Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane during a media briefing in Pretoria on 8 July 2020. Picture: Jacques Nelles
Parliament’s Section 194 Committee will receive legal opinion regarding Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s recusal application.
The committee is deliberating on the recusal application against its chairperson, Qubudile Dyantyi and includes Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Kevin Mileham on Monday.
Last month, Mkhwebane’s lawyer, Advocate Dali Mpofu, applied for Dyantyi’s recusal accusing the committee’s chairperson of showing “inherent bias” towards him and his client.
ALSO READ: Inquiry meant to persecute, harass and embarrass me, says Mkhwebane
Mpofu also indicated that another reason Mkhwebane wants Dyantyi to be recused was due to his refusal to call President Cyril Ramaphosa to come and testify before the committee.
Proceedings into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office kicked off in July, with the suspended Public Protector being the first head of the Chapter 9 institution to face a parliamentary inquiry.
During the impeachment hearings, Tebogo Kekana, former senior investigator in the office of the Public Protector alleged that Mkhwebane gave an order to unlawfully amend the constitutional mandate of the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) based on instructions from the State Security Agency (SSA).
This was related to Mkhwebane’s “CIEX report”.
Kekana told the committee that he was present at a meeting between Mkhwebane, former SSA director-general Arthur Fraser, SSA representative James Ramabulana and then-state security minister David Mahlobo when the Public Protector was investigating SARB.
This meeting took place on 3 May 2017.
He said Mkhwebane had instructed him not to take notes or record the meeting.
The committee further heard that Mkhwebane instructed her office investigators not to make use of the information contained in the Gupta leaks, which have show multiple links to the Vrede/Estina Dairy project.
Furthermore, Mkhwebane also instructed them that there should be no findings against politicians – such as former Free State premier, Ace Magashule, and his agriculture MEC, Mosebenzi Zwane – and in the Vrede report.
The manager for legal services at the office of the Public Protector, Muntu Sithole, testified about Mkhwebane’s legal bills, where he told the Section 194 Committee that this totalled R158-million in “consulting and professional fees”.
He alleged that R147 million of the amount was spent on “legal fees” alone – including the alleged payments made to former ministerial advisor Paul Ngobeni, penned a legal opinion for Mkhwebane’s investigation into Ramaphosa’s CR17 campaign.
Mpofu, in July, informed the committee that the Public Protector wanted Ramaphosa to testify in relation to some of the charges she faces before the committee.
These matters related to – among others – the Public Protector’s suspension by Ramaphosa in June, the legal review of Mkhwebane’s report into the CR17 campaign funds, and accusations of perjury made by the president against her.
While the president declined to testify, the committee decided against summoning Ramaphosa to testify following a recommendation by Parliament’s legal services.
The proceedings also saw a heated exchanged between Mpofu and Dyantyi, which was sparked after the Advocate tried to get a postponement.
Mpofu had lost his cool when his request was denied, telling the committee’s chairperson that “you’ll pay one day”.
NOW READ: Disciplinary steps under Mkhwebane ‘were selective’, parly hears