2 years ago
1
ARTICLE AD BOX
- The Section 194 inquiry into Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane's fitness for office had to be postponed yet again because she doesn't have legal representation.
- The attorneys who represented her earlier, Seanego Attorneys, are no longer available.
- MPs from the DA and IFP expressed concerns about delaying tactics, while the ATM, EFF and UDM supported a further, undetermined postponement.
The inquiry into Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane's fitness for office has been postponed indefinitely so that she can find legal representation.
Mkhwebane's term of office expires in October.
Last Monday, when the hearing was scheduled to resume, the inquiry committee had to postpone it by a week to allow Mkhwebane to find legal representation. The postponement was extended to Wednesday.
Yet, on Wednesday, Mkhwebane appeared before the committee without legal representation once again.
The current impasse started on 1 March, when the Office of the Public Protector informed Mkhwebane that it would not be able to continue to foot her mounting legal bill in the coming financial year, starting on 1 April.
She didn't brief advocate Dali Mpofu, SC, and his team, consisting of two junior advocates and two representatives from Seanego Attorneys, beyond 31 March.
READ | 'Unrealistic and absurd': Mkhwebane's inability to find lawyers for R4m forces inquiry postponement
Her testimony screeched to a halt when she insisted that the state should pay for her legal defence against impeachment.
Meanwhile, with Parliament and Treasury's involvement, the Office of the Public Protector found a further R4 million from its retained surplus from the 2021-22 financial year, and availed this for the costs until the end of the process.
Although she couldn't find lawyers to represent her at the inquiry, she managed to brief lawyers to lodge another court challenge against the process.
She described the R4 million as "unrealistic and absurd" in her founding affidavit.
With the funding resolved, the issue now is finding legal representation, which she is entitled to in terms of a Constitutional Court ruling.
Mkhwebane insists it is up to the Office of the Public Protector to appoint her legal representation.
She told the committee:
So, I was waiting for them to approach Seanego.
The attorneys who previously represented Mkhwebane in the proceedings, Seanego Attorneys, indicated that they were no longer available.
Despite a slew of letters between the committee, Mkhwebane, the Office of the Public Protector and the solicitor-general, the issue couldn't be resolved by Wednesday.
The parties that have done Mkhwebane's bidding in the committee throughout the proceedings - the EFF, ATM and UDM - said the hearing should be postponed. They questioned why the meeting was called in the first place.
READ | Mapisa-Nqakula wants Mkhwebane fitness inquiry done by the end of the month
DA MP Kevin Mileham said the committee had bent over backwards to assist Mkhwebane in finding legal representation. The fact that Mkhwebane didn’t continue with Seanego had nothing to do with the committee, and the Constitutional Court ruling said that she should be assisted, not represented, he added.
He was concerned about delaying tactics and that the same thing could happen in three weeks.
IFP MP Zandile Majozi concurred with Mileham.
She said:
I think the committee has been supporting the Public Protector. We have given her enough support.
"Honestly, I think sometimes we are just playing tactical games here," Majozi said, adding that there appeared to be an attempt to push the proceedings until October.
Committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi said he "appreciates" their impatience. However, he had to postpone the hearing until Mkhwebane could find legal assistance. He said members must be on "standby" and they will be told when they could proceed.
Parliament's schedule is currently jampacked, with all departments and entities' budgets being debated in the National Assembly, along with other committee work.
Furthermore, the National Assembly will take a longer than usual constituency period in the winter, with the House rising on 18 June and returning on 31 August. It would be possible for the committee to continue with its work during the constituency break.
At the start of Wednesday's meeting, Dyantyi acknowledged last week's meeting of the National Assembly Programming Committee, where National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula expressed her wish for the committee to complete its work by the end of May.
"So, it is either the process continues until the end of May, or the process collapses, and in that case, it means the Public Protector walking away, without a conclusion of the case," Mapisa-Nqakula said.
The senior MPs on the programming committee didn't support the notion that the process be allowed to collapse.
While Mkhwebane told the committee on Wednesday that she, too, wanted the proceedings concluded "speedily", she has been in a war of attrition with the committee.
She launched numerous court challenges against the process, which led to the postponement of the committee's work, called irrelevant witnesses, applied unsuccessfully for the recusal of Dyantyi and Mileham, and her now former advocate, Dali Mpofu, SC, filibustered during committee proceedings. The UDM also brought an unsuccessful application for the recusal of the evidence leaders.
This meant the process, which was initially scheduled to be completed by September last year, with R4.5 million as Mkhwebane's legal costs, is still continuing and her legal costs have burgeoned to R30 million.
Want to discuss hotly debated topics with someone from across the world? Sign up for our global dialogue programme and get matched for a conversation
English (US)