Read more
Mkhwebane impeachment: Dali Mpofu may apply for Section 194 inquiry chair’s recusal
Qubudile Dyantyi says a ruling on the recusal matter will made be at a later stage.
Suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane speaks to Advocate Dali Mpofu over a tea break during the parliamentary inquiry into her fitness to hold office in Parliament on 25 August 2022. Picture: Gallo Images / Daily Maverick /Leila Dougan
Advocate Dali Mpofu, acting on behalf of suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, has told Parliament that they may apply for the recusal of Section 194 Committee chairperson, Qubudile Dyantyi.
This comes after Mkhwebane’s latest rescission application was dismissed by the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) on Wednesday, with the apex court ruling that “no case has been made out for rescission”.
The ConCourt ordered Mkhwebane to pay the costs of the application in her personal capacity, after finding that her legal bid constituted an abuse of court processes.
The Public Protector had filed a second rescission application in a bid to reverse the ConCourt’s 6 May ruling, which cleared the way for the impeachment process against her to go ahead.
Following the ruling, Parliament issued a statement on Wednesday welcoming a judgment.
Triumphalist statements
‘Influence the outcome of pending judgment’
As proceedings kicked off at the inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office on Friday, Mpofu raised a complaint over Parliament’s statement and questioned why the National Assembly Speaker as well as Dyantyi sought to file an additional affidavit of State Attorney, Leon Manuel hours after the ConCourt judgment was delivered.
Mpofu accused Parliament of trying to influence the outcome of the pending judgment, in which Mkhwebane is challenging her suspension.
“[This was done], obviously, in a bid to influence the outcome of the pending judgment in the application we have brought in the Western Cape High Court, mainly about the suspension, but also about the on goings in this committee,” he said.
ALSO READ: Disciplinary steps under Mkhwebane ‘were selective’, parly hears
The judgment in the matter was reserved by the Western Cape High Court last month.
Meanwhile, the advocate further said he was of the view that the sub judice rule applied since the matter was still in court and questioned Dyantyi’s “involvement in all this”.
“What we are complaining about, chair, is your involvement in all this. Firstly [about] the submissions of that erupted application and more importantly, the triumphalist statements that were made about welcoming the personal costs against the Public Protector.
“We find that to be not in line with the rule of this committee because we are in a middle of a process which requires all of us to try and dignify it or at least pretend that it is fair and reasonable,” he said.
May seek recusal
Mpofu then told the committee that they were considering applying for Dyantyi’s recusal.
“So that’s effectively the complaint we put. It may or may not culminate in an application for your recusal or removal, but it’s something we would like you to consider.
“Not necessarily to deal with now, but maybe at our next sitting or by correspondence you can address us.
READ MORE: Mkhwebane’s chosen way was to ‘threaten and impose’, parliament hears
“Our instruction was to raise it very sharply and to either get an explanation or something or why it was done that way, in case we are getting everything wrong. Subject to that explanation we will then decide what to do next,” he said.
While Dyantyi noted Mpofu’s complaint, the chairperson said the matter would not be discussed now.
“It is well-received and noted and the ruling on this matter will be made” Dyantyi said.
Mkhwebane vs Ramaphosa
Last week, the committee resolved to not summon President Cyril Ramaphosa to testify before at the impeachment inquiry, following advice from Parliament’s legal services.
Mpofu previously revealed that Mkhwebane wanted to Ramaphosa to testify to some of the charges she faces before the impeachment 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.
The president, however, declined to testify.
NOW READ: Ramaphosa hits back at Holomisa, won’t testify at Mkhwebane’s impeachment hearing
