Parliament’s inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office says it will continue with its work despite Mkhwebane having missed two deadlines last week regarding the revised process.
CAPE TOWN – Parliament’s inquiry into suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office says it will continue with its work despite Mkhwebane having missed two deadlines last week regarding the revised process.
Committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi said Mkhwebane was due to have told the committee by June 19 whether she would be responding to questions in writing or orally, but did not do so.
Dyantyi said Mkhwebane had also been granted until June 22 to submit any additional affidavits or documentation in support of Part B of her statement or in relation to the evidence leaders’ presentation to the committee on Part A of her statement, but had not complied with that deadline either.
Dyantyi said the deadlines formed part of the way forward agreed to by the committee in a meeting earlier this month and which, along with the amended directives, was communicated to Mkhwebane.
He said Mkhwebane had made several demands regarding further handling of the process including costs and the insufficiency of the additional R4 million made available to her from the Office of the Public Protector (PPSA).
Mkhwebane responded through her lawyers, Chaane Attorneys, who are back on brief after she rejected the services of the State attorneys on the basis of what she termed “a patent conflict of interest”.
She said until her attorneys had been given time to familiarise themselves with the record and the issue of who would pay any additional legal costs was attended to, counsel could not be briefed to deal with the motion’s merits. She said, as such, no progress could be made on the matter and that the committee’s time lines were unrealistic.
Dyantyi responded that it was “mischievous” of Mkhwebane to complain about the insufficiency of the further R4m provided by the PPSA.
He said in his letter to Mkhwebane’s lawyers that no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the R4m was insufficient to complete the programme.
“Despite all the obstacles, which sometimes have the effect of side-tracking the committee, at the heart of this process is that the committee is duty-bound to hold your client to account vis-à-vis the serious charges in the motion.
“This is not a task to be taken lightly and I refuse to conduct the proceedings in a manner which ignores that Parliament has a constitutional function that it must perform in relation to the motion.”
Dyantyi said the committee programme would continue irrespective of Mkhwebane’s stance.
“The participation of your client is therefore strongly encouraged, but I cannot reasonably be expected to make any more efforts to assist your client to participate beyond what I have already done.
“I have no control over how she exercises her choice in the instructions, to her legal team. If she has not given such instructions that is entirely her decision.”
