local Government MEC Anton Bredell's breach of the Code of Ethics. This decision, which has attracted considerable attention, underscores the intricate balance between pursuing legal accountability and mitigating financial risk to the institution.

In October 2021, the PPSA found MEC Anton Bredell guilty of contravening the Code of Ethics following his June 2020 appearance before the parliamentary portfolio committee on cooperative governance and traditional affairs (Cogta). Bredell had affirmed the legality of a political agreement to place the Oudtshoorn Municipality under the administration of the Western Cape province, an assertion the PPSA contested.

Subsequently, Premier Alan Winde chose not to enforce the disciplinary measures recommended by the PPSA, opting instead to seek a review of the report that delineated Bredell's breach of the executive ethics code. This move led to a reassessment within the Public Protector's Office regarding the legal and financial prudence of opposing the review application.

PP spokesperson Ndili Msoki has articulated the considerations that prompted the office's withdrawal. Among these were the procedural challenges related to honoring the right of implicated individuals to a fair hearing and reply during the investigation. The legal team concluded that despite their confidence in the merits of the investigation and its findings, the probability of success was overshadowed by the possible liability for another adverse finding coupled with a cost order.

Brett Herron from the GOOD Party highlighted the issue of budgetary constraints within the PPSA, suggesting that financial limitations played a role in the decision not to oppose the review application set forth by Premier Winde and Bredell. Herron critiqued their approach as mimicking tactics used by ANC leaders to postpone accountability, labeling this strategy as a "Stalingrad defence" – an approach characterized by strategic delays and reliance on legal technicalities.

Responding to these developments, Bredell pointed to Herron's decision not to oppose the matter when he had the chance. He articulated satisfaction with the legal outcome, where the reports against him were dismissed by Judge Savage and complaints labeled as frivolous by Bredell led to unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money.

This case highlights the Public Protector's prerogative to judiciously manage its resources and navigate the complex legal environment it operates within. The decision to withdraw opposition from the review has been framed as a maneuver to sidestep unnecessary costs and adverse findings that could potentially compromise the PPSA's financial stability and operational efficacy.

Though critics may argue that such a withdrawal might embolden public officials to contest the Public Protector's findings more frequently, knowing the challenges the office faces, the PPSA has pronounced this move as a necessary one, informed by a comprehensive appraisal of the associated risks and a strategic vision aligned with its mandate and capacities.