In response to recommendations made in a report by Public Protector (PP) Busisiwe Mkhwebane that former Limpopo Legislature deputy speaker, Lehlogonolo Masoga must pay a reasonable portion of a R125 000 phone bill incurred during an official trip to America, Masoga recently approached the North Gauteng High Court to have the report reviewed and set aside.
Initially, it was alleged that Masoga had incurred the cell phone bill while watching pornography but Mkhwebane’s report is silent about the allegation, to which Masoga said the assertions aimed to tarnish his name and reputation. The PP’s report indicated that although initial allegations indicated that a bill of R125 000 had been incurred, investigations revealed that the bill in reality came to R138 701,99 inclusive of subscription services, roaming data usage, international roaming services, domestic data usage and Vat, for the entire month of August 2014.
The report highlighted that detailed itemised billing from the service provider, incorporated in the report, indicated the charges on Masoga’s
bill being R19 719,41 for roaming abroad, R99 880,66 for roaming data usage, R150,79 for data services,
R1 917,55 for subscription services and R17 033,58 Vat.
Although the court dates are not communicated yet, Masoga informed Polokwane Observer that his legal team has followed due processes and has since exchanged several documents with the offce of the PP.
He stated that the first report released by former PP Thuli Madonsela in 2017 indicated that he had not broken the law and that no matters of pornography were involved in the bill.
“I was surprised when I received another report from Mkhwebane last year stating the bill was too high hence I have to pay a reasonable portion. I felt I was not being treated fairly in this matter as per the Constitution. I paid a portion of the bill so now I am on a mission to clear my name and the PP indicated that she would not oppose the matter in court. Even if I win the case I will not request a refund of the portion I have paid,” Masoga stressed.
He emphasised that his constitutional rights were being violated by the fact that the closing report had exonerated him from any blame while the second report imposed remedial action against him. These divergent outcomes cannot be permitted to stand side-by-side in a constitutional dispensation, Masoga added. The two reports cannot coexist side-by-side since this constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights, he said and concluded by saying the second report has no legal standing and only the first report must stand.
Story: ENDY SENYATSI
>>endy@observer.co.za
