The Public Protector appealed against the decision to the Supreme
Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court of Appeal was careful to point out two things:
Firstly, that it was not for the court to decide whether or not there was impropriety
on the part of the state, but only to pronounce on the adequacy, or otherwise,
of the Public Protector's report. Secondly, the court was not called upon to direct
the Public Protector as to the manner in which he or she should conduct any investigation;
this must be left to the Public Protector, himself or herself.
The court found that the Public Protector's report was inadequate
and should be set aside. The reason was that the Public Protector lacked an appropriate
mindset when the investigation was conducted. The Public Protector did not conduct
the investigation with an open and enquiring mind; that is, a mind open to all
possibilities and which reflects upon whether the truth had been told.
