Section 194 Inquiry: Mkhwebane’s lawyers not willing to work for free

Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane says it is unclear whether her lawyers are willing to represent her at the Section 194 Inquiry on a pro bono basis.

The impeachment inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office resumed on Monday, following a long break due to an impasse of the funding of her legal team.

The Public Protector’s Office has only made an extra R4 million available for Mkhwebane’s defense, having already spent R30 million on her legal fees for the impeachment inquiry.

Revised programme

During Monday’s proceedings, Section 194 chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi said that the inquiry has resumed so that the committee can “complete its work” since it only has limited funds and less than a month to do so.

“Based on the outstanding work that must be done, but as well as the availability of those funds, the revised programme all together gives us 22 days of work of this inquiry from today until when we have to conclude,” he said in his opening remarks.

ALSO READ: Search for new public protector: Parliament to discuss process of replacing Mkhwebane

Dyantyi said Mkhwebane would only have four days to complete her oral evidence before being cross-examined by the evidence leaders.

“I did also indicate that when we resume, in terms of the timelines and the programme, we will resume and conclude the remaining four days of leaving evidence by Advocate [Dali] Mpofu or the legal team of the Public Protector. You would be aware that by the time we have paused, they would have gone for six days in presenting evidence.”

Mkhwebane will then be questioned by members of the inquiry, thereafter, closing arguments will be heard.

According to a previous revised programme, the committee is aiming to finish its draft report on the inquiry hearings before adopting a final report on 29 May, in order to pass it to the National Assembly for a debate and vote.

‘I don’t handle any finance’

Mkhwebane, however, protested about the committee’s decision to continue to hear an analysis of her testimony from the evidence leaders without her lawyers present.

“You stated publicly that I would be given an opportunity to respond to the six days presentation of the evidence leaders [and] that has turned out to be not true because the proposed schedule you released last week, does not cater for that right of reply,” she said.

The Public Protector expressed her dissatisfaction over the four day allocation for her to finish testifying at the inquiry.

RELATED: Mkhwebane wants ConCourt to award her unlimited money – report

She also complained R4 million made available for her legal fees and maintained that she currently has no legal representation.

“In any event, on Friday the committee was served with an urgent court application to resolve the impasse of the funding and the illegal committee meetings.

“We cannot go forward before the issues are resolved. Remember the ConCourt [Constitutional Court] judgment was not specific on who should be funding my legal representation,” she told the committee.

Mkhwebane said the Public Protector’s Office had informed her that the R4 million would also cover her travelling, security and accommodation costs.

“I don’t handle any finances as the executive authority.”

Pro bono

Mkhwebane maintained that the office entered into an agreement with her lawyers, Seanego Attorneys.

“They agreed on a fee structure. They then signed the agreement with Seanego… in terms of the PFMA [Public Finance Management Act], that’s the process they should be following so we cannot just have R4 million which is just being availed and there’s no accountability. In some letter, I was told I must handle this money properly… I don’t handle any moneys,” the Public Protector continued.

She further said she was not sure whether her legal team would work for free because “this is a parliamentary process” and asked the committee to postpone the hearing.

“The lawyers have not indicated that they [are] willing to proceed pro bono. I have communicated to the director of Seanego specifically, but informally engaged with the legal team and it’s not say we are engaging with them on coming back,” she said.

READ MORE: ‘R4m not enough for Busi’s hearing’: Legal expert says Mkhwebane may need more funds

“I think the proper way forward in this matter is that [the office of] the Public Protector should start that process [because] even the auditor-general’s office would also want to know how that R4 million is going to be utilised. The attorney must be properly briefing [and] they must then properly appoint the legal representation.”

Mkhwebane, meanwhile, also told the committee that she intends to lay a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against the ConCourt for its “undue delay” in ruling on whether President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to suspend her was unconstitutional and unlawful.