Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen has lost an appeal following the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his application which alleged that former Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister David van Rooyen was guilty of "deliberately" misleading Parliament.

Nearly seven years after posing the question, in Parliament, to Van Rooyen about his ties and potential relations with the Gupta family, Steenhuisen's court bid ultimately failed.

In 2016, Steenhuisen had asked Van Rooyen whether he had met with the Gupta family at their home in Saxonwold or elsewhere during his stint as minister. 

An excerpt of the question from the court judgment read: "Has (a) [Mr. Van Rooyen] and/or (b) his Deputy Ministers ever (i) met with any (aa) member, (bb) employee and/or (cc) close associate of the Gupta family and/or (ii) attended any meeting with the specified persons (aa) at the Gupta's Saxonwold Estate in Johannesburg or (bb) anywhere else since taking office; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each specified case, (aaa) what are the names of the persons who were present at each meeting, (bbb) (aaaa) when and (bbbb) where did each such meeting take place and (ccc) what was the purpose of each specified meeting?"

However, Van Rooyen said neither he nor the deputy ministers met with "members, employees and/or close associates of the Gupta family in their official capacities".

This comment and media reports led to Steenhuisen and DA Member of Parliament Kevin Mileham lodging a complaint with now-suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, arguing that Van Rooyen deliberately misled Parliament. 

In her investigation, Mkhwebane relied on media reports that Van Rooyen had allegedly met with the Guptas during his term as finance minister. She then concluded he had "lied and intentionally misled" Parliament. 

Van Rooyen had successfully challenged Mkhwebane's report in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria. He had argued that he had met with the Guptas as general treasurer of the uMkhonto we Sizwe Military Veterans Association (MKMVA) and not in his capacity as a minister. 

However, Steenhuisen and Mileham appealed the High Court decision at the SCA in November 2022.

On Monday, the SCA dismissed the application. 

In her judgment, Justice Nambitha Dambuza said Steenhuisen and Mileham's interpretation of the question differed from that of the Public Protector. 

"On the applicants' interpretation the emphasis was on the word 'ever', and the words 'since taking office' were ignored. Such disregard of words used in a text is impermissible, except where their inclusion leads to an absurdity. The inclusion of the words 'since taking office' does not lead to an absurdity in this case. Even if the applicants' interpretation is plausible it is not the only credible one, as demonstrated in the Public Protector's interpretation.

"But more importantly, for the Public Protector to reach her conclusion that there was wilful misleading, she had to abandon her interpretation of the question. Her interpretation was the same as Mr Van Rooyen's and accounted for the text, context and purpose of the question," the judgment stated. 

"I agree with the submission on behalf of Mr Van Rooyen that the reference, in both the complaint and the Public Protector's report to the media reports, compounded the misdirection on the part of the Public Protector by directing the investigation to a period that was not included in the question."

Justice Dambuza added that the complaint was founded on media reports which had not been included in the question and which related to a different period from that specified in the question. 

"Any investigation conducted on the complaint would yield a negative result on the issue of wilful misleading of Parliament. The irregularities pertaining to the question, the complaint and the investigation thereof are irremediable. 

"For the reasons I have given above, the application for leave to appeal must fail."