Suspended Public Protector, Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane insists she cannot appear before the Chairperson of the Section 194 Committee, Qubudile Dyantyi, whose credibility, according to Mkhwebane, is “questionable”.
Mkhwebane has called for the recusal of the chairperson of the committee on the grounds of allegations of corruption.
She says Dyantyi, together with Ms Pemmy Majodina, are a subject of an investigation.
“Mr Dyantyi and Miss Majodina are a subject of an investigation, especially by the police after they allegedly sent the late Tina Joemat-Pettersson to extort bribes from my husband,” she charges.
“I have even shared the recordings with members of the public and where they are being referred to and instances where Tina is saying they will be changing the procedure and focus on written submissions and the issue of being the chairperson of the Western Cape, Dyantyi. Hence I said I can’t appear before a person like that. His credibility is questionable. He can just recuse himself and I have requested that several times for him to recuse himself voluntarily instead of me lodging an application for his recusal.”
Mkhwebane insists inquiry chairperson Qubudile Dyantyi recuses himself:
The Section 194 inquiry into the fitness of Mkhwebane to hold office has gathered momentum. After being held back by various delays, including two months without hearing evidence, the committee has now collated and submitted a list of questions for Mkhwebane to answer to. These are from the members of the committee as well as evidence leaders.
Most notable parties that did not submit any questions are the EFF, the UDM and the ATM, who have all been vocal supporters of the Public Protector throughout the process.
Members of the committee have at several occasions, expressed the importance of completing the inquiry. However, delays caused by a variety of factors, have threatened to stall the process.
Most recently, it has been the struggle to find legal representation for the public protector as her previous lawyers mandate was withdrawn when the office of the PPSA indicated it could no longer fund her.
The committee then decided to change course and instead of holding hearings, they are now conducting the inquiry via written questions and answers.
The public protector does, however, have a choice whether she will reply to the questions in writing or orally. The number of questions sent runs into several hundreds and are based on Mkhwebane’s oral evidence, sworn statements and the evidence of other witnesses.
Brett Heron of the Good Party has asked the public protector why she had ordered that a meeting she held with the State Security Agency not be recorded. The question results from the fact that the meeting came about because records of a previous meeting with the agency could not be found.
Herron also wants to know why she had a political advisor. He also asked why a Mr Moodley from State Security Agency, who was known as an IT expert, was referred to, by Mkhwebane, as an economist.
Another question relates to why Paul Ngobeni, who was disbarred in the US, was used to give legal advice.
Questions about Ngobeni’s role are repeated by a number of other members.
DA MP, Kevin MIleham, asks Mkhwebane about her failure to provide her application to work as an analyst for the State Security Agency to DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach. This was ordered by the Supreme Court of Appeal in April 2021 and Mileham says this has resulted in her defamation case against Breytenbach remaining dormant since then.
Mileham’s list of 86 questions include why external investigators were used in the Public Protector’s CR17 probe when there was no shortage of internal staff to do this.
Other members question Mkhwebane about evidence that she had not given some of the people about whom she made adverse finding a right to reply. These include Johan van Loggerenburg and Minister Pravin Gordhan.
ANC Deputy CHief Whip Doris Dlakude’s question go in detail about why Mkhwebane relied on the Inspector General of Intelligence’s report in her SARS investigation. That report was never declassified and Dlakude asks if she thought she was entitled to rely on it.
Evidence leaders have sent their own separate set of questions to the Public Protector that runs into over a hundred pages. A large portion of these requires her to either agree or disagree with statements. Where she disagrees, this should be explained with reasons and supported by any evidence.
Mkhwebane attorneys of record, Chaane Attorneys, have indicated that they have received the questions and are considering them.
