Mkhwebane inquiry: Dali Mpofu denies staging a walkout, slams ‘abuse’ of black lawyers

Suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s lawyer, Advocate Dali Mpofu, has dismissed claims that he staged a walkout at the Section 194 inquiry.

On 27 October, Mpofu informed the Section 194 committee that his mandate had come to an end and asked to be excused before leaving.

This came after the committee rejected Mkhwebane’s application where she asked for an adjournment to go to court to review the committee’s chairperson, Qubudile Dyantyi, and a Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Kevin Mileham’s decision not to recuse themselves from the inquiry.

The legal team’s move left the members of the committee puzzled, raising suspicion that the “walkout” was planned all along.

While Mkhwebane later told the committee that she did not withdraw the mandate of her legal team, the inquiry proceeded with its work and heard the evidence of Neels van der Merwe last Tuesday and Wednesday.

‘It won’t be a secret’

Addressing the committee on Wednesday, 9 November, Mpofu sought to provide clarity on the “walkout”.

“I just wanted to clarify a few things because certain things have been said in our absence and I suspect deliberately because we were not there to answer for ourselves which need to be put into perspective,” he said.

“We were accused of withdrawal then the terminology changed that we have staged a walk out… well both of those are false and not accordance with what happened.”

Mpofu told the committee that they wrote to Dyantyi three days before the meeting, informing the chairperson that they would only participate in the adjournment application.

ALSO READ: Mkhwebane impeachment: MPs concerned Mpofu’s withdrawal a delaying tactic

“Depending on the outcome of that application, notice of which is hereby duly given, we would be available to make realistic and practical arrangements for the way forward at that stage that’s what we informed the chairperson,” the advocate explained.

He insisted that he explained himself at the end of the proceedings on that day so members of the committee should not have been confused by what took place.

“If I ever stage a walkout it won’t be a secret. Any form of protest I have ever done in my life, including hunger strikes, it was what it was not something that looks like it.”

‘Serious violation’

Mpofu further criticised the committee for compelling Mkhwebane to appear at the inquiry without a legal team and for continuing to hear Van der Merwe’s evidence.

“What happened the committee on the 1st and 2nd of November, is one most serious violation of the rights of the Public Protector because against her will, she was kept there without the legal representatives of her choice despite her protestations,” he said.

READ MORE: Mkhwebane impeachment wrap: KFC ‘poisoning’, fugitive disinformation campaigns and more

“She had to sit there [like] a hostage.”

The advocate indicated that the legal team would take further action in this regard.

“We are registering this complaint for the record to say that the irregularity that occurred on the 1st and 2nd of November is something that be must registered. It will probably be dealt with at some other stage in another forum.”

‘Abuse’

Mpofu said the committee exercised the “law of the jungle” by allowing Van De Merwe to testify and claimed that the listing of the legal representatives who received payments from the Public Protector’s office amounted to “abuse” of black lawyers and advocates.

“If legal representation would have been there, it wouldn’t have been allowed or at least objected to,” he said.

The advocate said the move could ruin the legal practitioners’ lives before taking a dig at President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala scandal.

“Some of the people whose names were [listed] might face criminals because they are supposed to be having the money in their mattress or couches if they follow the example of the leadership,” he said.

RELATED: Mkhwebane’s legal fees of R159 million have affected operations at the PPSA office, colleague testifies

“You have put their lives and the lives of their children in danger, by allowing the abuse.”

Last week, it was revealed that Mpofu was paid around R12 million by the Public Protector Office over the past three years.

He also raised concern about the period of 10 days allocated for him to lead Mkhwebane’s own witnesses who will appear at the inquiry between from 28 November until 9 December.

“To call [the time that you have given] inadequate would be an insult to the word adequate.”

Review application

Mpofu told the committee that they have since filed Mkhwebane’s review application challenging Dyantyi and Mileham’s decision not to recuse themselves.

According to both the DA and Mileham, they have filed their notice of intention to oppose the review application.

“I’m sure one does not have to be a genius to think that the chairperson is going to file a notice soon if he has not done so,” Mpofu said.

He said the application has been set down on the urgent roll of the Western Cape High Court for 13 and 14 December.

NOW READ: Mkhwebane impeachment: Public Protector to challenge recusal decision – Dali Mpofu