Despite the noise concerning the course of being “unfair”, the Committee for Section 194 Enquiry into the Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane will proceed with its inquiry into Public Protector’s health to carry workplace after her suspension by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
ALSO SEE: ‘Mkhwebane harassed employees’: Union welcomes suspension
The committee has been authorised to name witnesses and specialists typically settle for the political course of.
Political analyst Andre Duvenhage mentioned the method coping with Mkhwebane was “absolutely” a good and authorized course of which gave her the chance to outline her innocence”. “The government is following a due process and protocol according to a fair legal principle of the audi alteram partem rule where everyone is given the opportunity to provide their view, along with relevant facts,” he mentioned.
“We know this is a very sensitive issue and highly politicised, therefore the process of decision making in order to acquire legitimacy should be free, fair and open.”
Committee chair Qubudile Dyantyi mentioned the summoning of any particular person, really useful by proof leaders or recognized by the committee in the midst of gathering proof to seem earlier than it and supply a sworn written assertion, was materials to the evaluation of the movement.
“The above resolution would apply where such a person was invited to provide oral evidence before the committee and does not voluntarily agree to do so. “The committee agreed that summoning would be the last resort, as assistance would first be sought voluntarily,” he mentioned.
Dyantyi referred to as on all committee members to behave in an neutral method and to be cautious of public statements that would impression negatively on this course of. “This process is a twin task. We made it clear that people can provide evidence to either exonerate the public protector or evidence that can add to the motion that she is unfit to hold office.”
An train in accountability
Dyanti mentioned it was “an exercise in accountability to look into the public protector’s fitness to hold office”. “We will work only with the evidence before us.”
Political analyst Levy Ndou mentioned the inquiry had the potential to help everyone, together with Mkhwebane’s case and this could now give her the chance to show herself and state her aspect of the story. “If what she is doing is in the best interest of South Africa, then this is her chance. By providing facts she will be able to prove those who are saying she is unfit, wrong,” he mentioned.
Ndou added that the unlucky a part of this ongoing scenario was the politisation of the general public protector’s position and actions surrounding her. “Nobody has to fall into the thread of politics if that person occupies such a position. “This is the temptation that people who occupy such offices should never have to fall into because it compromises themselves as individuals and it compromises the office of the Public Protector.”
Dyanti mentioned the committee was in receipt of a “referral from the Speaker of a Protected Disclosure made in December 2019 by a former employee in the Office of the Public Protector, which will be added to the bundle of submissions that are now being prepared for members and advocate Mkhwebane”.
– lungas@citizen.co.za