Mkhwebane placed officials under unreasonably tight timelines to meet targets, parly hears

Embattled suspended public protector (PP) advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane on Wednesday suffered yet another legal blow when the Constitutional Court dismissed her bid to overturn its finding to dismiss her original rescission – and ordered her personally liable for costs in her latest legal challenge.

Meanwhile, parliament on Wednesday heard more claims about dysfunction in her office. Public Protector South Africa (PPSA) executive manager Ponatshego Mogaladi cited the swamping of staff with work overloads, the setting of unreasonable deadlines and victimisation, which she said, led to poor quality of reports.

In dismissing her application – seen as Mkhwebane’s last-ditch attempt to reverse a prospect of being impeached – the apex court delivered a scathing ruling, compelling the suspended PP to pay costs in her personal capacity “as this application constitutes an abuse of process of court”.

Led by advocate Ncumisa Mayosi, Mogaladi said in her testimony before the Section 194 inquiry into the fitness of Mkhwebane to hold office, that the deadline-driven Mkhwebane had placed officials under unreasonably tight timelines to meet agreed targets.

Mogaladi, like previous witnesses, testified about the pressure she and her colleagues endured from Mkhwebane to complete reports, with staff working into the early hours of the morning. Quality assurance processes, she said, were not followed.

She told committee chair Richard Dyantyi that on 26 March, 2019, she and her team received a directive from the Mkhwebane that the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FCSA) report should be finalised – part of the reports that were going to be issued during the media briefing on 28 March, 2019.

ALSO READ: Another day, another legal defeat for Mkhwebane

Mogaladi said: “On 26 March, 2019, at 23.26, Mkhwebane responded: ‘Good evening, I said the report must be finalised. Why was I not answered?’”

Referring to the FCSA report, Mogaladi said: “The arbitrary and unseasoned nature of the public protector’s findings against me and the manner in which the public protector conducted her investigation, also renders the findings reviewable for perceived bias, bad faith or ulterior purpose or motive.”

At the core of advocate Dali Mpofu’s cross-examination of Mogaladi has been staff failures to meet set deadlines and taking accountability for reports not being produced on agreed target dates.

Tearing into Mogaladi’s argument, Mpofu said: “The essence of your case was that the gross negligence or misconduct would be punishable by something other than dismissal, which is why you went to court. “The most important topic we are about to cover centres on your views around backlogs.”

In testing some propositions to get Mogaladi to concede, Mpofu said: “I will use my own previous experience as a CEO [of the SA Broadcasting Corporation] – I suspect I was more of a slave-driver than what the PP is said to be.

“Do you accept that – in terms of performance management – while the headof the institution must be held accountable for the delivery of that institution, that person must hold subordinates accountable?

“As [chief operating officer], you would have been responsible for all the operations of the public protector.

“Correct?” Mogaladi said: “Agreed, correct.” Mpofu asked: “If something goes wrong, we have to blame the CEO or the PP, minister or president. Correct?” Mogaladi responded: “Correct.” Mpofu said: “One of their key functions is to hold other people accountable.”

Mogaladi responded: “I think it is important to point out that if you hold me accountable and set targets for me, performance management has to comply with certain principles of being achievable and realistic.”

– brians@citizen.co.za