Publications
Partners
- Outgoing Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane intends to challenge the Section 194 report recommending her removal in court.
- However, minutes after she made the announcement, she received news the Office of the Public Protector would no longer fund her legal representation.
- Mkhwebane also claims she is entitled to a gratuity of around R10 million, even if she is removed now.
Minutes after outgoing Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane announced she would brief lawyers funded by the Office of the Public Protector to challenge the parliamentary report recommending her removal in court, she received notice the office had withdrawn the funding.
"It shows how hellbent the system is against me," said Mkhwebane at a media briefing at the Premier Hotel in Midrand, Gauteng, on Wednesday.
Last week, the Section 194 Committee adopted its report following an inquiry into Mkhwebane's fitness for office.
It made a raft of scathing findings, subsequently found her guilty of misconduct and incompetence, and recommended her removal to the National Assembly.
The report still has to be considered by the National Assembly, where a two-thirds majority is required to remove a Public Protector.
Mkhwebane said her attorneys wrote to National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, asking her "not to entertain the report".
According to her, there would be no rational reason to put the report for a vote before the National Assembly.
Much of Mkhwebane's reasoning as to why it would be irrational for the National Assembly to consider the report revolves around her claims she was without legal representation during the latter stages of the process.
Mkhwebane's term of office expires on 14 October - at which time, if she has not been removed, she would get a gratuity of around R10 million.
READ | Mkhwebane rejects state attorney she demanded 3 days before
Since the inception of the parliamentary proceedings against her, she has engaged in a war of attrition with the national legislature.
It included protracted legislation, before and during the inquiry, which necessitated postponements, unsuccessful applications for the recusal of committee chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi, the DA's Kevin Mileham and the evidence leaders, advocate Dali Mpofu's filibustering, calling irrelevant witnesses and another application for Dyantyi's recusal.
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 ongoing, with her legal costs ballooning to R30 million.
This is also what gave rise to Mkhwebane's manoeuvres regarding her legal representation.
The Public Protector of South Africa (PPSA) indicated it could not continue to fund her burgeoning legal bill beyond 31 March, on which day her legal team announced it was the end of the road for them, and the committee had to postpone its work.
With the help of Parliament and National Treasury, the PPSA secured a further R4 million for her legal fees by May.
However, since then, several roadblocks regarding her legal representation had frustrated the process, including her original attorneys, Seanego, indicating they could not be reappointed due to "professional reasons", which neither they nor Mkhwebane was willing to disclose, Hope Chaane being hospitalised the day before she was due to face questions from the evidence leaders, and Mkhwebane refusing to be represented by the State Attorney, despite indicating in writing she would be amenable to them briefing her counsel just three days earlier.
Mkhwebane further claimed her removal was vindictive and punishment by the DA and ANC for going after their masters, and therefore it could not be rational.
She said the vindictiveness was illustrated by a statement released by the DA last week, in which the party's deputy chief whip, Annelie Lotriet, called on Parliament to schedule Mkhwebane's impeachment vote before her term ends.
READ | Mkhwebane fails in last-ditch attempt to postpone Section 194 Inquiry
"Her aim is to secure a 'gratuity' of about R10 million she will receive when she completes her term by ensuring she is not impeached before then," said Lotriet.
"It would be a public outrage if someone who significantly harmed the Office of the Public Protector could escape unscathed and receive a substantial final payment at taxpayers' expense through deliberately avoiding accountability."
Mkhwebane scoffed at this notion, saying: "Even if I'm removed today, I would be entitled to my gratuity."
She added it was her "hard-earned benefits, which cannot be taken away".
DEVELOPING | Gcaleka endorsed as new Public Protector but DA, EFF vehemently object
The litigious Mkhwebane said she and her legal team were still strategising their application to review the committee's report and whether they would also bring an interdict application.
She said the R4 million the Office of the Public Protector made available for the conclusion of her impeachment hearings would be utilised for this.
"That money is meant to protect my rights."
Minutes later, while answering questions, Mkhwebane announced, with a laugh, she had just received notice the Office of the Public Protector terminated her legal representation, a "further breach of the law".
According to her, the Section 194 process had not been concluded. Thus, she was still entitled to legal representation.
Mkhwebane's advocate, Mpofu, was also at the briefing.
He said the Constitutional Court had ruled she was entitled to legal representation throughout the process.
The apex court, however, did not rule the state must pay for it.
Mkhwebane concluded the fight would continue.
She said:
Last Wednesday, the day after the committee adopted the report, Dyantyi said he was certain the committee's work would withstand judicial scrutiny.
He added they had covered their bases in the work that they had done.
READ | Dyantyi not concerned about possible court challenge to report recommending Mkhwebane's removal
"We're very confident that any other court would find in our favour, because we stayed on rationality, we stayed on fairness.
"We know from the very word go, the Public Protector would have referred to this as an illegal, unlawful, irrational, invalid process," said Dyantyi.
"Many of those issues have been tested in court already and found in our favour. And so, not to come here and boast about that, but to say that when you stay the course in terms of your work, I think it is worth it in the end."
