Opposition political parties and any other individual do not have a legal standing to intervene in the court matter in which President Jacob Zuma seeks to stop the public protector’s “state capture” report from being made public, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Tuesday.

Advocate Anthea Platt, representing Zuma, told a full bench of three High Court judges that the findings contained in the contentious report do not affect the parties seeking to intervene on the court case.

The Democratic Alliance (DA), Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), United Democratic Movement (UDM), Congress of the People (Cope) and former African National Congress (ANC) member of Parliament Vytjie Mentor are opposing Zuma’s application to interdict the report.

Platt told the court that correct procedure, Zuma questioning the witnesses, had not been followed in Thuli Madonsela’s probe and subsequently the report should not be released. Madonsela finalised the “state capture” report before her tenure as Public Protector ended last month.

The report looked at allegations that the wealthy Gupta family had undue influence in the appointment of ministers – a function that is the sole prerogative of the President.

Zuma, who has strong ties to the wealthy Gupta family, applied for an interdict to halt the release of the report, three days after he demanded an undertaking from Madonsela that she would not wrap up her investigation until he had been allowed to question witnesses in the investigation.

Zuma complained that he was not given enough time to respond.

Platt’s argument followed submissions by different attorneys, representing the opposition political parties and Mentor, who requested to be admitted as parties into the court case.

Advocate Etienne Labuschagne said since Madonsela’s report was final, Zuma’s only option would be to take it on review but the President cannot stifle the release thereof.

EFF attorney Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said the court case on Tuesday was about Zuma seeking to put a “blanket ban” on the Public Protector’s report, not about “procedural niceties and technical objections”.

He said Zuma and Co-operative Governance Minister Des Van Rooyen were “trying to hide” behind technical arguments so that that the release of the report would be delayed indefinitely.

Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing opposition parties UDM and Cope said the South African public has “a right to that Public Protector report now”.

On Monday, Mineral Resources Minister Mosebenzi Zwane and Van Rooyen applied for a court interdict to block the release of Madonsela’s report.

“Minister Zwane has had no option, but to now become involved in this matter, as he was not afforded an opportunity to answer allegations levelled against him (contained in a letter he received from the Public Protector) in terms of the Constitution, Public Protector Act and Promotion of Administration of Justice Act,” Zwane’s office said.

Van Rooyen takes a similar stance in documents he filed in court on Monday, in a bid to block the release of the report, saying he would suffer “grave harm” if the report contained adverse findings which he was not given an opportunity to refute.

Van Rooyen initially went to court to block Madonsela’s report a week and a half ago, arguing that she had given him only one day to respond to damning allegations that he had used his four days as finance minister last December, to pull strings for the rich and politically connected Gupta family.

However, the minister later withdrew his interdict application, which was due to be heard along with a separate one by Zuma – only to reinstate it again on Monday.

Judges Dawie Fourie, Dunstan Mlambo and Phineas Mojapelo are presiding. The matter continues.