The Supreme Court of Appeal on Wednesday dismissed an appeal by the Public Protector against an order of the High Court in Pretoria setting aside its report into the so-called Oilgate matter.

The report followed an investigation conducted by the protector at the request of the Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) in June 2005, and the Democratic Alliance (DA).

It concerned allegations made in a series of articles published by the Mail&Guardian newspaper from 2005. The first articles appeared under the heading “The ANC's Oilgate” and was about a M&G investigation into how R11-million of public money was diverted to the African National Congress (ANC) ahead of the 2004 election.

The M&G article referred to the “biggest political funding scandal”, in which it established that South Africa's state oil company, PetroSA, irregularly paid R15-million to Imvume Management, a company closely tied to the ANC, at a time when the party was desperate for election funds.

The FF Plus asked the protector to investigate whether PetroSA had intended the ANC to receive the money, and had used Imvume as the conduit. The DA asked the protector to broaden its investigation.

The Public Protector agreed to the investigation and produced a report within a short time. The report was tabled in the National Assembly.

However, after the protector's report found no impropriety on the part of various parties, the M&G turned to the high court, asking that the Oilgate matter be reinvestigated.

The court set aside the report. The Public Protector then turned to the SCA to appeal the decision.

The SCA held that the high court had correctly set aside the report and found the investigation was so scant it amounted to no investigation at all. In its judgment the Bloemfontein court said the minimum requirement for an investigation of any kind was approaching the matter with an open and enquiring mind.

“The Public Protector is there to inspire confidence that all is well in public life. In those circumstances I think it is unfortunate that he should have chosen to challenge the right of the respondents [the M&G] to submit his report to scrutiny,” the judgment reads.

According to the ruling a hallmark of the protector's investigation was that responses were sought from people in high office and recited without question, as if they were fact.

However, the SCA set aside the additional orders made directing the Public Protector to investigate the matter again.