Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka says advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane's claims that her office's Phala Phala investigation has been unduly delayed because of her suspension by President Cyril Ramaphosa are "inaccurate and untrue".

The investigation relates to the break-in and theft at Ramaphosa's Phala Phala farm in Limpopo in 2020.

"No facts are put up in support of these allegations," Gcaleka states in papers filed at the Western Cape High Court.

"That is not surprising. Adv Mkhwebane has not been the incumbent in office since 9 June 2022. Nor has she been involved in that investigation. Consequently, it is hard to believe that she has any knowledge of the actual progress of that investigation."

Gcaleka has also hit back at opposition parties that have demanded that she provide them with an interim report on the Public Protector's Phala Phala investigation – something she says is "contrary to the legal standards that the [Public Protector] must comply with" in relation to its Executive Ethics Act investigations.

"Despite my efforts, parties persist in their attempts to place unlawful demands on the PPSA (Public Protector South Africa). They appear to be unlawful interference with the [Public Protector's] functioning and may contravene section 181(4) of the Constitution," she said.

Gcaleka is seeking to intervene in Mkhwebane's urgent application for the immediate enforcement of the Western Cape High Court order that Ramaphosa's decision to suspend her – in the days after she launched an investigation into the 2020 break-in at his Phala-Phala farm – was "improper" and invalid.

Mkhwebane wants that ruling to immediately come into effect, despite the fact that both the president and the DA are seeking to appeal it.

While Gcaleka is not opposing Mkhwebane's application for immediate reinstatement, she says her office has a duty to correct the "inaccuracies and untruths" contained in her court papers – including Mkhwebane's allegations in relation to the Phala Phala investigation.

On Friday, just hours before the Western Cape High Court released its ruling that Mkhwebane's suspension was invalid, the EFF, UDM, ACDP, Cope, PAC, and ATM marched on the Public Protector's office in Pretoria to demand answers about the Phala Phala investigation.

They argued that, under the prescripts of the Executive Members Ethics' Act, the investigation into Ramaphosa should have been completed within 30 days – a deadline that Mkhwebane and the Public Protectors before her have repeatedly failed to meet).

"In 30 days, you were supposed to release the parts of the report which are ready. Say, 'It is not a complete report, but I will return and give you the full report.' You have violated the law. The report must be released with immediate effect," EFF leader Julius Malema said, as reported by News24.

"We do not want answers. We want a report."

Willie Madisha from Cope said, "We are tired because you (Gcaleka) are protecting thieves, instead of dealing with this problem we are faced with. You should have dealt with this problem a long time ago. We are extremely angry."

Gcaleka, however, points out that Mkhwebane herself has told Parliament "that the earliest period within which a report can be completed, in respect of [Executive Members' Ethics Act] matters, is within 6 months of receipt of the complaint". This is a "reasonable approach, given the demands on the Office", she said – before pointing out that the Public Protector had never actually completed such an investigation within that six-month deadline.

"I do not intend to risk the integrity of the investigation by issuing any 'initial' or interim report in terms of the EMEA (on the information and documentation obtained during the investigation this far)," Gcaleka says.

"This is because the investigation team is still in the process of establishing the legitimacy of the allegations raised in the complaint. The premature release of a report could create the risk of undermining any findings reached by the PPSA pursuant to the (completion of the) investigative process."

In response to Mkhwebane focusing on that march as evidence of public dissatisfaction with the "perceived delays" in the Phala Phala investigation, Gcaleka also denies the suspended Public Protector's assertions that she had promised to release the report in seven days.

"In response to the protest march to the Office of the PPSA on 9 September 2022, I undertook to respond to the demands in a memorandum submitted by the marchers within seven days. I did not undertake to report to them about the investigation. Indeed, I cannot. That would be in breach of the Public Protector Act," she states.

"As the Acting Public Protector, I have been at pains to resist attempts by parties with an interest in this investigation to interfere with the functioning of the PPSA. I have furthermore communicated to those parties that there is no undue delay in the Phala Phala investigation."

Ever since Mkhwebane's suspension by Ramaphosa in June, certain opposition political parties have also repeatedly applied pressure on Gcaleka, in particular the EFF and ATM – who are also Mkhwebane's most vocal supporters.

In July, ATM threatened court action against Gcaleka after she extended the deadline for Ramaphosa to respond to the 31 questions sent to him by Mkhwebane in the days leading up to her suspension.

"The ATM is disappointed with how Adv Gcaleka is dealing with this investigation," the party said in a statement in July.

Even when Gcaleka subpoenaed Ramaphosa to provide answers, the party claimed it was a disguised move to shield Ramaphosa.

This past week, ATM also alleged – without providing any evidence – that Gcaleka was in an "unholy alliance" with Ramaphosa and the DA.

"It is now clear that there is a collective effort on the part of the DA, Ramaphosa and the Deputy Public Protector to do anything to shield Ramaphosa from accountability over the Phala Phala scandal (sic)," the ATM said.

In her affidavit, Gcaleka, however, stressed the "Office of the Public Protector has a duty to protect the credibility of the institution and its constitutionally mandated independence and impartiality, and to exercise PPSA's constitutional and statutory functions without fear, favour or prejudice".

She further denies Mkhwebane's claims that her suspension has resulted in delays and destabilisation in other Public Protector investigations. She says such allegations "are not informed by her personal knowledge about the current state of affairs" as she has been suspended, and absent from the office, since 9 June".

"I confirm that investigations within the PPSA are on track. We maintain well-established investigative resources and structures in the PPSA. These enable us to investigate, report on matters of maladministration, conduct failures, administrative justice complaints, service delivery failures and matters initiated by the PPSA," Gcaleka states.

Gcaleka also points that Mkhwebane took a two-and-a-half-month sabbatical in 2021, during which time she acted as Public Protector.

"We released 14 reports during Adv Mkhwebane's sabbatical leave. None has been subjected to or set aside on judicial review," she says.