Mkhwebane says she’s the victim, but the real victim may be the constitution

The Office of the Public Protector should get its house in order, as continuous scandals surrounding Busisiwe Mkhwebane could tarnish the integrity of the institution and that of all chapter 9 institutions, analysts say.

Mkhwebane is at the centre of a number of dramas, including a process before parliament to remove her from office, a criminal investigation by the Hawks, as well as the South African Revenue Service (Sars) probing her income tax affairs.

Her credibility has been in question since some of her findings have been overturned in the courts.

At a media briefing on Tuesday, where she gave feedback on several investigations concluded by her office, Mkhwebane said she felt she was being targeted by institutions, especially the Hawks, to settle scores.

The Hawks are investigating charges of perjury and defeating the ends of justice against the public protector. These came from the Constitutional Court judgment that found Mkhwebane was dishonest in her conduct in the matter surrounding the investigation of a loan by the Reserve Bank to Bankorp, now under Absa, during the apartheid era.

Mkhwebane was requested to submit a warning statement to the Hawks, but she has since refused to adhere to the instruction. She said section 5(3) of the Public Protector Act stated she cannot be held liable for anything reflected in her reports, including findings and recommendations.

She accused the Hawks of investigating “trivial matters”, which cannot be referred to as “priority crimes”.

The Hawks slammed her utterances and would proceed to submit their docket to the National Prosecuting Authority.

On the other hand, Sars has been probing her income tax affairs dating back to 2011. Mkhwebane was ordered to hand over bank statements from all local and international accounts, as well as employment income, foreign income, business income, expenses, deductions and other income.

In the midst of all of this, parliament kickstarted the process to remove her after rules to remove all heads of chapter 9 institutions were altered. The DA’s Natasha Mazzone submitted a motion for her removal.

Mkhwebane had a “serious credibility problem” and her legal claims should be double-checked, constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos further told The Citizen.

“[On Tuesday] she made legal claims, for example, that she was not given a hearing in the pre-stage [of the motion to remove her] when there is no duty for parliament to give her that hearing; meaning, whenever she makes legal claims, I am going to check if she is correct and I am not going to believe her,” De Vos said.

Such scandals against the public protector also put the credibility of her office in question, he said.

Political analyst Somadoda Fikeni, however, said removing Mkhwebane from office was not the solution but that her entire office needed to find a way to restore its integrity.

He said chapter 9 institutions such as the Human Rights Commission, the Electoral Commission and Mkhwebane’s office were crucial and “critical” as they had been carrying the country’s democracy for years.

“They have to be saved. The public protector’s office needs to be saved, but it doesn’t mean removing and purging anyone. It needs to work on its image and its integrity. Whether that is done with Mkhwebane in office or not is not as important as the integrity and functionality of that office.”

– rorisangk@citizen.co.za

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.