The South African Roadies Association (SARA) has taken its fight against the Public Protector to another level by approaching the Pretoria High Court to have her report clearing Sports, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie of wrongdoing reviewed and set aside.
In the application, the Public Protector is cited as the first respondent, while McKenzie is the second respondent.
In its notice of motion, filed by its president, Freddy Nyathela, SARA asks the court to direct the Public Protector to produce the full record of the investigation that culminated in the report that clear McKenzi .
It also seeks an order reviewing and setting aside the Public Protector’s findings, conclusions and remedial action contained in the report.
The association further wants the court to declare that the report is “unlawful, irrational, procedurally unfair and inconsistent with the Constitution and the principle of legality.”
The dispute stems from statements McKenzie allegedly made during an SABC News interview on July 12, 2024, and later during the Creative and Cultural Industries Bosberaad, which SARA says damaged its reputation.
SARA alleged that during the SABC News interview, McKenzie said: “One individual, for instance, I went to go and see, spend R20 million on this individual? No, we bought him a building. No, we are renovating his building for R20 million, and we are bringing out the individual next week.”
The association also alleged that McKenzie dented its image during the Creative and Cultural Industries Bosberaad on August 29, 2024, when he said: “Your organisation, since I was appointed, has been swearing at me on Facebook and Twitter every day. They wrote open letters to me the first week I became Minister.”
In its affidavit, SARA said it lodged a formal complaint with the Public Protector on February 24, 2026, after concluding that the minister’s remarks were directed at the organisation.
“These statements, which were made publicly, were incorrect, misleading and detrimental to the applicant’s good name and reputation,” SARA said.
It added: “These statements negatively tainted the applicant’s reputation amongst its stakeholders, industry players, sponsors and associates. The applicant is an NPO that mainly trades from donations and sponsors received from affiliates, both locally and internationally. Reputational damage can cause the applicant irreparable harm.”
According to the affidavit, although McKenzie did not expressly identify SARA, those within the industry reasonably understood the comments to refer to the organisation because of its association with a Department of Sport, Arts and Culture-funded renovation project.
“At all material times relevant to the complaint, investigation and/or impugned statements, the applicant was… the only identifiable entity associated with the funding allocations, infrastructure projects and renovation initiatives referred to by the second respondent,” the affidavit states.
SARA argues that the Public Protector failed to properly investigate the central issue before reaching her conclusions.
“The Public Protector failed to make a definitive finding on whether the statements made by the minister referred to the applicant and whether such statements were false or misleading,” SARA said.
The association further alleges that the Public Protector failed to obtain and analyse departmental funding records and other primary evidence that could have established the factual basis of McKenzie’s statements.
“The first respondent thereby irrationally limited the scope of the investigation and failed to determine material issues that lay at the heart of the complaint,” the affidavit states.
SARA also argues that the investigation ignored documentary evidence relating to the renovation of SARA House, including a Development Bank of Southern Africa project report confirming the department funded the project.
“The Public Protector failed properly, alternatively rationally, to consider the objective documentary evidence relating to the existence, scope and implementation of the SARA House renovation project,” SARA said.
The association further contends that the Public Protector improperly relied on issues unrelated to the complaint.
“The report places emphasis upon social media exchanges and criticism directed by representatives of the applicant towards the second respondent. Those issues were collateral and unrelated to the central question requiring determination,” the affidavit states.
SARA argues that the cumulative effect of these alleged shortcomings rendered the investigation irrational, procedurally unfair and constitutionally defective.
“The applicant respectfully submits that the impugned report is constitutionally and administratively defective and falls to be reviewed on multiple interrelated grounds,” SARA said.
SARA is asking the court to set aside the report, alternatively remit the matter to the Public Protector for reconsideration, and order costs against any respondent opposing the application.
Public Protector Spokesperson Ndili Msoki said they will respond to SARA ‘s allegations in the notice of motion next week.
