Mr Jones returned to court last Friday in the continuation of his case against the University of Canberra, its vice-chancellor, the University of Canberra Union, Joe Roff and David Lamont.

He sought to lift suppression orders, arguing he had been left unable to defend himself publicly almost two months after he was first stood down by the club.

Mr Jones agreed to end his case against the Brumbies two weeks ago after an independent mediator was brought to Canberra to negotiate a payout of the 18 months remaining on his contract.

However, his case is continuing against the other defendants, who he claims punished him for blowing the whistle about irregularities with the sale of the Griffith headquarters and subsequent move to the University of Canberra.

Brumbies and Australian rugby great Roff spoke publicly about case last week, saying Mr Jones' allegation against him did not have any basis.

On Friday, Mr Jones made an application to the court, seeking to have suppression orders lifted and clarify what he was able to say publicly.

Justice Richard Refshauge has delayed making a decision on the suppressions, but made an order allowing Mr Jones to make public statements, as long as they did not breach defamation law, or the confidentiality clauses in his employment contract.

After court, Mr Jones told Fairfax Media:

"I was not and am not taking any action to expose what's in the KPMG report.

"I'm taking action to protect myself and my reputation against the attacks being made on me to get rid of me and sully my reputation.

"That's all I've been doing this whole time."

In court on Friday, Mr Jones' lawyer Rory Markham said constant media reporting on the issues had left Mr Jones in a position where he could not respond or protect his reputation due to the current restrictions in place.

He said his client was currently seeking employment, and he was unable to explain the situation properly to prospective employers.

But former deputy chief minister Lamont, now represented by barrister Jack Pappas, and lawyers for the Brumbies board asked for more time, so they could properly respond to Mr Jones' attempts to have the suppressions lifted.

Mr Pappas said lifting the restrictions may invite unsubstantiated speculation that would do "very great harm to my client".

The Brumbies' lawyer argued that Mr Jones' attempts to relax the suppressions could potentially be in breach of the settlement agreement he made with the club to walk away.

"From our perspective, this does create significant issues with that agreement," he said.

The KPMG report at the centre of the angst remains under a suppression order by Justice Refshauge and part of an ongoing AFP investigation.

It details transactions at the Brumbies between 2009 and 2013 relating to the sale of the club's former Griffith headquarters and subsequent move to the University of Canberra.

The Brumbies board opted to appoint ARU integrity manager Phil Thomson as Jones' temporary replacement while they start a search for a permanent successor.

It's believed the Brumbies board will engage a third party agency to help recruit a new chief executive.

The announcement of Thomson's appointment prompted fears in Canberra rugby circles that the ARU was plotting a take over of the capital's Super Rugby team.

Thomson allayed fears by saying he was now a Brumbies employee, but the ARU is keen to pursue its vision for a centralised model where it controls all of Australia's Super Rugby franchises.

In a strange twist to the backroom Brumbies drama, Thomson was involved in the early stages of the KPMG report in his role as the ARU's integrity manager. It was recommended that the Brumbies and the ARU jointly fund the KPMG report and refer it to police.

The KPMG report was referred to the AFP in September last year and is the subject of an ongoing investigation that could take up to two years.

The Brumbies board moved to stand down Jones on March 21 before Jones took the matter to the ACT Supreme Court less than 24 hours later, citing whistleblower protection legislation to keep his job.

Jones gained an injunction and remained in his position for six weeks before Justice Refshauge handed down his ruling and said Jones' public interest disclosures were the "dominant factor" in the board's attempt to stand him down and allowed Jones to continue in the chief executive role.

However, the fractures between Jones and the board were irreparable and the parties agreed to independent mediation where it was agreed that Jones would take a payout and resign on May 2.