Evidence leaders in the Parliamentary inquiry into suspended Public Protector Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office, continued to poke holes in her affidavits before courts.
They have been briefing the Section 194 Committee, despite the absence of Mkhwebane and her legal team. Mkhwebane has been left without legal representation after the Office of the Public Protector withdrew funding due to budgetary constraints.
Evidence leaders are continuing to place evidence before the committee. This time, it is an adverse court judgment against Mkhwebane in a matter involving the South African Revenue Service.
The case relates to accusations that former President Jacob Zuma failed to pay tax in his first months as head of state. This after a book revealed that Zuma was an employee of a security company in 2009.
“She was not honest. She was opinionated already and only sought the two counsel’s opinion to support her opinion. When such opinion did not do so she rejected it. This is demonstrated by the fact that she readily accepted the opinion expressed by Adv Sikhakhane SC. She did not reject the opinion of Adv Maenetje SC and Adv Ferrera because it was flawed as she claimed in paragraph 31 of her affidavit but she did not because it does not resonate with her strong held view,” says evidence leader Adv Ncumisa Mayosi.
Mkhwebane was also criticised for failing to verify information before she drafted her report after Zuma allegedly gave her the go-ahead to probe his tax affairs via social media.
“The public protector relies entirely on tweets supposedly sent by the second respondent as a basis for seeking the relief that she sets out in the counter application. The court then sent out a statement and says it’s clear from what the court had just said in the previous that it’s clear that this is all that the PP relied on for her counter application, unsubstantiated tweets. There was no proof of the authenticity of the tweets. She regarded then as a taxpayer’s written consent,” Adv Mayosi explains.
The evidence leaders have also gone through another judgment in a matter between Mkhwebane and Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan.
“What was described in the affidavit is stunning incompetence and irrationality and negligence and also alleges that the public protector is attempting to remove Minister [Pravin] Gordhan from office to achieve political objectives,” says another evidence leader Adv Nazreen Bawa.
Meanwhile, Mkhwebane took to her verified Twitter account to question whether the committee was conducting a kangaroo process.
VIDEO: Committee for Section 194 Inquiry: 18 April 2023
